Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 24

< 23 November	25 November >

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedroom Sessions (Bring Me the Horizon album)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This is an unreleased demo without even insignificant sources. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "The demo was recorded in beginning of 2004, but it was never publically released." Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can not find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" for this demo. Gongshow ^Talk 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus of established editors, and I will salt as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkXpress[edit]

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

Advertising article about a non-notable business. The "references" supplied look impressive; what they show is that some would-be advertisers have become more adept at gaming the system, and that hardly any of them have this business as a major subject. Google News coverage shows one local paper interview with the CEO; other mentions are trivial, non-substantial, and in passing. The attempt to claim minimal importance is rather amusing, but this local award fails the business notability guideline:

earned the Fab 5 award in 2006, which was presented by the Harrisburg Regional Chamber and CREDC.[5] The Fab 5 was a competition to find the "Top 5" companies in the region who had been in business two to five years and were headquartered in Cumberland, Dauphin or Perry counties Pennsylvania.

This has already been deleted three times as making an insufficient claim of importance, or as obvious advertising[1]; taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ - I took exception to this article, tagging and/or prodding it a while back, and chastised them for abusing Wikipedia. They seemed genuine (if not necessarily verifiably notable) so I spent some time helping them to improve the quality of the article. ~~I'm sitting on the fence for this one but just wanted to give you the background - they're not your average wikispammer.~~ -- samj _in ^out 10:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the logs and it turns out they were speedy deleted twice for CSD A7 and once for CSD G11 only weeks apart before being AfD'd. How does that translate to good faith editing, not to mention the WP:COI, WP:V and WP:NPOV issues? -- samj _in ^out 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a founder of WorkXpress, and I appreciate your goals and efforts in regard to keeping Wikipedia free of blatant advertising. Please allow me to make a couple of comments. First, it is true we have been deleted on several occasions, however, each time we have made an effort to understand the cause, and to rectify the cause with facts and evidence. The truth of the matter is that WorkXpress meets the requirements for listing on Wikipedia as we have grown in our understanding of them. For example, WorkXpress is notable; it is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing, and has been recognized by analyst firms like Gartner, Forrester and the 451 Group as such. Second, this notability is verifiable; there have been numerous secondary source articles on WorkXpress, multiple awards and wide range of other validations. Our vision is to make all aspects of business software deployment ranging from development to systems administration even to marketing accessible to the ordinary IT worker, and to empower them to do incredible things. Please, give us the opportunity to provide the supporting documentation that you need prior to deleting this article...we are happy to do so. In conclusion, I believe that what WorkXpress is doing belongs on Wikipedia, not as an advertisement, but as an important part of the emerging historical story of Cloud Computing. This history is still young, and I hope that you can consider the fact that its still being written; albeit with the help of smaller, innovative firms like WorkXpress. Firms like WorkXpress have a part in this story just as important as the Microsofts, Google's and Salesforces of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you for your response. I am probably the wrong person to address the claim that your business "is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing" to. At any rate, I would expect that claim to be verified in sources; I looked, and I'm afraid I found very little there. The deletion template more or less automates the process of looking; you will find what I found.

Investment analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the general public. Their clients are their "editors", and while I hope their facts are reliable, most of their work is circulated only to paying customers, which makes them of "limited interest and circulation", and as such unhelpful to establish notability. The same is true of local and trade publication coverage, which I mentioned I did find when I looked.

Ultimately, what you need to show is that your firm has the kind of historical importance that makes it, out of all its rivals, a subject that belongs in a general coverage encyclopedia. I nominated your firm at the same time I did a number of similar articles about small tech firms, in part because I want to see the inclusion policies applied even-handedly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to its founder, Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", not a "general coverage encyclopedia". Regardless, there have been numerous articles meeting the requirements of a regional secondary source, numerous national/international reviews, etc, and they are listed. The guideline clearly states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability", and certainly WorkXpress has received plenty of evidenced regional media attention. Further, the guideline states that Notability in general "means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ", which again, is well evidenced. I think if you give an article like this the benefit of the doubt, in 6-12 months time the answer will present itself...either the company will grow, or it will fail. Is it such a difficult thing to include this article into "the sum of all human knowledge" during the formative years of an entirely new industry (cloud computing), especially given the fact that a reasonable argument can be made for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a quick note: a link to the public portion ("...generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the public", as per Smerdis of Tlon above) of the article by Gartner entitled "Whose who in Application Platforms for Cloud Computing" and other regional press has been added to the article. Just like many other news agencies, Gartner does collect money from its readers. However also like a news agency, its role is as a trusted advisor on new technologies and trends; if its advice is not accurate and factual, CIO's will not pay for future analysis - but yet they do. WorkXpress to date has never had a financial relationship with Gartner; Gartner analysts chose to include WorkXpress in this report on its merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was just contacted by a reporter from the Central Penn Business Journal about this debate following "a notice" from the company who claim to have been "fighting" with editors over the deletion. I explained how & why wikipedia works, referring them to deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia for more information. I sincerely hope the resulting article presents a balanced view of Wikipedia processes rather than a hatchet job. -- samj _in ^out 00:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I was contacted by probably the same reporter. This would appear to be a rather unusual form of canvassing. They've also added material to the page, mostly aimed at arguing notability by linking to developer's blogs or local TV shows covering tech businesses in Pennsylvania. I am not yet convinced that these sources make this business a topic for the ages, but I do recognize effort. More of the article in its current state seems to be arguing that media mentions make it notable, than that something it made or did was remakable enough to be noticed and that made it notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I reached out to this reporter asking him to post on this board regarding their coverage of our firm as a verifiable and notable source. After we conversed, he and his editor expressed surprise at this entire experience we were having with Wikipedia...they had no idea Wikipedia was so tightly controlled by such a loose group of individuals. They contacted another regional authority who confirmed that in his experience, small businesses have a very difficult time with Wikipedia. They made the decision on their own to initiate a story (I have zero control over that) simply because the story is interesting. Will it be a "hatchet job"? I seriously doubt it will, but if our experience is any guide, I suspect it will be accurate and quite interesting to most readers.

Despite an admirable set of rules and guidelines, there remains a significant amount of opinion and gray area in Wikipedia, and human interpretation of those gray areas has a significant impact on real people. For example, what relevance does the existence of this reporter and this potential story have to do with the notability discussion of WorkXpress? As another example, the Cloud Computing article which is extremely important right now in shaping an emerging industry leads with an image that is inaccurate, unhelpful and arguably biased towards a limited set of vendors. When we as 7 year experts on the subject commented as such to the author, the reply we received was that this "was just our opinion". However, is not the image just that authors opinion? That content is vital, and important and affects real people, but the truth is that real people (even industry experts) have little obvious power to influence it.

Humorously (or not), the original attempts at describing WorkXpress notability focused on it as being (at least according to our claim) "the worlds only 5GL Platform as a Service", and the support therein. If true, that is a very important piece of notability. However, based on the many criticisms from editors, it's also true, the nature of the article has changed to focus more on the publicity that has been received. The more important claims about WorkXpress have intentionally been edited out, so as not to "offend".

Still, we feel Wikipedia is an important chronicle of this newly emerging Cloud Computing and Platform as a Service space, and we feel we are a part of that story. It is my hope that we can be given the benefit of any doubt that still exists and be given another six months to continue developing the article, the sources etc. I would prefer to add significant content around the true notability of WorkXpress, however, we remain afraid of alienating editors. Do we now have permission to add that content back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a "chronicle" of anything that is "newly emerging". Yes, our guidelines do favor that which is older, established, and that has received coverage out of state. Basically, what we need is something from a neutral source of relatively broad and general circulation (i.e. not IT related, and circulated outside of your area of Pennsylvania), announcing that being "the worlds only 5GL Platform as a Service" makes your business a subject that belongs in the history books. I looked, and looked again today; the news, scholar, and book results I saw did not make that case. You're welcome to continue to try, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some questions: As we understand it, you require "not IT". Are IT Sources only "of limited interest"?

Also, you are saying "not from Pennsylvania"? Why does the state of Pennsylvania not qualify as a Region according to Wikipedia? Why does the well established and documented region of Central Pennsylvania not qualify as a "region"? Here where I live, there is a clear distinction between local, regional, national and international media, awards, etc., and those organizations document that reach in their names; this is widely accepted I believe in most other regions of at least this country and I'd guess many others. Further, in looking at the actual definitions of the words local and regional, and without redefining them, the WorkXpress news sources clearly are not local, and clearly qualify as regional. Are coverages by "at least Regional" media not notable according to Wikipedia?

I also have questions about why the subject of the article must be, in order for us to be notable, along the lines of "Why the worlds only 5GL platform as a service is historically important"? I thought the definition of notability according to Wikipedia was the much more forgiving standard of "worthy of being noted", which WorkXpress certainly qualifies for.

My last question, why do you rely on your Google News search when clearly just from the references on the WorkXpress page it shows that Google News search is not adequate? Is a reference only notable if it appears on a Google News search? We've provided many articles that don't appear on Google News search that you are choosing to ignore. And of course, the public Gartner mention, although small (it's not a trivial mention, just a short excerpt identifying the full articles subjects), is also important and relevant to anyone who would be searching cloud computing, platform as a service, etc...and it certainly meets the definition of national/international. It clearly identifies "Who is who", and Workxpress is clearly on the list...which of course speaks of notability.

You can obviously hear the tone of frustration, and for that I apologize. Previous flags on the WorkXpress article by Nawlinwiki and Samj clearly explained the Wikipedia guidelines that weren't being met, and we were easily able to point to sources that met them. It may be that if you extend your search beyond the Google News search, you will find what you are looking for. However absent that, we are simply confused as to exactly what we could point to that would satisfy you, and that was reasonable given the guidelines we read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the claim above:

As another example, the Cloud Computing article which is extremely important right now in shaping an emerging industry leads with an image that is inaccurate, unhelpful and arguably biased towards a limited set of vendors. When we as 7 year experts on the subject commented as such to the author, the reply we received was that this "was just our opinion". However, is not the image just that authors opinion?

The image is intended to serve as an example of verifiably notable providers such that users can, based on existing experience with those providers, infer what cloud computing is. It is not meant to advertise relatively unknown providers, as was the case when it was [ab]used by WorkXpress (who in the process downgraded it from a vector to a bitmap and created another file that had to be cleaned up). While there may well be any number of "better" images out there, none of them meet Wikipedia's licensing requirements so one was created from scratch. Are you really going to claim that WorkXpress is a better example than Google, Yahoo, Salesforce, Zoho, Rackspace, Amazon, Microsoft, or any number of other well-known cloud providers? Or that "my opinion" is somehow biased or unfair (e.g. that there are more notable examples)? Do you really expect that we try to include all of them? Given I'm quite sure I've explained this to you repeatedly I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. Running to the media with the "story" doesn't help your case either. -- samj _in ^out 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs I mentioned clearly above, we did not run to the media with a story, we contacted them seeking their assistance in communicating to you why their regional, non-IT affiliated newspaper met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. They sensed a story, and pursued it on their own, and any insinuation to the contrary is flat out false. The story exists because of the perceived surprise of this Afd proceeding, NOT because of something we did.

The image you are defending does little to explain cloud computing, as I've tried repeatedly to discuss with you. Communication is a two way street but your "explaining this to me repeatedly" demonstrates clearly your unwillingness to dialogue or to improve your content. Here are some specific criticisms of the image: Exactly which Microsoft Cloud offering have you been referring to, the just-now-released Azure? (how does any other previous product from "Microsoft" allow a visitor to infer what "cloud computing" is, as per your rationale?) Why did you put Rackspace in there but not GoGrid (I can tell you first hand GoGrid has had a more evolved "cloud" offering)? Why is Zoho in there at all (there are a number of vendors of their size and stature who are more then just SaaS, which is all that Zoho is)? Which offerings of Google or Yahoo are you referencing as providing the "cloud" experience (Google does a LOT of things more prominent then their cloud offerings, which could mislead visitors)? What does the image even mean (not much)?? To lead a page visited by many people looking to learn about Cloud Computing with this image is exactly why the media are so skeptical of Wikipedia to begin with; its not in any way encyclopedic. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear dissent, but I have a lot of experience in this space; your image, and your rationale are flawed. I will take this discussion to the cloud computing page.

Back to this Afd discussion: the bottom line is that WorkXpress has "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources". It has clearly been "worthy of attracting notice". We have demonstrated evidence of attention by "at least regional media". These are the guidelines, and WorkXpress meets them. I apologize to everyone for the tone of this discussion, and thank you all for your legitimate, unbiased consideration and conclusion, whatever form that may take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not the forum to discuss which providers are and are not included in one of a number of images in another article, it is telling of your attitude towards Wikipedia, its policies and other editors. The NYT were writing about Microsoft's cloud strategy over 2 years ago, Rackspace have ten times more "cloud+computing" news articles than GoGrid (and are quite probably at least 10x their size), Zoho is (or at least was) generating a lot of press as an alternative to Google (who are the quintessential cloud provider) and Yahoo! have been "cloud+computing"&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a generating news the whole time too. FWIW the image shows the origin of the cloud in network diagrams and illustrates the separation of servers (which appear as a loosely aggregated point source) and clients at the periphery. I think it does a pretty good job and I note the absence of a better alternative from you. -- samj _in ^out 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt: In terms of the AfD, a quick google news search returns 3 syndicated posts and a name drop in an article about moving, all of them from the same regional journal. In consideration of the questionable reliability of your main source, the fact that the article logs show a long history of speedy deletions, the spamming of other cloud computing article(s) and image(s) with this one, various quality, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other policy issues, and constant interference with process (e.g. the essays above) I think this article should be deleted and salted until such time as you can demonstrate verifiable notability by way of non-trivial references in multiple reliable sources. -- samj _in ^out 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted this before seeing that there having already been two relistings - I looked past the first. If any admin wants to close this now, please do so. Fences&Windows 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 x CSD's, 1 x AfD, 1 x Delete & 1 x Strong Delete + Salt. WP:SNOW. -- samj _in ^out 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The massive weight of deleted versions on countless variant titles says that we do not want this topic. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series[edit]

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

Bringing this back to AfD to be deleted for the thousandth time. Only known coverage by reliable third-party sources has been by a single newspaper article,[2] which isn't enough to pass WP:N or WP:WEB. The article has been recreated several times under various names. —Farix (t | c) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted article and salt the title. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article. This has been deleted many times in the past, both from AfD discussions and by speedy delete. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Screw the rules, I have logic. srsly, shouldn't there be more sources related to a fairly popular YT phenomenon that spawned dozens of imitators and etc? Then again, maybe the article shouldn't be kept since there's not much to write about. The subject matter should be noted somewhere though, if it isn't already. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteas recreation of repeatedly deleted article that completely fails to address any of the issues needed to justify an article, namely a lack of reliable sources and the reliance on original research. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 @Kate (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to assert notability. --KrebMarkt 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search only finds one passing mention of it. [3] Apparently the series is notable enough that its creator attends events with other notable people, and both the creator and his series get mentioned together in a news article. Millions of people watched these things on YouTube. It is notable for being the first abridged series of its kind, many others then making their own from other cartoons after he did it first with his. Dream Focus 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G5. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Superhero[edit]

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

Hoax article. Unfortunately not quite clear-cut enough for a speedy. There is a film called Death of a Superhero, that seems to be in production [4] starring Freddie Highmore based on a work by Anthony McCarten; that work may well ( and indeed probably will be) be notable in the future. However the assertions in this article, apart from the star, are complete fantasy. Really, if this was a genuine Tim Burton movie in production, there would be sources. There is nothing to indicate that any of the stellar cast have anything to do with this work. No sources offered; fewer found. (It is in part a copy of the Astro Boy article, down to the IMDb link at the bottom FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I can't say I'm positive that this article is a hoax but I can say that it certainly does fail WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I have no prejudice towards recration of this article should we establish at a later date that the film is real and that commencement of principal photography can be verified through reliable sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See below, changed to speedy delete per new evidence of creating editor being a sock of a banned user. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I appreciate that some of the article has an element of truth. My own opinion is that an article on the actual Death of a Superhero movie would pass notability criteria when production gets underway and in a sense, I started the AFD so there would be something to refer to, if and when a bone fide article on that film is created. (I'm sure there will be one eventually) By the by, the book on which that production is based could well pass WP:N itself at this title, from what I can see. However, the hoax tag refers to the contents of the current article, which is a fantasy article; there are one or two elements of truth in the cast list, but the synopsis of the film is a complete fabrication. (A synopsis of the book can be easily found online.) What I couldn't say in the original AFD rationale as I hadn't done the paperwork elsewhere on Wikipedia, was that the article creator was almost certainly a sock of the user Alexcas11 (talk · contribs), who has a long history of creating either completely fictitious film articles, or as in this case, film articles that have some basis in truth, but are essentially hoaxes. Again, I stress that there shouldn't be any prejudice against recreation of this article in the future, either for the film or the book; however this article should go as deliberate misinformation. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. If it IS or becomes a Tim Burton project, it will get coverage... lots of coverage. If it is not, or is a hoax, it will never have the reliable sources allowing a return. Currently I can find no coverage.... which speaks volumes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI agree with above, without any coverage a future movie is a hard sell 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, creation by a banned user, see evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcas11. Tagged as a speedy request. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pie and Bovril[edit]

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

I declined the speedy on this because I feel the claim of controversy = a claim of importance. However, I'm not finding notability for this forum. I found a couple of blog entries, a couple of podcasts, and that's about it. The BBC piece mentioned in the article won't load for me, so I have no idea how much it contributes towards notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you will struggle to find articles based on it is mostly down to the fact that search engines prioritise the results based on activity. Since it is a forum (and an extremely popular one at that) most of the entries that appear do so from the site itself (since ultimately they are the most relevant).

The referenced link is to the Radio Show where Pie and Bovril Founder (David McDonald) was invited onto "Off the Ball" - broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland every Saturday before the day's fixtures take place. During this show, the phenomenon of football and the internet was discussed at length, and Pie and Bovril was used as the example of the most prominent site of this nature applying to Scottish Football.

The BBC also makes frequent reference to Pie and Bovril when searching for fans' opinions in their web search 3 minute piece in Sportscene Results, which is broadcast Scotlandwide as the alternative to "Final Score" for English leagues. Jonathan Sutherland, their Web Correspondent, mentions the site and its posters almost every week.

I understand that the article in its present form is relatively bare and thus it might be considered as insufficiently relevant. However, I believe that if you allow it to stay as it is now, it will make it much easier to flesh out the article with some research over the coming month or so by a number of contributors. I know of at least 2 other Pie and Bovril contributors who also extensively edit Wikipedia pages on the topic of Scottish Football, and would be well placed to ensure it maintains Encyclopaedic form.

I hope this persuades you. Redandyellowarmy (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pie and Bovril is regularly referenced in the mainstream Scottish media - but you'll struggle to find those references in Google because most Scottish newspaper content is not archived on websites. If you have access to something like Datastarweb or Lexis Nexus to do a newspaper cuttings search you'll find a vast array of content. Jamie Beatson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.213.210 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A website being referenced in a newspaper or some other medium does not make it notable, when said references are in the context of "what people are saying online" Marks87 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable internet forum. Unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. Only mentions appear to be on other forums and blogs. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Did you completely ignore the notable independent coverage from the BBC I cited?Redandyellowarmy (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in the media during sections dedicated to opinions from blogs and fora make it no more notable than any other blog out there Marks87 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard Pie and Bovril mentioned plenty of times on the mainstream media in Scotland, including radio phone ins and of course Off the Ball. Given time I would expect this article to be brought up to the standard of an article such as Slashdot. JieBie (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the page is getting whacked by IP vandals, so I've semi-protected it for 24 hours.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable internet forum, also unable to find independent reliable sources Ace4545 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Pie and Bovril has played an innovative and unique role in citizen journalism developments specifically within the sport genre. There is substantial evidence of this.TheEntomologist(talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Where? (Without quoting the BBC, which in itself doesn't come close to "substantial evidence".) Marks87 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- well my initial research threw up; http://www.pieandbovril.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=295&Itemid=490 and http://audioboo.fm/users/239/boos.atom and http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/03/24/audioboo-can-it-be-used-for-news-reporting-some-case-studies/ which are interesting I thought.TheEntomologist (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)— TheEntomologist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So in order, we've got a post on the site itself, a couple of sentences mentioning P&B in another article, and a directory listing of posts. None of these satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(web).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fabrictramp's comment right above. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two seconds of Googling turned up this BBC reference, which is another mention on The Buzz, and this blog post which nonetheless ties back to the BBC and citizen journalism. I'm convinced that there are more sources available as it's easily the most well-known message board of its type in the country. Due to the nature of the keeps and in the interests of avoiding bite marks, it'd be a good idea to suggest userfying it to the author in the event that it is deleted so that work can continue on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few bare mentions in the Scottish press does not amount to notability. The content in the controversies section is forum navel gazing. Fences&Windows 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Huet[edit]

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

not notable; no sources for verification identified Scoop100 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete – he sounds as if he could be notable, but any sources are probably dusty French books and archives which would take a heroic effort to unearth. There's a French version of the page, about the only other thing Google turns up, with more info but no references. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. Scoop100 (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. Edmond Huet is notable not only as a leading proponent of the Paris Metro, but also as president of the fr:Société d'encouragement pour l'industrie nationale - Eastmain (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have made the unheroic effort of spending a few minutes with Google Books and unearthed these dust-free books which have significant coverage of the subject: [5][6][7][8]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phil has found sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - I'm still not sure he's notable - my French is too poor - but my original reasoning no longer holds. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article I must say I feel the reasons for deletion are weak and that the article, though a stub, may be useful to researchers about the Paris Metro. Just because there are few sources does not contstitue a reason for deletion - look at the man's role. He played a reasonably important role and I just cannot see why we can't leave it here - are we short of zero's and one's or something? Come on John, give it a break! --Mapmark (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I believe the notability criteria is met, however there are language and chronology issues involved. It's hard to find third party sources for pre-20th century individuals, and the problem is compounded when the individual is from a non-English speaking country. There are a few solid references now included in the article and hopefully someone interested in the subject who has some keen translation skills can add to the article and help flesh it out. In its current state it's a perfectly viable stub just waiting for some attention --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No secondary sources to indicate notability. If editors can write about fraternities in Ottawa more generally using reliable sources, please do so. Fences&Windows 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Theta Alpha[edit]

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

A non-notable fraternity at the University of Ottawa. While I would imagine that national chapters are inherently notable, I don't believe that individual fraternities are, and I'm don't see any evidence that this one passes WP:ORG. While they do support a charity or few and do volunteer work, that's not enough to meet the notability standard (especially given that every fraternity tends to do charity work). Even if there were notable alumni (which the article doesn't claim that there are), notability isn't inherited. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with your own deletion nomination? Well, I'll be jiggered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be weird if I didn't. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SFUO registration page have been provided as references. SFUO is the only body at the university of ottawa that register student groups. The Fraternity is a local fraternity with a single chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.137.19 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the sources to meet WP:ORG. Purely local fraternity. Being a part of the SFUO means nothing significant. TerriersFan (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete The organisation is well known around the Ottawa region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk •
Do not Delete Articles on the organisation have been published in the Fulcrum, the Ottawa students newspaper and on it's french counterpart. References will be put up as soon as the new articles are put online.

contribs) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears that contributor might fall into WP:SPA LoudHowie (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Although the alumni base is non-existant, you have to realize that this group was formed only 8 years ago, a rather young organization that is still growing and looking for exposure which is coming slowly in many forms of online and written mediums. Calder27 (talk) 3:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete I see no notability or significant coverage. Just because this is fairly young organization that is beginnig to receive coverage does not mean it has to be included in Wikipedia. Give it a few years and if it does become notable, I will reconsider my decision. In the mean time, I vote delete. LoudHowie (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a bit more third party referencing appears. Also, this article reads like an advertising brochure for the organisation. I quote from above: "you have to realize that this group was formed only 8 years ago, a rather young organization that is still growing and looking for exposure which is coming slowly in many forms of online and written mediums." We do realise, and that's why the article has been nominated. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a place for gaining exposure. When there is sound evidence of notability, come back. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete For some reason this organisation is being singled out. there are several other local fraternities and sororities whose pages have been up for several years and offered less references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are. Please feel free to tag them in the same way as this. There is a policy that says that just because another article exists, this is no reason for this one. Wikipedia has to have rules, or the place would be full of junk ("Shaun is awesommmmmeeeeee!"). The way the lines are drawn means that independent reliable references (to notability, not just existence) are required. Some of those other articles might have got in before the rules were tightened. They might just have been missed. They might actually comply. If you disagree, tag them and we'll look. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't worry about other insignificant fraternities having a page on Wikipedia, someone will get to those eventually and they'll be tagged the same way. LoudHowie (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new posters Please realise that you saying this organisation is notable means nothing here. Nor does volume of posts. Single Purpose Accounts (accounts that are new and have not done any other work) are valued less than regular editors. The arguments put forward are assessed. A decision is made. If it goes for delete, you can always come back WHEN you have the necessary references to support the notability of the subject. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution maybe a single local organisation is not notable enough to meet wikipedia but an article that contain an overview about sororities and fraternities in the Ottawa region —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - but remember reliable third party sources..... Peridon (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just declined the db-author (WP:CSD#G7) deletion since another editor has added a reference, but I'm not voting against the deletion, I'm just declining the speedy deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, not even in Ottawa. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all fraternities at the University of Ottawa into the University of Ottawa article. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Quantpole (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Zadok & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. References provided show notability for attached individuals and a mention in a couple of articles on cases - that is, however, moot. Notability is not inherited (and so the founder's importance is irrelevant) and a couple of brief press quotes from cases they were involved in does not count as "substantial" coverage. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly notable. The scope of its activities is international in scale, and information about the firm and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Coverage is international in scope.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"significant" coverage by third-party, independent, reliable sources? No. You've pulled up what, six sources, all of which use little quotes from the firm and its involved people. That is not significant. Ironholds (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now hhas more than six third party independent RSs. The Sharon litigation, which the firm handled, is the most famous libel litigation of the last few decades that I can think of. The clients mentioned in other matters are all the uber-rich or include some of Israel's biggest companies. The references to the founder's notability as a distinguished lawyer counts of course -- the same way a band that has Paul McCartney play for it becomes notable because its constituent member is notable. I see from the below comment that you note the improvement in the article. If someone can add the article that no doubt exist in Hebrew, we will have more, but I do not know if we will get them. Do we have enough now for you to consider withdrawing the nom?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, although I can never work out how to withdraw - feel free to consider this a request to handle it. And actually, no; notability is not inherited. And under our music guidelines, a band with Paul McCartney in would not necessarily be notable :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per nom. \//\ - 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very notable, many reliable sources, described as a leading firm on Dun's 100, hired for some of the biggest cases in Israel. Don't understand where Ironholds is coming from and what his/her objection could possibly be (could there be some personal grudge at work here?)--Gilabrand (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've uncovered my COI - I, a law student, have a strong hatred of law firms. I also can't stand people who accuse users of grudges without any firm evidence simply because they disagree with them. It is worth noting that the statement above was written when the article was in a very different stage from where it is now. I would appreciate either a) a withdrawal of your baseless and laughable query or b) some kind of evidence beyond "I don't like what he's written". Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is marginal at best, with virtually nothing specifically about the firm. Quantpole (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Ironholds' comment above, and am happy to view consensus here as keep, and have no objection to the closing of this. To explain my vote a smidgen more, my reading of the GNG is that coverage has to be principally about the subject matter, or at least contain significant information about it. In this case most of the references seemed to be either about a particular lawsuit or Haim Zadok himself, and not about the firm. However, I can see this is a debatable position. Quantpole (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple references, and a good cite for the firm's importance. I cannot close as nomination withdrawn, in view of the above good faith "delete", which argues a basis in policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This law firm, if you read the citations, has a significant relationship with certain members of the Israeli government, and has been a part of cases with regional and international significance.Ollie Garkey (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep Per DGG.--217.132.10.112 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid argument for deletion provided by nominator, and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Plaza[edit]

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

Recreation of a speedy deleted article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep that's not a rational for deletion. It was speedy deleted because the original creator (not me) blanked it. I created a new, different version. That's not a reason to delete an article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe if you can find some third party sources then you might save this article from being deleted again. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is a third party source. But your nomination didn't indicate any sourcing concern with the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, though, if you want sources, there appear to be a nearly 5,000 of them, many entirely about the development. From what I can tell, this was a rather notable government financing scandal of the 1960s (it was the largest of its type, and it was investigated by the senate). As this happened 40+ years ago, sources are not quickly accessible. Indeed, I cannot access the LA Times, which wrote extensively about this story... otherwise I'd greatly expand the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I will buy some of the articles and add in the shady parts, warts and all.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, don't feel like you have to do that. People can see the articles exist... in theory that's enough to survive AFD. I used to have Lexis Nexis access that included the LA Times archives for free... hopefully someone like that will come along eventually. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate a sufficient level of notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A little bit on the history of this article that isn't readily apparent: I nominated this article at AfD yesterday on the grounds of notability (see first AfD link above). It was deleted not because of notability, but because HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs)—the article author and at that time its only contributor of content—blanked the page and made what I interpreted to be an explicit request for deletion on my talk page, thereby qualifying it for G7 speedy deletion. I tagged it as such and it was deleted. Personally, I would have preferred that AfD run its course, but I saw no point in keeping an article if its author and only contributor of content requested deletion. About the same time, Sancho Mandoval (talk · contribs) chimed in that he had found some sources to indicate the subject's notability, and requested the deleting admin to restore the article, which he did. No opinion on deletion this time around, but I ask the nominator to clarify the rationale for deletion, as the one cited is not valid. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the AFD nominator has been indefinitely blocked. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 42 Notice[edit]

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

Non-notable legalese PDCook (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable, although not enough for an article. When Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is created, maybe some of the content can be merged. snigbrook (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, (mis)uses only primary sources. ~~The bit about peppercorn rent is wrong.~~ BTW, I think the guy who created the article is finding life difficult at present. CWC 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is wrong (unless something has changed recently), some examples:[9][10][11] – I would expect these to be more reliable than a blog. snigbrook (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I was wrong; I've struck out the bad sentences. Thanks, snigbrook. CWC 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable term, although there are some possible sources here. I wish to note that WP is filled with notable legalese, such as 99-year lease. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mufti Ebrahim Desai[edit]

The result was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable mufti - article is currently an unsourced coatrack to get some random fatwa's and someone else's opinion about rape in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note: The article was discovered to contain copyright issues, so major parts of the biography/article was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 and 2 minutes at 21:22, 24 November 2009 later somebody is insisting it is a coatrack. The article is a stub, but not a coatrack. But obviously it will take time to rebuild the article using other references. The opinon on rape is cited from the fatwa of the mufti and not "someone else's" so any such claims are false. Fragma08 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his fatwa regarding rape seems to have gotten a fair bit of media coverage. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to media coverage. The article needs to be built up again, with better sources and no plagiarism. CarolineWH (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and clean-up. Also agree that someone's own words or fatwa can certainly be cited on a BLP, thus the issue becomes writing it NPOV. The rape content should be reworked to note who thinks his rape opinions are notable and why. Keep it dispassionate as Wikipedia follows sources, not the other way around. We should avoid even the appearance of judgment. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per all of the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just about Keep but clean up. I'm not that convinced about the level of coverage, but it probably scrapes thorugh. However, at the moment the article does seem to be a coatrack about a specific issue he has commented on (the news coverage in the article is regarding a different muslim cleric). We can discuss his comments regarding rape, but only if this is done in reliable sources. Looking through the news results I could not actually see any coverage of this issue, so it simply shouldn't be there. Quantpole (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article is not a coat rack Do look at the discussions to see that it was a lengthy biography yesterday but due to copyright issues, major parts of the biography was removed leaving only a stub. So now to call it coatrack is simply invalid and defies all logic. Allow time for the article to be built up. The source does not get any more reliable than the fatwa itself from the mufti himself. To expect other muftis to back up this mufti is like expecting consensus across religion when in fact there are many sectarian difference and so any consensus would be hard to achieve which is why talk of secondary or back up references is irrelevant.Fragma08 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not whether the info is verifiable. It is that if it has not been covered by other sources it is not notable. The only reason I have voted keep here is that there does appear to be some coverage. However, none of this coverage is regarding his comments regarding rape. I have therefore removed this section from the article. If reliable sources are found that show this is noteworthy, then we can include it. Quantpole (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well this is the case of religious fatwas (edicts if you like)and not like other publicised work and so to ask for other sources to cover one mufti's fatwa would be unrealistic. Religion is split into sects and subsects so asking for others for verification or consensus, can not be done. Which is why it can stand alone as notable. You will find similar pattern under other scholars' articles therefore the information needs to stay but the biography and work need to be built on. But I will work on finding more sources. Fragma08 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not relevent what the information is. It needs independent coverage (which does not have to be other scholars backing him up). I could issue a fatwa today but that wouldn't be notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well the same could be said of the mufti himself then and in fact all muftis unless their names frequently circulate the media or they are used as spokepeople for various issues. In which case majority of the articles on wiki could be claimed to be not notable and deleted. The fatwa and the fatwa website is used by various people and not just the deobandi community, mind you. It is impossible to cover varous fatwas especially when they don't play a role in your life.Fragma08 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Article Rescue Squad! What media convereage are you referring to? Hipocrite (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on Google news link up top, and do some reading. Clearly notable. And the article does mention references... I see the rape part is currently out of it, despite having references, this what the guy was getting news coverage for, and thus it should be in the article. Dream Focus 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you point to the coverage he has received regarding those particular opinions, because I could not see it. I am quite willing to admit I am wrong, and if it has been covered then it is right to be in the article. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Curtis Skanson[edit]

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

Borderline spam/promotion only. Want a 2nd opinion please ! thisisace (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is very little known, has not been in the news in recent years, and there are no sources for the article despite the issue being raised over two years ago. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/claudesirois Fences&Windows 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Sirois[edit]

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

Seems to be a CopyPaste of a machine translation of the About section of http://www.myspace.com/claudesirois thisisace (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G12 as a copyvio. I'm pretty sure translating something doesn't get you out of copyright. Ray^Talk 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's copied from the person it's about ? (His own Myspace) thisisace (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes. Especially if. Ray^Talk 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qbiss by trimo[edit]

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

A Prod, however, there are some sources which write in detail so this is worth a wider discussion. Neutral listing. SilkTork *^YES! 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither source appears to be independent or reliable, thus fails GNG. Article is both short and overly specific, seems to be promoting a product. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strikes me as promotional, and I'm not finding significant 3rd party coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Anthony.bradbury. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haider with tahseen[edit]

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

The alleged reference is a non reference, and Google can't find this topic, or I can't! I'm unable to decide if this is a hoax, an essay, or a test page. But whatever it is I can;t see that it belongs here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — It's already been through AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haider Weds Tahseen. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the db-repost before seeing this, but my removal was correct, I believe, because the deletion was not the result of the discussion; the discussion was closed because the article had been speedily deleted. I have, however, tagged the article as vandalism, and explained my reason on the article's talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined for both G4 (recreation of deleted material) and G11 (spam). This article has been deleted three times already. Continued recreation is borderline abuse. DarkAudit (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. G4 reads "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". The article, in its current state, is entirely different from that which was (rightly) speedy deleted. It's a good-faith creation from whole cloth by a perfectly respected Wikipedian. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a winery that meets the general notability guidelines.--kelapstick (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article not only passes WP:CORP but even the Wine Projects slightly more strict WP:WINERIES interpretation of winery notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After reconsidering this article, I think it deserves to be kept. Although it was started by someone with a conflict of interest, it does not reed like it is full of WP:SPAM, the point of view is fairly neutral, and does not read like an add (the article even includes a bit of controversy). Ignoring the fact that the first author's intention was spamming, the winery has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, thus meeting the standard in WP:ORG. I'm more ok with keeping this winery article than I would be with the Llano Estacado Winery article, which is the only other one in category:Texas wineries. – jaksmata 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complies with WP:RS, although admittedly it could contain more diverse sources. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also feel [this version of] the article does not appear to be WP:SPAM and meets our guidelines for inclusion. I would be interested to compare it to the version that was voted delete in the last AfD or even the versions that were speedied. Granted the original author came here paid by his client to create the article, but part of WP:COI is being up front with your COI which is supposed to lend you [a little] credibility. Although the Microsoft incident should be a warning to all not to pay someone to update your article.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, the current version, while a tad rambling (rapid shift to address label controversy without explaining why it was controversial and an equally rapid shift back to the original informative bits) argues only for copy-editing (which I think I might do right now), not deletion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be going through these cycles--if you'll check the history, you'll see that I called for speedy deletion for spam purposes and then rewrote the entire thing, while Kelapstick and I (I assume ChildofMidnight) as in on this too were trying to explain to the original creator what our guidelines and standards were. This rewritten version is much like the one we produced months ago, and it meets guidelines. That this would have been speedied after all is strange--the editor who called for that speedy could simply have restored an earlier version, especially after the "spammer" was blocked--instead, here we are, taking up time and electrons with an AfD which, after my good pal Kelapstick cleaned up the article, seems like it's leading to a foregone conclusion: keep, perhaps with SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 500 Google news hits, combined with the fact that it seems to pass WP:CORP would imply to me that it is notable and should be kept. It's not perfect, but I think it's notable enough to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Non-Admin Closure. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Burl[edit]

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

no notability shown. no coverage in independent sources needed to satisfy wp:bio Oo7565 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i withdrew this Afd sorryOo7565 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A very famous person in the field,with multiple well-known books, All that is needed is some refs to the multiple articles about him and his work in the GNews search listed conveniently above. I started with one. 87 more to go. Then there's GScholar etc. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG said it, the subject easily passes both WP:BIO and WP:PROF with explicitly stated claims to notability mentioned in the article and supplied with references. Extensive newscoverage of his work in conventional newsmedia, as googlenews search shows, as well as a book honoring his work (item 2 in the references section). Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per DGG. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient third party coverage to establish notability. If he has "multiple well-known books" then the article should be sourcable to WP:SECONDARY reviews of these books rather than the WP:PRIMARY works themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are a few dozen such reviews in the GNews results, including the one I added. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd then that the article continues to contain no information about the reception of Burl's work, only a short and florid NYT compliment about Burl himself.

I just added a dozen reviews in academic journals (three of them Nature) of half a dozen of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing refs to reviews for the bare existence of books in the bibliography does little to improve the article. Do none of these reviews actually say something useful? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They go on for between a paragraph and two pages about the books. Here for instance are some selected quotes from Ritchie's Nature review of From Carnac to Callanish, which fills a whole page: "Burl's The Stone Circles of the British Isles has rightly become a classic of archaeological presentation, outlining different types of monuments and making an assessment of their dating evidence and social context. In the intervening years he has continued the study and has not avoided the discussion of such controversial issues as complex geometric shapes and the potential significance of astronomical alignments in the positioning of sites within their landscape. The present volume takes a more disparate group of monuments, linear settings of upright stones, stones in rows and avenues, and creates order where none had existed before." That's only a little over 10% of the review, but I can't copy and paste from it and it's tedious to retype so you'll have to follow the link to read more. And in any case, it is a gross abuse of AfD process to use it to push obviously-notable but stubby articles to be improved. On top of which, by first requesting reviews and then rejecting them as not good enough because their contents are not detailed within the article, you appear to be moving the goalposts. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the use you made of the reviews that you yourself made an issue of is hardly "moving the goalposts". And an expectation that sources be added to 'improve' the article, rather than as {{refspam}} for already verifiable points is hardly unreasonable. My 'Delete' opinion was made before the bulk of these reviews were added. I will probably be changing this opinion based upon new information -- but how quickly, how grudgingly, and whether to 'keep' or 'weak keep' will depend on whether the new sources are reflected in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're pointing to vaguely related guidelines, let's try WP:AGF. I didn't add those references to the article to verify that the books exist — the ISBNs already given should be plenty to that — but to provide pointers for readers and future editors to read more about the books than we do or should write within the article. As for your refspam tag, I find it inappropriate and badly written: spam should only be used to refer to promotion of material that is not sufficiently relevant to include in an article for non-promotional reasons, and that's not the case with these reviews, which are all signed, published in reliable sources, and nontrivial. As for whether the footnotes go to a section entitled "References" or something else, I care little, but I've renamed it to be "Notes" to reflect the fact that as you say some of the things in it are not actually references for the content of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per NsK.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and NsK Martin451 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. As well as passing WP:PROF I think he passes WP:AUTH with his many books, several of which have multiple published reviews that are now linked from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like there's plenty of material to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Does appear to be notable on above information. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nancy ^talk 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectInsight[edit]

(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}}.

Non-notable software. References given are to small trade publications that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. All seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.

Part of a long term spam campaign see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#projectinsight.net

Obvious advertising; Article was created by an WP:SPA account, and maintained by multiple sock accounts with no other edits other than related to ProjectInsight.Speedily deleted once before and re-created. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a contributor to the article. The following references have been added to better illustrate the notability of Project Insight:

Information Week, a large independent publication with circulation of 440,000. The focus of the Information Week story is on how an organization used Project Insight to solve Resource Management and other Project Management challenges.

Baseline Magazine, a Ziff Davis publication, with circulation of 125,000. The focus of the Baseline story how an organization used Project Insight to solve Document Management and other Project Management challenges.

References on pages 38-39 in this book: AdvancED Flex Application Development: Building Rich Media X published in 2008.

Reference on page 74 in the this book: Cloud Computing Web-Based Applications That Change the Way You Work and Collaborate Online published in 2008.

The reference is a press release and is included to establish existence as a completed Project Management Software product since 2002. The references above meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP.

Project Insight is a mature, notable, Project Management Software product, and the article adds value to the related articles Project Management Software and List of Project Management Software.

If you check the history, I have recently worked to improve the neutrality of article. I would appeciate specific feedback on any sentence or paragraph in the article that does not meet the neutrality guidelines so that I can correct them. I also welcome any other feedback or input to so that I can improve the article as well. Please add any recommendations on the Project Insight talk page or my talk page. Thanks!--SurfAndSwim (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — SurfAndSwim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I nominated this for deletion. IT-related trade publications with a limited audience do not confer notability, and I see no general interest coverage; see the notability essay on software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am an user of this software and I do not understand why it has been tagged as an excesive-commercially article. I add some reasons why I think this article cannot be fairly tagged for deletion:

The content includes a brief history of the product, and a list of functionalities, besides a very interesting list of Project Management articles and Press references for respected magazines such as Business Wire, AJAX magazine or CNNMoney. Furthermore, it includes world references like Red Herring listing. The vast majority of this articles have no relationship with the product manufacturer.
If you visit any of the other Project Management softwares included in this listing: List_of_project_management_software you will find more commercially articles, including logo and comercially biased descriptions.
Please, remove this tag.
Alex Ballarin at www.cynertiaconsulting.com Barcelona, Spain — Alex of Bcn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep Seeing this deletion rationale I expected a glossy sales brochure. Actually seing the 3-lines article is quite disappointing - and I would say that only a desperate and hallucinating salesman would see this as useful advert (=spam). Checked a few of the 15 references, and they sure seem to be a pass for WP:GNG. Smerdis is off track on this issue, with his home grown and extremely restrictive criteria, not recognizing the notability of niche products. I completely disagree on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to insist that, before they rise to the level of being encyclopedia subjects, commercial software must become actually motable --- i.e. receive some notice outside the business or technical communities it circulates in. If only those communities have heard of it, it needs to be recognized as a major player, technically innovative, or historically significant. This is what the notability essay on software --- by no means my sole effort --- says, Yes, I do think that we need to get away from the situation where every such package thinks it rates an encyclopedia page because its competitors have one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Part of marketing campaign. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Keep Being mentioned in anything circulated to that many people, makes it notable. They wouldn't bother mentioning anything that wasn't considered worth talking about. Dream Focus 02:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've lost me here: are you saying that anything mentioned (at all, and however briefly) in a large-scale publication or web site is therefore by definition notable? Every high school football player who is simply mentioned in their local paper as having played in a game is notable, so long as their local paper is the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times? Every product—with only the tiniest blurb, or with only a single mention—on large web site is notable? That's an interesting concept, to be sure. Got a link to a policy or guideline where that can be found? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a marketing campaign. Alex of Bcn possible WP: SPA ? LoudHowie (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added another book reference to the article: Project Management Software Systems Requirements, Selection Process and Products (excerpt) ISBN 3-937818-13-8 by Dr. Frederik Ahlemann and Kristin Backhaus, which covers Project Insight among other Project management software products. I believe the additional reference enhances the notability of Project Insight within the context of Project management software and Comparison of project management software articles which the Project Insight article supports.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the software is mentioned in the table of contents provided in the excerpt, it is hard to verify the notability asserted by this article since the actual content of the article is not provided in this excerpt. I would also closely examine the purpose of this study as it is clearly marked that it is "distributed and marketed" by an outside organization. And yet another problem which I have with this source is the fact that the organization which has commissioned this study now appears to be closed, as per their homepage. - LoudHowie (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided the link to the excerpt for the benefit of the discussion. The book is written by Prof. Dr. Frederik Ahlemann and is available at the German National Library. He has other publications in Project Management fields. I believe that this reference qualifies as a reliable, independent, secondary source, but if it doesn't, then it can be removed from the article. The article ProjectInsight article has other references as well, this was just an addition.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and SPA-spam. Haakon (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article contains a claim that a parent company is somewhat notable ("Red Herring North America 100 Finalist") but notability is not inherited and the many references simply confirm that the product exists and is used by at least a handful of minor organizations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by User:Stevewest9. The president of the company making ProjectInsight is named Steve West [12]. I doubt this is a coincidence, and it indicates a glaring conflict of interest issue. Haakon (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)[edit]

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

Autobiog - author has blanked their user page to hide the fact after COI was placed on page. Alastair Rae (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is "autobiog" a criterion for deletion? Which number? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scopus shows 54 publications, many in the very top tier of journals like Nature and PNAS, with the highest citation counts 167, 135 , 131, 125, 111. Even in the neurosciences, where people often publish and cite many papers, this is a notable enough record to establish him as an authority in his field. The article does need considerable rewriting--and I'm going to check for copyvio & rewrite as necessary. Associate professors are not always notable. He is. COI is irrelevant to notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites 190, 188, 179, 106... ample for WP:prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As per WP:YOURSELF, if he was notable somebody else should write him up. The post hoc attempt to conceal the fact that it is autobiographical is telling. --Alastair Rae (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearcut in my opinion, argument raised succinctly above by DGG holds -- Samir 09:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged, but the fact that they are autobiographical is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. Lack of notability is.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to his vita he is a fellow of the American Psychological Society. I'm not sure whether that is enough to pass WP:PROF #3 but it may well be. In any case Xxanthippe has provided strong evidence of passing WP:PROF #1. Probably best just to ignore the pointy sarcasm of IP69.226.103.13 above. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as {{db-author}} per request here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21/12; Doomsday (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/21/12; Doomsday (film)

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

An amateur film not yet made by an amateur director, to be distributed by a company that doesn't exist, can hardly be considered notable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to wait until this film becomes more popular to post a page of it on wikipedia, so you may delete it when you want.

I am afraid your own free website does not qualify as a reliable source. noq (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the (unsigned) comment above constitute a {{db-author}} request? I haven't checked the actual author of the request, so I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was added by the article author. noq (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Note that the coverage is all derived from a single AP article from 2006, so the argument of WP:BLP1E is also valid. Fences&Windows 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Wilson[edit]

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

This was a Prod - however, there seems to be enough material on the person for there to be some discussion as to notability. This is a neutral listing. SilkTork *^YES! 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this could have potential, if it was tied in more to the aspects of marksmanship in today's conventional warfare. Quotes and explanations of "tactics" would help. Alll depends if this guy wants the publicity, if he writes a book it'll be very informative. Otherwise at the moment the article isn't very good at all. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much my thought, though the guy has given a fair amount of media interviews, so I assume he doesn't mind the attention. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that, those pics are a bit suspicious, could this be a COI?[13][14] Ryan4314 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Batepuneta is, but I created the article while doing articles on all the notable WWI, WII (including Continuation War) and Vietnam-era snipers. I just looked around for who the notable snipers in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to be. Is it good, bad? I'm not sure enough to weigh in myself on the nomination right now. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Google news search brings up seven hits, some of them where the subject is the primary subject. However, I am unsure where I sit on this. It's obvious that the article required significant work to bring up to standards, however, that is more a question of someone working on the article, rather than the subject being notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that there are sufficient references which cover Mr Wilson in detail for WP:BIO to be met. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There have been some forms of coverage, but not enough reliable, third-party sources, to assert notability. In short, fails WP:BIO, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all trivia: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It wasn't mentioned in the debate, but WP:OR also largely applies. Fences&Windows 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags on Pardon the Interruption[edit]

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

Wikipedia discourages trivia section, this whole article is a trivia section. None of it seems to be of any encyclopedic value. Pretty much all of it is OR. The source are youtube vidoes, TV.com pages and transcripts.

This article is a unencyclopaedic collection of assorted facts. This violation of WP:TRIVIA. Anything use could be merged into the main article. Coasttocoast (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivia. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Characteristics of the show that belong but can't be used in the main article. It's been AfD'ed before and restored. JAF1970 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as trivial and unencyclopedic. By the way, I could not find the previous AFD nom. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as trivial and unencyclopedic. - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by Steve Smith. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Plaza[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment complex. Google search yields a bunch of hits corroborating this place's existence, but all those hits are to apartment review sites or building/architecture sites. A secondary concern is that there are claims that this was the largest HUD renewal project in the western U.S., but none of the Ghits corroborate this. It also claims the complex was developed by one Louis Lesser in conjunction with U.S. President John F. Kennedy. While I don't doubt that it was developed by Mr. Lesser or his company (which was somewhat shown to me by the author in a separate discussion; more on that later), Kennedy was assassinated two years before HUD was established, so how could the two have worked together on a HUD project? Delete all the content of questionable verifiability, and we're left with "Barrington Plaza is an apartment complex in Los Angeles developed by Lesser Enterprises." I highly doubt that that would satisfy WP:N.

Full disclosure: I started a related AfD on Mr. Lesser's article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser, and have contributed to a ANI discussion on the author's conduct. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G7. Author and only contributor of substantive content has blanked the page and expressed desire to have page deleted on my talk page. Tagged as such. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - I deleted the article because User:Kuyabribri is correct. I made HUGE errors on this article, for example, saying "HUD", when I should have said "F.H.A.". Barrington Plaza was "one of the largest F.H.A. insured projects ever constructed", as verified in the sources in the Louis Lesser article, by Artrhur Anderson & Co., on September 13, 1963, a copy of the audit being cited in the sources.

When I have reliable and verifiable sources for Barrington Plaza, I will notify User:Kuyabribri in advance, so he/she can check I am not making egregious errors again, then recreate the article if User:Kuyabribri is in acreement. I fixed the errors in the Louis Lesser article, doing what several other experienced editors asked me to do, by deleting the whole article, and building it up sentence by sentence with reliable sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Bruce Lee lived there, and the Journal of Housing does confirm this was the largest single FHA investment of some sort. Honestly this AFD should probably run for the 7 days... you'd get help from me and maybe other people, as opposed to just working along. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a lawsuit involving a black man who tried to rent an apartment at this place apparently set some notable precedent. I'm not sure if all of these tidbits add up to notability, but when a lot of interesting things pop out in 5 minutes of searching... it makes me feel like this deserves an AFD. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been deleted. Under ordinary circumstances I would close the discussion in accordance with WP:NAC but I would like to avoid the potential for backlash since I was the nominator. If you believe AfD should run its course, please take this up at WP:DRV or send a message to the deleting admin on his/her talk page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the admin to undelete the article so the AFD can run and I can work on the article. presumably if I'd had time to unblank the article it wouldn't have met a CSD anyway, so I don't think DRV should be needed here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We have no clear numerical consensus for deletion, so I must look to strength of argument. To begin with, I must substantially discount the "rename or [else] delete" type of opinions, for two reasons: AfD is not a venue for discussing the title of an article (backed up by the threat of deletion), that's what the talk page is for; and few specific alternative names seem to be proposed. Beyond that, the principal objection to the article seems to be that "socialism" has many meanings, and that the current list is not based on any one (or what the editors believe is the correct one) of these meanings. But that is not a problem of WP:OR mandating deletion; it is a challenge for editors to make a well-structured list that makes clear under which meaning of the term a country is included, and to back this up with references to reliable sources that identify the country as "socialist". It is not clear from the discussion or indeed the current list why that should be impossible, and I see no other arguments that, under applicable policies, would mandate deletion. So we're back at no consensus, and I encourage interested editors to continue the discussion about a possible renaming or restructuring on the article talk page. Sandstein 06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The AfD of Feb 2008 was not well attended (and the one I've just found out happened on Dec 2008 even less), and like many AfD's, had too many passing voters who didn't fully see why the article can't work. There was the usual headcount and the article remained. In time these lists get viewed by people (like myself), so it is time to propose deleting it again, this time giving more reasons:

1) In the 20C American came to use the word 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism'. There are socio-political reasons for this that are particular to America - Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and should not use such a narrow definition. Article titles should always follow Wikipedia's own definition of the word, which is broad, and follows dictionaries, and the majority of the world. This narrow definition of 'socialism' is often seen as a move to promote right-wing politics, and Wikipedia should be fully neutral.

2) List of countries by system of government contains sections that that cover one party states etc for people who particularly want to see those things covered – this article could be seen as a WP:FORK 'content fork' of that.

3) If (or 'when', if the AfD fails) the definition is made to be properly broad, then many would say the United Kingdom should be in one of the sub lists - and France etc too - where does it end when this is done properly? Narrowing definitions to what is 'manageable' always ends up being exclusionist and ultimately biased. A manageable (or ultimately useful) list could not be made, and there would be unavoidable bias involved in ordering the sub lists.

4) Where is the List of capitalist countries? It would be needed to balance this article. It hasn't been done because it can't be done – the label 'capitalist' could not be used to mean right-wing dictatorships, and would have to be used in the properly broad sense. As with the proper definition of 'socialist', lines can not be fully drawn, and so a conclusive list would be impossible to create – and it would be pretty pointless too. Similar to List of communist countries, it could be argued that a 100% capitalist society does not exist.

Ultimately this is all too simplistic – the world can not be organised into lists as basic as this one. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename, the main issue is that the term socialism is used vaguely. The list names three types of counties: those who were ruled by a communist party, those who have a constitutional reference to socialism, and short-lived political entities. Socialism is a wide term, and for instance most counties in Western Europe have had a ruling socialist (often being described as the sub-type socialdemocratic) parties most of the time since World War II. There is for instance no problem arguing that for instance Norway, or even the United Kingdom, is ruled by a socialist government. There seems to be an American bias in this article that uses the term socialism as in its most extreme meaning, excluding probably the majority of countries that have socialist governments. The criteria basically require that the list include only those socialist countries that either have a single-party system or otherwise have defined themselves as such by means of excluding opposition. Even Sweden, that has almost had a continual socialist government since the 1940, would never define the term in its constitution. The list is inherently biased, and the scope must either be widened or the term socialism removed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the keep-votes below seems to say "it can be neutralized", but none of the editors actually explain how it can be neutralized. To take my example down to the operative level, is how to define a country as socialist. What are the objective criteria of calling a country socialist? The answer is: none. In the end, whether a country is socialist is a subjective decission, because socialism has many variations, and exists as a wide array of mixed economies. Here are some examples of possible definitions:

The state owns all means of production (this would exclude most socialist countries, because for instance social democracy allows free market enterprise within the frame of socialism).
The state owns infrastructure, such as utilities, railways, school etc. This would include many European counties, but perhaps not the UK.
The state provides free medical care, old-age care, higher education, provides a pension and is what is often called a welfare state. This would include most European countries, but would exclude some poor countries, who while they have the basis of socialist, simply cannot afford those high-end elements such as free higher education and old-age care, and perhaps not even health-care.
The state provides the basic elements of the welfare state, such as secondary education and health-care. This would make Canada a socialist country.
The governing party defines itself as socialist. This would include the UK, but exclude Sweden, although most people would agree that Sweden is more socialist than the UK. However, UK would fall off the list in the (likely) event that the Conservatives won the up-coming election.

There are many more possible definitions of a socialist country, and the list requires an objective and verifiable yes or no answer to whether they meet the criteria. Because any attempt of such a list would be original research or not be verifiable due to scholarly disagreement and the inherent vagueness of the term socialism, the entire scope of the list would have to change (including its name) or the article deleted entirely. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- My logic is pretty much the same as the last afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for a few failed states which currently have no functioning government, every nation in the modern world utilizes socialism in a mixed economy, from Chile to China. This list attempts to draw sharp lines where no such lines can seriously be drawn, so it will always be inherently misleading. Well argued by Matt Lewis and Arsenikk. ~YellowFives 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename per nom and Arsenikk. One possible solution might be to rename the article something like "List of nominally socialist countries" or "List of self-identified socialist countries", and remove all nations whose official names and/or governing parties' names do not include explicit references to socialism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. "Socialist" is too vague and broad of a word to create a definite list from. The definition used in the article (i.e. countries that self-identify as socialist) is not the typical definition of a socialist state (besides the point there is no easily agreed upon definition) and is therefore misleading to call this a "list of socialist countries". Singularity42 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is of interest. Any discussion as to renaming should be on its talk page, not here. "List of nations self-identified as socialist" would seem to suffice -- but leave that to the other venue, not to AfD. Collect (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above vote looks like another 'rename', not just a plain keep. In terms of desired shared outcome, in effect this is similar to 'Delete or Rename'. I think AfDs can be a good place to find out what people want. There is no harm in offering suggestions - as Collect in effect did. In my view the list is better being deleted than remaining the same, hence this Afd. I think the information in the list should be presented in the relevant articles, and I really don't think Wikipedia would miss this list (after all - who has used it??). I do also think lists are over done on Wikipedia - theoretically you can make a lists on anything, and they tend to be very hard to get deleted once they are made. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - It is, indeed, a "plain Keep." Many things just should not or can not be decided here, and renaming is one of them. I present above one possible rename, but if we start debating names, this AfD could drag on for weeks. The article meets WP standards. If anyone is affronted by the name, then discuss it civilly on the article talk oage. Meanwhile, I do not like having my reasons misstated as a "vote." This is not the place for voting, it is the place for giving reasoning as to what the result of the AfD should bem and the closing admin ought not "count votes". Collect (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) #[reply]
      - Oh come on, comments in AfD's do not make them drag on for weeks! Renames are often a discovered result of genuine AfDs - which is what this is. I find pedantry here technically wrong and really unwarranted. Would you wikilawyer here you wanted to 'delete'? We have to find a solution, and the closing admin is not supposed to just go by a head count - you are right. But we all know that in effect our comments are like votes, whether it is ideal or not, and that closing admin often find they have to tally up and go by the vote when they would rather have more to work on. So whether a rename is even posible has to be looked at here, as (apart from being a obviously beneficial thing to do) it will also help the closing admin make a decision/recommendation. In any case, there is nothing wrong in having debate (or leaving suggestions) in here at all - to frown upon any constructive debate in Wikipedia seems crazy to me, and it can be welcomed wherever it occurs. How often do we see it in areas of nationality, after all? This welcoming of dialogue is especially true for articles/lists like this one, where the talk page (like the List itself) is hardly linked to, and the comments it does attract complain about inherent issues/bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please refactor your comments to avoid improper charges of "wikilawyering." And you do not seem to have weighed in on the talk page in question where I did, indeed, pose the issue. I acted there, as I said should be done. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scope of the list is for the talk page--I agree with Collect about what it ought to be. Actually ecamining the list, I see it divided into meaningful categories, and not lumping everything together as some seem to argue. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a tangled article that appears to attempt to produce a list of countries that have at some point self-identified as socialist, communist or other label that western sources have described as socialist. However as it includes countries that include constitutional references to some form of socialism that are not in practice socialist (by some definition that is not stated) and excludes those countries that are in practice socialist (by the same unstated definition) but do not explicitly self-identify as such in their name or constitution. While some of the lists or maps might be useful if a clear definition can be found, for example the list of countries that are or were Marxist-Leninist states, these would be better integrated with articles about that system of government (e.g. Marxism-Leninism) where they do not duplicate List of countries by system of government. Most of the article's contents is just a collection of vaguely defined poorly- or unencyclopaedic lists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pursuant to the discussion above, I hase posted the question of title for the article where it belongs - on the article talk page. An AfD is not the place for extended discussion of what words mean in the US, or what exceptions to use of a word may be - that is best left to the article talk page. Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or rename It is quite possible to make a list of socialist countries in the world if one clearly differentiates which branch of socialism they are applying (Marxist-Leninist, Arab, etc.). I should also raise the question of whether two nominations for deletion on the same day do not constitute an instance of Gaming the system. Ladril (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What, pray tell, are you talking about? The first nomination was in February 2008. The second came in December of that year. And the current one came almost a year after that. Am I missing something here? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Explanation: it may be that the second nomination notice was not removed for a long time. I'm quite sure I saw it yesterday. But anyway, this isn't the main point. See my comment below. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is going to be a big troll magnet, with people constantly posting either United States or Canada, and its another arbitrary, unencyclpedic list. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has page protection policies for such cases. Ladril (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it can be neutralized. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was possible to make a list of socialist countries in 1989; by logic it is possible to make one now. I just started to make edits to the page yesterday, and if you see my edit history you'll find I have done a lot of work on political geography-related pages. I ask for a few more weeks to work on the page and see if it can be made more coherent and consensual. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be possible to make many lists for any given year using varying definitions of "socialist" and various criteria for inclusion. That doesn't necessarily make any of them encyclopaedic lists though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I chose 1989 as an example because the Soviet bloc was still in existence back then. Now, I don't believe the criteria for 'socialist' are as fuzzy as some people seem to believe. To deny that a list of socialist countries can be compiled is to deny socialism ever existed as a political system. What needs to be done is to find a consensus view on what is a socialist country. That's far from impossible. It has been done on other geography pages and it can be done for this one. Ladril (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem with that statement is that Soviet-bloc style socialism is just one of a variety of definitions of socialism. For example few people would dispute that Hugo Chávez's government in Venezuela is socialist, but equally few people would describe it as being similar to the socialist regime in Cuba. It seems from the tone of your comment that you are equating socialism with communism, which I get the impression is not an untypical viewpoint in the USA but is not at all common in Europe. I am not denying that a "list of all countries that have at some point in their history have described themselves as "socialist" (using any definition of "socialism") in their constitution or in the name of the country whether or not they were socialist in practice" is possible, indeed this is what the article currently is, what I'm saying is that such a list would be neither useful nor encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The impression you have about my position is wrong. I do not equate socialism with communism (a communist society is one where the working class owns the means of production and there is no need for a state; definitely not what socialism was in theory nor in practice). I also do not believe that any country that calls itself socialist is inherently one, because if that were the case, Nazi Germany would be in the list. However, it's defeatist to assume that no serious list of socialist countries can be compiled. If you consider socialist a country which declared to follow Marxist doctrine and that nationalized and collectivised the means of production, and/or followed other socialist doctrines such as Indian socialism, Arab socialism, African socialism, etc., a useful list can be compiled. Ladril (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further comment before anybody closes A central concern seems to be that there are nations that use the word 'socialist' to define themselves while not really being socialist in a political and economic sense. I agree with the concern. However, one cannot deny that countries have applied different socialist doctrines. Thus, it is easy to find academic studies on Indian socialism, Arab socialism, and African socialism as political doctrines and systems applied in specific countries. If we base the list on academic sources I believe consensus views can be found in a painless way. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I concur. —Sesel (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable and useful list. If there are any neutrality problems, they can be fixed. --darolew (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the problem of this page is that it merges different situations starting from pure nominalistic bases. Marxist-Leninist countries, also called Socialist or Communist states (a little note for Matt Lewis: before 1917, in all world, not only in America, the word 'socialism' was interchangeable with 'communism'), are a clearly defined group of countries. The section "Non-Marxist-Leninist" enlists an undefined number of heterogeneous countries on various bases instead: what is the link between Portugal and USSR or India? To make an exemple, it is as to create a page called List of Presidents Roosevelt speaking about both Theodore and Franklin Delano, starting from the fact that they had the same surname.... --Cusio (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interchaneable with communism before 1917? I can't see that being the case. What about Marx? He clearly stated that a socialism can lead on to communism - ie it was one of his societal stages. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marx did use the words 'socialism' and 'communism' in an interchangeable way. The distinction between the two as different phases appeared first on Lenin's State and Revolution. Ladril (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but keep. Providing it's renamed to something like 'List of self-declared socialist countries', I don't think there's any problem with it. It's impossible to provide an objective classification of 'socialist countries', but this list doesn't try to do so: it states 'This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions.' That seems acceptable to me, providing it's well-referenced. Inevitably people will try to vandalise it to add countries that don't fit, but that doesn't mean the basic idea of the list is flawed. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Vote of nominator). I feel strongly that ideas for renaming/improvement should be at least proposed here. Esp for article improvement - it is far too easy at AfD's to say "keep - and improve", often by people who have no intention of looking at it any further. The rename (if it came to that) would have to be a good one - I would rather see the list deleted, and the info moved into the relevant articles. Remember that the definition of 'socialism' can still change between 'self-defining' countries! Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion nominations are not a majority voting procedure. What defines whether the article stays or not are the arguments, not the number of votes. Just to let you know. Ladril (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What keeps making the list confusing is that the criterion for defining a socialist country is one where the constitution says "this is a socialist state". I challenge this view. I would propose defining a socialist country as one where the legal system explicitly states that the means of production are not owned by individuals, but by the state for the collective good of the people. Even the constitution of China says this to this day, so I think this is a safe bet. This would make the list shorter but also more coherent to everyone, I believe. Ladril (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view that would make a decent definition of a communist state, but a poor one for a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, the definition of 'socialism' I subscribe to is a Leninist one, where putting ownership of the means of production in the hands of the working class is the 'socialist' step, while further transition to a classless society represents the achievement of 'communism'. I think this reflects history quite well, as no modern society has ever achieved communism (so strictly speaking, there can be no list of 'communist countries'). Perhaps this debate is better left for the article's talk page, but how would you define 'socialism' then? Ladril (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To me, socialism is an ideology that is opposite to conservatism and occupies a similar, but no more or less extreme, range on the political spectrum. That is, it is about things like a welfare state, state education, public healthcare that is free at the point of use, regulation of business with the aim of preventing excesses of capitalism, public services provided by the state. This is a far less extreme definition than that you subscribe to, and quite probably an artifact of my exposure to European-style socialism (probably closer what another commenter on here described as "social democracy" which to me is nearly synonymous with "socialism"). In name this would make Britain a socialist country, given this was the historical ideology of the Labour Party, but should the Conservatives win the next election, Britain would not belong on the list as the Tories are avowedly not socialist, despite the practical differences in actual policies not being great. All this just illustrates how much use a list of this sort isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I have several objections to your definitions, but I'll stick to a major point for the sake of brevity. There is a major difference between socialist states and socialist governments. Several countries have seen a socialist party achieve political power, but if the state institutions are not reformed so as to give a state a socialist structure (with an emphasis on the working class as the group in power, state property over the means of production, etc.) we can't speak of a socialist state in such a case. The entire Soviet bloc is a case in point of a group of socialist states.

It's true that defining a socialist state is not always easy, and some leeway is needed. However I don't believe European social democracies fit the definition. They never adopted the discourse of taking property over the means of production from capitalists. Ladril (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just notified some relevant portals/articles about this AfD (according to the guidelines). I did not have the time to do this when I opened the AfD, and then unfortunately I was offline for a few days. It seems that people are not aware this list exists, and the posibilities of merging into articles etc, means they need to at least be aware of this AfD. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It uses a precise definition of requiring the country to describe itself as socialist in its name or constitution. This is not the same as social democracy (as seen in Europe) or socialist governments getting elected. Fences&Windows 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I am the source for most of the list (I double-checked and indeed I am), but I did not create it according to that criterion. That "constitutional" definition was added later by someone else. In the main, there were three criteria I considered: identification of the state or sole ruling party with Marxism-Leninism (the most straightforward criterion); states (or sole ruling parties) defined by a non-Marxist form of socialism; and states whose sole ruling parties did not (to my knowledge) adopt explicit socialist language but emerged from a strong left-wing socialist or communist-aligned milieu (Cape Verde is a good example of this one). My thought process was based on practical interpretations of socialism and communism, not theoretical considerations. I won't take a side in this discussion because (a) my list might justly be labeled original research and (b) I think the list is useful. —Sesel (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise that you shouldn't have created a list based on your own knowledge and thought processes, right? For heavens sake, next time you edit an article stick to using what sources say and not your personal musings on the topic. Fences&Windows 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - These weren't my "personal musings." I had credible sources to list them. This edit was three years ago. My approach was probably mistaken, but sources can still be found to back up the list and I think it can be repaired. In any event, I have no intention to try to reinstate this article if it is deleted. I don't like your confrontational tone after just my first comment on the issue and a legitimate explanation. —Sesel (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Credible sources often conflict with one another. This is why editors have to reach consensus views to define what goes in an article and what doesn't. I don't believe the list creator took a wrong approach by trying to adopt a definition of socialist country, even if I would dispute some of the choices myself. Ladril (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename As said above. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as "no consensus". Relisting is done when insufficient participation. The discussion had sufficient attention, which clearly shows that the opinions are polarized, and they will remain polarized as long as the article remains in bad state (unreferenced). I strongly suggest to continue the discussion about article improvement in article talk page. Otherwise all useful things uttered will be helplessly lost in AFD archives. Timurite (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a very good point about when to relist and when not to. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently original research The Four Deuces (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf, original research is just the beginning of the problems here. JBsupreme (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Politically biased and so contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criterion that a country is listed because at any time in the past it was declared socialist carries with it the hopelessly biased assumption that socialism somehow marks the country forever. What's next? A list of countries that ever suspended civil liberties and fell into fascism? And why not also a list of countries that ever practiced laissez faire? You can't read history that way and maintain a neutral point of view.--Dbratland (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses countries which self-described themselves as socialist or "Marxist." Hence the queue of !votes is slightly misleading. Were a country to self-describe itself as "laissez faire" that would be a valid list. We do have a "List of kingdoms" etc. And Dictatorship has a list of them. Sorry -- in line with other WP lists. Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That socialism was a historical reality during the 20th and 21st centuries cannot be denied. What is intended with a list like this is to show that some countries experimented with socialism during a specific time period. I don't think that's advocacy or biased POV. Likewise, a sourced list of fascist countries would not be any more unencyclopedic than any other article of the many that already exist about fascism (though I would prefer to call it a 'list of national socialist countries'). Ladril (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above comment totally at odds with what Wikipedia is about. It uses particular definition(s) of socialism for its argument (and there is nothing 'experimental' about my own socialism, and there are millions like me in the UK alone), and it admits to WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't about proving anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. there is already something similar in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country Ladril (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose is to show the time period when some countries called themselves socialist, and argue that it is meaningful because of when that happened, then first, the list should be deleted and a timeline should be created, and second, it's original research.

A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government. --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is sourced, how can it be original research? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information.

As for the timeline, it can be done.

"A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government." Well, they have in common that they can be listed. Ladril (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you choose to arrange facts in a particular way, and exclude other facts, you are expressing an idea. It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary. The idea behind how you choose to arrange the facts has to come from somewhere -- you either cite that the idea is widely accepted by mainstream, reputable sources, or you admit that you made up the idea yourself and publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. If it can be proven this is not OR, then delete the page and make a timeline. If it is purely OR, then delete the page and leave it be. --Dbratland (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to the above that sources on their own are never enough. Articles (and especially Lists, as they connect entities intrinsically) need purpose, balance, WP:weight, reliable sourcing (WP:verifiability and WP:SOURCE), must pass neutrality (WP:NPOV) and No Original Research (WP:NOR), and must also pass WP:REDFLAG. Articles must generally avoid containing forked information (WP:fork), nor be a WP:coatrack article designed to make a point (the 'experiment of socialism' perhaps?). If I had a penny for every time I came across some variation of this skewed logic on Wikipedia: Source(s) collected/discovered = any form of developed statement/assumption/creation from the sourced 'fact/facts' is/are allowed. It's all in the guidelines . Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word 'experiment' is not POV-charged. In the dictionary experiment is defined as "an innovative act or procedure". Besides, no one is arguing for its inclusion in the page lead. Ladril (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary." We completely agree. However, there is no shortage of third-party sources defining what a socialist country is and providing lists of them. As is done for all lists (even featured lists) editors should try to arrive at a consensus as to which definitions to favour the most. No one is trying to exclude "facts" from the list. In fact the objections to the list seem to come from people who make claims that just about any country can be included in the list (or arguments to that effect). If that's the case, it's up to them to find reliable sources to justify the inclusion of the UK in the list (as they have argued on this very page). Ladril (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You talk as if a list once made is established, and then it's up to others to make it work. Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles. And it would still retain all the problems related above. The US has a socialist history too, and many of its services are still state run. Wikipedia lists are not adventure playgrounds to explore possible boundries: we have main articles that should cover these matters. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles." That assuming we could find a consensus view to define the UK as a socialist state. I honestly doubt we can. Having a socialist party in power is not the same as building a socialist state. Ladril (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some (but not all) definitions of socialism the UK's welfare state and National Health Service make it a socialist country. Having a socialist party in power is an equally valid, although different, definition of what makes a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt any sources would back that up. Ladril (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to say why? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Would you like to explain why you feel this article should be kept? AfD is not a vote, and so simply stating "keep" (or "delete", etc) without explaining why you think that does not normally help a consensus emerge, and they are thus routinely ignored by the closing administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not elaborating, but my keyboard is so badly broken I could only type "keep" with it and be legible. I think it is a legitimate topic to have a list about, since socialism is well documented and would be a large enough topic to cover. If the issue is clarity, perhaps we could insist that the article cover only countries with socialism explicitly mentioned in their constitutions or their founding. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Socialism is an interesting concept, with its wide range from the British labour party to the cuban communists. There is a connecting ideology, and |(sometimes) an attempt to opose the capitalist status quo. The fact that, in 2009, there are enough such countries to form a list is remarkable. The comparisons between them yield some fascinating insights. How can this list be anything other than notable? Now, some of the arguements appear to be ideologicial: we don't like socialists so exclude them from WP. others seem to be about classification: who qualifies? The first is no reason to delete, and the second is far less likely to occur without a list. Deleting an article because it causes healthy debate is not something I am comfortable with. OK, the accuracy problem makes it appear un-encyclopaedic, but tough. WP can be edited whenever there is an election: it usually is. --Brunnian (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That there is such a wide range is an interesting feature of socialism but it does not make a useful list - we already have articles on the different forms of socialism, and a list of countries by form of government. The comparisons between them might be interesting, but they are almost certainly original research. Note also that you seemingly see this list as a "list of countries that currently have any type of socialist government" whereas Ladril apparently sees it as a "list of countries that have ever had a Marxist-Leninist government and state structure or have declared themselves to be 'socialist' (meaning Marxist-Leninist) at any point in their history". The two are very, very different lists - that the proponents of keeping can't even agree on what the list is a list of seems as good an argument to delete it as any. Doubly so when you add in the problems of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV (at least one of which is inevitable in every interpretation of the list I've seen here). Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming there is a lack of consensus on what the list should contain, per guidelines it is preferable to work towards consensus on talk pages rather than to delete pages arguing no consensus (especially if you haven't used the article's talk page to seek the consensus in the first place). Besides, the list of states by system of government does not replace this one, for several reasons. One of the most important is that if you're going to have historical entries for socialism in an encyclopedia, by logic you need a list of countries who were socialist.Ladril (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your characterization of my position is incorrect. I'm willing to argue for the inclusion of non-Marxist socialist states - such as Tanzania - on the list. On the other hand, I'm not sure about other cases. But this is a debate for the article's talk page. I believe the time spent arguing here could be better spent improving the list. Ladril (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- e/c I don't think anyone here is really trying to censor the mention of socialism - if anything it is the oposite in a sense. You seem to have a very 'idealistic' idea about what Wikipedia sets out to do. Wikipedia is meant to inform certainly, but is never supposed to be provocative or stimulating in quite the way you feel comfortable with (which is others discomfort of course). Any stimulation should be a side effect of neutral and encyclopedic information. If this list is unencyclopedic, it should be deleted full stop. That is the 'toughness' of the Afd process, and it will give editors the time to improve the area of socialism on Wikipedia in the articles that are both approved and actually linked to. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If people want to keep this list, why not sandbox it, or copy it into a wikiproject perhaps? Then link to it in your discussions. It is Original Research, and not mainspace stuff at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of "want" or "not want" -- it is a question of whether sufficient and valid reasoons for deletion are presented. Lists in general are found on WP and not deleted as OR, so that is not, in itself, a reason for deletion. See Lists of Kingdoms, Dictaroships and more -- each amd all of which are OR by the logic presented in this discussion. WP has invariably ruled that lists are not OR for trivial reasons. WP has over six hundred thousand examples of "List of" as an article name or redirect. Collect (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the majority view is that Wikipedia is too big (not strictly in an exclusionist sense, but due to too many unknown/forked/non-notable/synthesised/etc articles). Many also feel that unattended Afds should delete as default. There has always been a problem with article and list removal on Wikipedia. I admit that I have seen an un-policy and unwieldy list pass a small Afd before now. But that doesn't make it right. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an excellent reason why "default to delete" is not policy. Sox hundred thousand lists await your nomination for deletion <g>. Collect (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason was that then? It's only for unattended AfDs. If a list has no links or contributors then it hasn't been properly realised. I can't see the sense in supporting lists you've never seen anyway. I appreciate solidarity, but.. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have serious doubts a consensus will be reached. Opinions seem too polarized. Like I've said often, I would prefer we took this time to improve the page. Ladril (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename at the very least, delete otherwise: the socialist article says that the term itself is difficult to define, and this article seems to be more about ex-communist governments. There are countries such as France which had a government in the not-so-distant past formed by the Socialist Party, but because the country indicates that it is a republic in its constitution, it is not included. This article has neither a WP:NPOV name nor NPOV content. With the name Socialism in the title, I doubt that this article will ever be NPOV, as each country in the world has a different opinion of what socialism means. Indeed, even within countries themselves, people cannot come to any agreement on the appropriate definition. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A section about name is on the talk page. Collect (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments 1. 'Socialist' is a more neutral name than 'Communist' to refer to these states because the vast majority of them adopted the name socialist (making the term 'communism' more of an imputation). 2. Also, as said before, the definition of what is a socialist country should be reached through consensus. This is done for every list on the encyclopedia and I don't see why it can't be done for this one. 3. No, a state does not become socialist merely by having a socialist party come to power. Many of the former socialist states of Eastern Europe have seen the Communist/Socialist parties come back to power and this does not mean they became socialist states again. 4. I believe the best comment made on this page about the list is the one by Cusio above (practically ignored so far): the major problem with the list is that states are chosen on a purely nominalist basis. The list needs a lot more research and consensus, and a more academic definition of socialist state, but not deletion (especially not if the deletion is intended only to prove the point that socialism can't be defined). Ladril (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Also ok with no consensus close, based on diversity of opinion. I can't believe the teabaggers have not added the United States to the article yet.--Milowent (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how words can have different meanings in different parts of the world. I can see diversity in socialism's definition, but not particularly in the opinions on what to do with the list. They are two different things. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exocious[edit]

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

Barely coherent, unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MuffledThud (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also per WP:NFT - article author is the inventor of the word. From WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sooner the better, obviously. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per all above, Best, Darigan (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let it WP:SNOW. Fences&Windows 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 22, 1973[edit]

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

Wikipedia typically does not have articles about individual days, and this is already covered in 1973. Prod contested by author, claiming that it's rare that a single day has four major historical events, but unless that rarity can be shown to be notable through reliable sources, it wouldn't justify an article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some RS actualy discusses the coincidence. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above thisisace (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An individual day. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. a reference would need to be provided that commentators that year thought this was a particularly eventful day. i dont see the list of events as that "eventful" myself. lbj dying and a boxing match: no. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November snow delete not significant historical date. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to pile on, but in addition to the notability issue, it's a completely unsourced article, without even any internal links. The snowball is growing fast here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK underground[edit]

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

The UK underground scene has changed over the years and will mean different things to different people. "UK underground" or "UK underground scene" is an attractive proposition for an article, but as the term can be used to refer to different things at different times, depending on the speaker, it cannot be used in the same way that Beatnik or Hippie or Madchester is used. It is too vague. It may refer to graffiti artists, hip-hop or garage music, or the Punk scene. The material in the article appears to be contentious speculation on a loose term that has not been clearly defined by a reliable source and so requires a bit of original research to pull together mentions of the term and try to make something out of it. While there are aspects within the article that are notable - such as the underground press, psychedelic music, etc - pulling together these elements into a cohesive article is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a content dispute. Proper coverage can be discussed on the article talk page. This is no more SYN that any other general article about a period , but it would help to have some refs talking about it in a general way. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG said it correctly, there is plenty here to work with and improvements to the text, expansion of the wider social context and more specifics as well as more refs will help...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec x 2) The term is an established historical usage for a specific cultural movement, which was active approximately mid 1960s - mid 1970s. Numerous sources, both contemporaneous and subsequent, use it in this way, e.g. the recent Tate gallery book, Summer of Love.[15] It has a distinct identity: The underground or alternative society – and the term was used widely, unselfconsciously and proudly – of the Sixties was an international phenomenon.The Independent (2002) Wikipedia follows established usage and to not do so is original research. It has also been used to refer to other activities at different times, but that does not invalidate this usage. Tony Elliott specifically differentiates its earlier from its later usage.[16] When this happens, the solution is to disambiguate, not to delete. The article is not "contentious speculation" or WP:SYNTHESIS, as the various elements that are present in it are referred to by the sources as part of this movement, e.g. Floyd were the official group of the underground. The bible of the underground was the International Times, the meeting point of the underground became the UFO club.The Guardian (2006) Release, an underground organisation[17] the Arts Lab ... was an "epicentre" of the underground scene.[18] At the time of the nom, there were 28 references listed on the article talk page,[19] and a reading of these clearly establishes the legitimacy of the article content. It is standard editing practice to combine information from different sources which address the same subject in order to create a comprehensive article about that subject. Ty 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace4545 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is necessarily of high importance culturally, not only in Britain but because of the UK Underground's prominent (historically and currently) role in the international scene. If the article has shortcomings that need rectifying, it should be fixed ... else that applies to 2/3 of WP content. No doubt there are those who'd rather see WP get all high-minded and stuffy, but this sort of thing is of real flesh-and-blood interest to a huge chunk of Earth's creative citizenry. The very idea of eliminating such things is dangerous to the very concept of WP itself. Twang (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: important article on key aspect of 1960s/70s UK culture. Important to note that various strands - music, magazines, festivals, drug culture etc. etc. - were totally intertwined in a single cohesive movement at the time. Article title may need to be made more time-specific, and article certainly needs improving. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip R. Bjork[edit]

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

~~I can't find any reliable sources on google search. It is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)~~Withdrawn - The article has been improved a lot and now has sources. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 19:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you think this article violates WP:BLP? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. "Professor" is not an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as actually, Google Books turns up many sources, noting for example that he is the "director of a museum". See also here, where he is listed as an "Important People in the Museum’s History" and one of only a few there to have a biography posted that notes, "Dr. Philip R. Bjork (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) was appointed Director in 1975." In terms of larger importance, please note here: The first indisputable remains of Iguanodon (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from North America: Iguanodon lakotaensis, sp. nov. David B. Weishampel and Philip R. Bjork, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1989, 9(1):56-66. He is partially credited with a major discovery and the aforementioned essay is indeed cited elsewhere. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy found the first Iguanodon fossil in North America, surely that's notable? Sasata (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant GBooks and GScholar hits indicate significant contributions to field satisfying WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article meeting all criteria for notablity. Ikip (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin please note this article has been signifigantly improved, since it was put up for deletion.[20] Ikip (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaur page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete, unless sources can be found to establish the basic facts of this person's life (when he was born, whether he's still alive, whether he was a tenured professor, and so forth) and to establish his notability. I'm turning up a few papers he wrote or contributed to—though neither their number nor the numbers of citations indicated by Google Scholar are very impressive—but absolutely no substantial treatment of the person himself him in reliable independent sources. As things stand, there is no evidence that the article satisfies the requirements of WP:PROF, or even of the GNG. Deor (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when he was born? I don't think that is a requirment for notability. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the nominator has withdrawn his nomination; but since some respondents have advocated deletion, this AfD is not eligible for a speedy keep close. I'd like to see what some editors other than the usual ARS crew have to say. Deor (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Your implication above is that you do not care what the "usual ARS crew" has to say, which is needlessly insulting to these editors. But even if you still want to assume bad faith on these editors' part, User:Sasata (an editor with whom I am not familiar but who has indeed worked hard on this article) is hardly part of some "crew" and says to keep. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have surely not agreed in every AfD in which we both participated and he also said to keep. And as far as anyone else who said to delete initially, one has removed his comments altogether and even the nominator has withdrawn. That makes at least four non-ARS regulars who have changed positions or said to keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as notability had been asserted and sourced and the subject of the BLP passes WP:PROF. And I did not opine until after having a hand in improving the article. WIth respects to Deor, that I might be a part of the "usual ARS crew" does not mean I have some sort of kneejerk response to opining a keep, as I actually do what I can to improve the encyclopedia. There's no need to wait for a non-ARS input if the concerns of the nominator have so heartily been addressed that even the nominator has withdrawn. Again and with respects, that suggestion seems to indicate that editors belonging to ARS are somehow second-class citizens and that their opinions do not matter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. Exactly which criteria of WP:PROF are met here? I'm not seeing any at all; nor have I found any sources that might back up any claim to satisfy any. Deor (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure: "director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines " shows him an acknowledged expert in his subject who has made significant impact. .. Discovering multiple species also shows that DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To Deor: most telling is Wikipedia:BIO#Academics stating "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources (emphasis mine). Even were they the only sources available, primary sources could be used to source notability for an Academic. However and thankfully, secondary sources have been provided.

Even more interesting is the text of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (WP:PROF) which offers "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines" and "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." (again, my emphasis). Among the indicators as provided by WP:PROF, I note

"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact to his field. Such discovery has been sourced.
"The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas has a significant impact on how his field is taught at academic institutions. His discovery is cause for existing books to require being re-written and course sylibi to be changed.
"The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society" Perhaps it might be argued that serving as director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is not major, however respected that position might be... but I can accept that it is indeed major and influential.
"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" Again, discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have existed in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact even outside his field, as indicated by the provided news articles.

I applaud the work done to the article by others and the sources added. WP:PROF is an very inciteful guideline that covers the special instances or academic notability, as it allows a much wider consideration than most other WP:BIOguidelines because of the nature of the "world of ideas". I suggest it be read in detail by any opining herein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're not very convincing. Has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources—only 14 citations for the Iguanodon paper hardly suggest "a significant impact to his field", and as for "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", there are no sources at at all in evidence that attest to any significant impact. With regard to your points 2, 3, and 4, I rather doubt that you yourself believe that Bjork "made a significant impact in the area of higher education", "held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution" (I've yet to see any evidence that he even taught at SDSM), or "made substantial impact outside academia". Such obvious overreaching and misrepresentation of accomplishments does little service to either the article's subject or your argument. Deor (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might agree to disagree, as guideline's allowing latitude in the cases of Academics is to me very clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in addendum, I see no claim in the article that he taught at SDSM, only that he was director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology... and THAT is sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. WP:PROF Either #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." or #6: "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)". The cited sources, showing Mr. Bjork has described several species or genera of prehistoric animals, and these works have been cited in later works, also satisfies me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear impact on discipline. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep! The cases above are quite convincing. Dream Focus 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets Wikipedia's notability standard of WP:PROF. Laurinavicius (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:PROF, and is thus notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article has improved a lot since I nominated this article for deletion. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the SPA IP !voters, there's no support for keeping this article. It might be possible to write an article about Meara, but this article is not it. Fences&Windows 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Meara[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is an ad. It began as an ad, created at Children's Hospital Boston by John Meara himself, though he farmed the writing of it off to multiple people. At that time, some two years ago, the article included only a c.v. and a bunch of external links to organizations this surgeon was once associated with. Since then, another editor has turned this resume into a promotional rant about health care quality and techniques used in maxillofacial surgery. ALL of the cited references are concerned with describing the practice of surgery in general, Dr. Meara is not prominently featured in any of them. I would have speedied this as a G11 due to overwhelming evidence, but this survived a prod some time ago. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jesus christ. This reads like the stuff they send me to donate money for charity. It is a gigantic ad. My sig says it best --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also delete all of the images used in the article. Blatant advertising. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure that whoever John Meara hired to write this had decent intentions, this is nothing further than a publicity stunt. All doctors have chosen a noble profession, but that doesn't make them all worthy of a wikipedia article...especially when it's shameless publicity. Each of the headings read like an individual article, and few of them directly have ANYTHING to do with John Meara. Put the content on the sites that they rightfully belong on and get rid of this.
Keep or Rename Under Notability (academics), working in collarboration with Partners in Health and Paul Farmer satisfies criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the present name*changed to delete--see below for the reasons. An article could be written, but the first step is to delete this one entirely.. Being " Plastic Surgeon-in-Chief of the Department of Plastic Surgery at Children's Hospital Boston.", one of the most important hospitals in the world, indicates recognition as having made a significant impact in his field, essentially the same as a distinguished full professor. Scopus shows 55 publications. Highest count 58, 33, 33 The article needs some drastic editing- I've started. COI is never a reason for deletion. There is a distinction between cleaving out the inappropriate parts of an article, & smiting promotionalism, and deleting all articles in which it appears. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never, really? Not even when it has its own speedy deletion criterion? This article is a poster boy for G11 and it will remain a G11 due to the promotional efforts of a concert of Dr. Meara's employees, as proven by the edits of the anon IP who voted in favor of keeping. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the criterion is that they be both exclusively promotional and that it can not be removed without fundamental rewriting. But see my comment below. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with modifications, as this page provides useful information for patients, families, medical students and surgical residents in all the noted areas....cleft, craniofacial, global health. The site is referenced with appropriate articles and does meet the "academic" criteria in the "notability" section of Wiki. Pubmed has 52 peer reviewed articles under "meara jg" on these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One !vote per editor, please. I've struck out your second one since you already included a "keep" comment earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ the info on the global health and the relationship with PIH is valuable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. This is the third !vote from the same IP. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Children's Hospital Boston is mentioned, however, as are Los Angeles, Melbourne, etc. This is a valuable resource that is not only support by selected publications and references, but Partners in Health as well.

Also, Anetode: there are thousands of anonymous IP addresses editing wikipedia daily. When did a wikipedia policy form that you must have an account to share your knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) — 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Loaded question, ain't it? Tell me, isn't it against Harvard computer lab policies to "use of any Harvard University owned computer or network for private, commercial, non-Harvard business purposes"? Or were you instructed to do so in an official capacity on behalf of HMS or CHB? One must disclose these things, you know. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the present name. I am in absolute agreement with User DGG. This man has clearly made a significant impact in his field and I believe the information presented in this article is infinitely valuable to the general public, especially those in need of Dr. Meara's help. Most families have a hard enough time as is trying to find solutions for their children with these very specific ailments, this page presents an opportunity to give parents information on how to help their child. I also believe this page should be kept for international reasons as well. Sure, we may have heard of Children's Hospital Boston if we live in the States, but what about an International family that is searching for an answer for their child?? This page can only help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — 98.14.118.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I need to say that I consider most of the four above comments to be extremely irrelevant arguments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its role is to provide the information about appropriate subjects under appropriate headings. An article on a plastic surgeon is not the place to discuss global health in general, or the various areas of plastic surgery. It's a place to present his individual career and describe briefly the specific notable contributions he has personally made--describe, not elaborate on in the manner of a promotion for his projects. I continue to think him notable, but comments like these do indicate a strong promotional campaign. I am continuing to remove promotional material. I suggest another look, to see that even such articles as this can be improved. I admit that after rereading some of the support,& some of the contents, I had a strong instinctive desire to remove the article. But more rationally, I think it can be rescued. But if the present nonsensical support continues, it's likely that the consensus will judge it not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you there. The arguments are clearly not "promotional" and they are certainly relevant. His individual career includes global health, and various areas of plastic surgery. Not promotional, straight facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

the above response is really discouraging. I have never voted before to delete an article on the grounds of the manner of its writing & defense here, but I conclude that the lesson has to be taught somehow. I've changed my position to Delete, & I'm glad I didn't spend any more time with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought there was no end to your patience. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the areas of international health and craniofacial surgery this page provides information as well as references that supports the academic leadership role of the surgeon, CHB and PIH (in global health) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.35.103 (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.118.35.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ DGG edits quite good - page now succinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.35.103 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.118.35.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- One !vote per editor, please. I've struck out your second one, since you already put in a keep immediately above. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because he works with Paul Farmer and Partners in Health does not make him notable. Get rid of this blatant self-promotion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.26.55 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - (It's shame really. Trying to promote oneself doesn't make you a bad person, does it? We're all acting like we hate the guy because he's got a promotional article that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. But still. Not much to add to the reasons above, so I'm just going to go for a rare "Per" !vote; and here it is) Per DGG, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't hate the player, hate the game ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom, self promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did find one biographical piece about him in The Age: [21]. If there were enough more like that then I think he would pass WP:GNG. But he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, the rest of the press I found mentioned him only trivially in the context of something else, and the self-promition is a definite problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the keeps looked worringly like argument from assertion, a Google Book search confirms their claim that the book is notable. http://books.google.co.uk/books?um=1&q=%22the+key+to+theosophy%22+-author%3Ablavatsky+-author%3Ablavatskaja&btnG=Search+Books Fences&Windows 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Key to Theosophy[edit]

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

This is a trivial content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Ash (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book by notable author, consistantly in print for 120 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the nomination was as a content fork rather than notability. So the need to split this information off from the main article should be at issue.—Ash (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general practice on Wikipedia is for seperate articles on notable creative works and their creators, which is especially so if the creator is otherwise notable for other things, as is clearly the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not believe there is a consensus on such a practice so the argument seems along the lines of other stuff exists. Happy for you to put me right with a suitable guideline.—Ash (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author seems notable. An article on an individual book would be normal. It does need sources however. Borock (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book by notable author. Edward321 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But the article includes references. Apart from the company press release, the rest seem to be from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were a few secondary sources from the original editor, and now there are more. The article is generally neutral in tone and content. What did the old, deleted version say? 72.66.75.215 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)— 72.66.75.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Comment note blatant WP:Conflict of interest by creator: this time it was created by User:VendorCredentialing, and last time it was created by the company's marketing director. MuffledThud (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primarily geared toward the healthcare market, Vendormate is retained by other organizations with the need to keep track of and screen their suppliers, vendors, and contractors in a centralized database... It strikes me as very unlikely that a business of this nature could ever achieve general notability outside its niche, and that reads like advertising to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passed my test - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this prejudice against ordinary businesses? This one is the topic of at least one news story and mentioned in others. If it was a band, comic book, video game, etc. there would be no question of deleting.Borock (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability in its niche is sufficient, if the niche is more than trivial. The professional healthcare purchasing market is not trivial. The company seems to have an important market share. I do have to point out that we want notable businesses, not "ordinary" ones--that was an unfortunate choice of words. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - small segment notability is still notable - Smerdis is on a wrong track on this one. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius "Pete" Peterson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cornelius "Pete" Peterson

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

While there are citations, the subject fails WP:BIO. Written apparently by a relative who has written numerous articles about WP:NN family members and coworkers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is something more about him that makes him notable. WP is not a Who's Who. Borock (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Borock, more info needed on notablilty Ace4545 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by StephenBuxton. Non admin close. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Weds Tahseen[edit]

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

No references that I can find. External links in the article are general places where one can search, and have nothing to do with the subject of the article. The film appears to be a family wedding video, clearly not anywhere near notable enough for an article. ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/early close this really should have been speedied... Non-notable film that even the article's creator admits is "private" for the family. Hazir (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Why the smurf is there a Wikipedia article about a private home movie? DarkAudit (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per the article: "The film is private to family only." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:NOTFACEBOOK and all of the above. Favonian (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits television program guides. See What Wikipedia is not. Please, let us not turn Wikipedia into a television program guide. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. How many other articles do we have just like this one? Please delete them all. JBsupreme (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits television program guides. See What Wikipedia is not. Please, let us not turn Wikipedia into a television program guide. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article looks like advertising and there is no real evidence of notability Fences&Windows 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashflow INSITE[edit]

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

In my opinion, this article should be deleted as it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for companies and organizations, WP:COMPANY. According to WP:COMPANY, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". Now, this article currently has three references and two external links. Of these, two of the references and one of the external links lead to one of the pages of the company's website, which is certainly not a reliable secondary source. However, The third reference is an online newspaper article, which does appear to be a reliable source, but Cashflow INSITE is only briefly mentioned, as it occupies only about a quarter of the article. Meanwhile, the second external link leads to an online blog archive, which does not appear to be reliable or acceptable, per WP:SPS. So, only one of five references and external links is a reliable, second-party source. Therefore, this article does not meet WP:COMPANY, as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Thus, this article should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has one decent ref, but still lacks notability, and is spam. Angryapathy (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage by Investment News at http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090612/REG/906129961/1097/INDAILYOPINION is enough to establish notability. It is reasonably in-depth and counts as more than a brief or passing mention. A reference need not deal primarily with the topic under discussion to be a valid one. The intention behind the "passing mention" reference in WP:NOTE is to exclude the yellow pages as a reference, not to exclude this sort of reference. - Eastmain (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web content or software, and unambiguous advertising including ""solution"-speak: the only personal financial management (budgeting) solution that offers client-advisor collaboration. Unambiguous advertising is a criterion for speedy deletion without further need for debate, and is so for a reason; but the Investment News website, even if it were widely read, would appear to be chiefly about other products and businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very marketroid and fails the plural sources part of the GNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even so much as a claim of notability, much less one backed up by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And its Spam Delete and WP:SALT --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let us give the article some time. Tone 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Media Studios[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, also seems a blatant ad. gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and further expand and source as first movie and television studio organized in the emerging UAE media industry. Format and style are to be addressed with regular editing, not deletion. Heck, I'll have a go at cleaning it up myself. This one seems a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marginal notability, and the size of the article seems to match its notability. Angryapathy (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you have evidence of significant third party coverage? rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to provide Western news coverage, as with their being the first movie and television studio organized in the United Arab Emirates, they could care less about Western press coverage and care even less about possible Western investers. Makes this a case of an unfortunate systemic bias. With respects, significant coverage is required only if notability is dependent on that coverage. The assertion of being the first movie and television studio organized in the UAE is the assertion of notability and as a "first", it has been verified... [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]... As a "first" that has been verified, it serves the project to allow this article to grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Davidson County Schools. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ledford Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school lacking reliable sources to establish notability of a school (per semi-consensus that pre-secondary schools are generally not notable).

Prod tag removed by new author. tedder (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, PROD removed by a sock of a blocked user. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even in bad-faith, an AFD doesn't hurt much. tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. I just thought it would help at the end of the day when determing what the consenus is (i.e. who objected in the first place). Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha- good to know. And it's certainly useful after the !vote is archived. tedder (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the school is not individually notable, the article could be merged into Davidson County Schools, the school district. But perhaps the references from this search are enough to add up to notability for the school. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is verifiable into Davidson County Schools. I don't think anyone will argue the notability of the district itself, and this is a plausible search term. JBsupreme (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Davidson County Schools per usual practice. Not a Blue Ribbon school and no separate claim to notability. It is, however, a useful search term and the district is a suitable repository for whatever factual information can be sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newshounds. He's only known for this webcomic, and the bulk of editors support a merge (though there is little sourced material to merge). Fences&Windows 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas K. Dye[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced BLP about a webcomic artist. Doesn't say why he's notable, aside from having written something notable. He's not a professional (in fact, the article explicitly states that he's trying to become a professional), and the article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable because he is the winner of the 2007 Ursa Major Award for "Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work". See here. ISD (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn’t notable because of that. At the very most this would be a notability factor for Newshounds. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you need a good source try Attitude 3: the new subversive online cartoonists. Hiding T 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about I merge it with Newshounds? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is an award wining comics creator. The article needs work and moves should have been made to improve it before nminating. (Emperor (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your comment is irrelevant. An attempt to improve it was made. I searched for sources, and couldn't find anything resembling a reliable source. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is "irrelevant"? Hardly civil. I thought highlighting one of the things which ticked the notability box is relevant. Equally, the fact you can't find sources online doesn't mean there aren't any - problems with the article should be flagged so that other people with access to other sources can try and fix the issues. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I meant to say that the latter part of your comment is irrelevant. Flagging the article is not a required precursor to AFD. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion is not a requirement either. And if you have a read of deletion policy you'll see that you should tag the page for clean-up. Hiding T 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. This is a BLP everyone, and as a community we have decided that extra caution has to be taken with them. Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newshounds. Within the context of that article, editors can determine what proportions to accord to the webcomic and to the author. Sometimes, an author attains a notability independent of his or her work. The lack of sources indicates that this hasn't happened. The comment "the fact that [The Wordsmith] can't find sources online doesn't mean there aren't any" suggests to me that there aren't any. As an aside, I'll say that I don't like reading phrases like "your comment is irrelevant"; but nominator did do his or her homework. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the information in this article is related to Newshounds. All relevent info should be merged and redirected there. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete willing to support MERGE Now webcomics are ... well they are a subculture of a subculture, but some are notable. Why is this comic needing a page for winning some random award? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an award wining comics creator. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to Newshounds per Mandsford. If and when he does something else that is worthy of note beyond a casual mention, we can reconsider this. GreenReaper (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as A7 Ged UK 08:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big League[edit]

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

Non notable fantasy football league with no coverage in independent reliable sources Jevansen (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shameless self-promotion of an Australian fantasy football league. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/close early Non-notable nonsense created for a private laugh between friends. How is this AfD still open? Hazir (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 as non-notable group. Fantasy sports leagues are inherently not-notable, the original Rotisserie League the lone exception. This is not the original Rotisserie League. DarkAudit (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt that this will survive AFD. However, should the decision be keep then please request Oversight to permanently delete the personal information I removed with this edit Stephen! ^Coming... 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/group, fantasy sports league. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for Speedy Delete Under A7. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodywood Records[edit]

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

This is a hoax, almost blatant enough for WP:CSD#G3, but as it has been in Wikipedia for over three years I bring it here. Notice the number of redlinks for everyone concerned and, in the "findsources" searches which I have put on the article talk page, the complete absence of "News" hits for the company, its parent or its founder, and of any indication from a reliable source that the company has ever done anything or even exists. The author IslandGal (talk · contribs) has no other edits. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax, just spam for yet another unknown record label. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems hoax, man... --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't quite call it a hoax exactly, it's apparently someone's attempt at starting a label that never actually got off the ground. Their offical site is just an empty "coming soon" message, and they don't seem to have actually released anything. Not a G3, but could have been an A7/nn-corp. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure it's a hoax, but it's certainly not notable. Reach Out to the Truth 22:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, I cannot find any appropriate references. Click23 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a list of other authors which are already mentioned on the main page, there is little point in creating another Blavatsky article for the sake of it. Ash (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a mention on the Blavatsky page, and that's all the book needs due to notability. Right now this article is bootstrapping its notable to her. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete \//\ - 09:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rationale is incorrect, this is not a content fork, this is a biography. enough independent sources exist to show notability. Edward321 (talk)
- I would be interested to see the independent sources demonstrating notability. In Google Scholar I only find two matches, in journals which would list any reprinted book on spiritual matters, and on Google News I find one mention in the Library Journal, again a publication in the business of listing any such publication. These sources are independent but do not address notability as defined by WP:BK. The point of the nomination is that unless notability can be demonstrated for the book rather than just for Blavatsky, then the article is a redundant content fork.—Ash (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Helena Blavatsky as it fails WP:BK.Click23 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources per Ash. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Book is not notable at all. NBeale (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all books are notable, and this article has zero sources. Bearian (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Famous topic, sure, but not a famous book. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - almost an ad for the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a dubious list of people "influenced" by Blavatsky which may only be Cranston's opinion, there is little point in creating a separate article. Ash (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the basis of this nomination is NOT a question of notability but that the article is a content fork.—Ash (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Reply I am confused by what you are suggesting; are you claiming that the book is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky because it is a biography? If the biography itself is notable, then it deserves its own article. So, I am confused as to how this is not a question of notability. Mrathel (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The basis of the nomination is that the stub article on this book is a content fork of the Blavatsky article. The guidance for content forks makes no special mention or exception for books. If this book has independent notability and was particularly influential there may be an argument for having its own article. At the moment the article has trivial content and I do not see any potential additional content available that will not just duplicate material about Blavatsky already available on that main page. To give an example, there are endless biographical books about Hitler (and each may have many hits in Google Scholar) but each book does not require an article unless the book's notability was not just that it piggy-backed on Hitler's notability.—Ash (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book is not independantly notable of Blavatsky, and does not need its own page. A mention on the Blavatsky page is sufficient. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unlike the other books considered for deletion on or by hpb today, this is from a reputable trade publisher, and i remember it getting some significant attention when it was published. the article as it stands is, of course, horrible, but i would seriously recommend it just get fixed up and left to stand. of course it has no notability outside hpb, as its a biography of hpb. i dont understand that argument. the question would be is it a notable book about hpb, and i say it is. i will try to find reviews if i can.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From your comment you may not be aware of the relevant guidance supporting the nomination, please checkout WP:CFORK. The book may meet the notability requirements as laid out in WP:BK, but this is not the basis of the nomination in this case.—Ash (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the referral to cfork. i hadnt read that as of yet. Im not sure that this applies here, though i would see how an endless series of articles on books by and about her would apply. i still think this book may deserve a stand alone article (i tend to support more stand alone articles on books in general, as long as they are "real" ie trade publications (i was a bookseller once)), but i do recognize that it more likely only deserves significant mention in the hpb article, and should not be spun out as its own article if refs are not found, as i see someone below has attempted. if i can find something to show notability, great, but if i dont i do support merge.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment As far as notability goes, this article does not meet the standards as presented, containing no information sourced to reliable sources. I have looked on google books toe see if there are any mentions of this book in relation to the subject, finding this, this,this, this ad, which is not a reliable source, but leads me to believe that there may be others,this,this, and this. I will not go so far as to say that these little references in other books are enough to claim notability, but there are a few that provide information than can be added to the article that can be verified. The text is clearly a well-known reference on the subject, but I am still neutral. Mrathel (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would say this shows adequate notability. the amazon.com page [28] references the initial publishers 50k advertising budget, which is fairly significant, publishers do this for their major frontlist titles. on the minus side, the book was picked up in paper by a small press associated with the movement, so it didnt have "legs" to justify a trade paperback reprint.I just linked references to this book in WP. not a lot, but some had not been linked yet. it does seem to be an important source book for articles on this subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding the Google Books issue, I would point out that this is a fairly recent book (as books go), so it's not very likely to have yet created a significant number of hits in "books". Is there a way to check the number of hits in newspapers or magazines?Wjhonson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Google Scholar at this link shows 28 additional hits.Wjhonson (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book was originally published 16 years ago, you may have been mislead by the ISBN relating to the most recent edition. Try looking for: Cranston, Sylvia (1993), HPB : the extraordinary life and influence of Helena Blavatsky, founder of the modern theosophical Movement, Tarcher/Putnam, ISBN 0874776880. As for the appearances in Google Scholar, these seem to be articles about Blavatsky rather than the book.—Ash (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability of the book. And no real content in the article. NBeale (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Helena Blavatsky as it fails WP:BK. Click23 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason to favor deletion over a redirect? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book is not notable by itself. Racepacket (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork per nom, as a soapbox, and as a non-notable book and lacking real content per NBeale. It is also what some Wikipedians call "fancruft". Alternately, merge into Helena Blavatsky as suggested by MacGyverMagic. 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

*Keep Since everyone wants to delete this, I say keep. Why did they change it to "Articles for deletion"? It used to be called "Votes for deletion". Tilliegone (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per Tilliegone. Mohangumatay (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tilliegone. ImprovEverywhere (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tilliegone. Shaycarl (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird topic, weird contributors. The above four are each other's sock puppets, and have admitted so in an SPI they filed themselves. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tilliegone. Those "votes" can be discredited. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a mention in a New York Times article, and it's referred to in scholary papers, however I don't see enough to qualify as significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT article, if I remember correctly, is a letter to the editor (I'm too lazy to search again). I found a lot of hits for "HPB: The Extraordinary Life" in Google Books (give it a try)--the book is heavily listed in bibliographies, but I couldn't figure out if it was heavily cited. I'm staying on the fence; I did not find good reason to say that this meets WP:N for books, but I wish that I had written a book that popped up in so many bibliographies. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our standards for a separate article on a book. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSNVersionProxy[edit]

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

Self-promotion, not notable, spam Erwin (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only 19 google hits. Polarpanda (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad and I can't find any significant coverage for this software. LoudHowie (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, is just a copy and paste from referenced site. Click23 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contensis[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable product; article by SPA. Sources are just a list of websites of customers. Unable to find any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gets a lot of google hits, and 8 google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, and many of the early ones are references to trade shows the company attended, articles published by the company, or directory listings. As far as news, there is one item related to the GMail domain owned by Contensis in the UK that is covered by the press--albeit very lightly. Aside from that one item, I don't see enough coverage to warrant notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The product has a customer base and usage equivalent to almost all of the other CMS vendors that are on WIKI, This is demonstrated by links to very prestigious customers, who would certainly not chose a product without notability. The product has been exhibited at trade shows for almost 10 years and is one of the UK market Leaders. Anyone serious about Content Management, would include Contensis in their list of vendors to explore. Contensis has beaten most of the other vendors listed on WIKI in competitive tender at one point or another. User:RichardC786 9:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not how notability works. You need press coverage or something like that. Polarpanda (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mental (film)[edit]

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

School project which hasn't received much (or any) attention in reliable independent sources. There are no Google News hits for the producer/director/writer of the film, no awards or reviews, no famous people involved. Fails WP:N by a wide margin. Fram (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable because there is no indication that the film meets any of the five general priciples of Wikipedia:Notability (films). For a film this new to be considered notable after failing the general notability guidelines, it should meet either the general principle criterion #1 ("The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") or #3 ("The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."). There is certainly no indication that the film has received any major filmmaking awards so it fails criterion #3. As far as criterion #1 is concerned, the article does not claim that the film was released or screened anywhere other than Eton College campus with the sole review coming from a student writing an article for the school's own The Chronicle. Any external sources are self-published: the official film website, the filmmaker's website and YouTube videos presumably uploaded by the filmmaker. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until such time as WP:NF can be met... however, currently fails. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LoudHowie (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Big Bird. Not often I say something 'per someone'. Peridon (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Use Your Fingers. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to Hitler's Handicapped Helpers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted material on a self-released demo album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. It was a self-produced demo tape with five songs, including "Mama Say", and it got them signed to a label, but it's a footnote in Bloodhound Gang history. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Use Your Fingers. From the bands website: Hitler's Handicapped Helpers really is a demo, a fact given away by the quality of the songs. The Bloodhound Gang released many demos that all eventually ended up on their first major-record-label-LP Use Your Fingers. If the songs ended up on Use Your Fingers this page should end up on Use Your Fingers. J04n(talk page) 02:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - per J04n above. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - per J04n. Click23 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only source in the article is a blog, the two links provided in the debate are listing-type mentions at best, and the argument from SAAFL amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On the talk page, the article is defended as "part of an attempt to raise the profile of volleyball in Australia", but Wikipedia is not for promotion. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Park Volleyball League[edit]

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

Fails our WP:GNG \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To whom it may concern, the nominated deletion of this article is based upon superficial research, and does not meet the criterion under which it has been tagged. The article has been tagged for not adequately reaching wikipedia's notability standards. Under notability policy, the article falls under the category of "organizations and companies". Upon consulting the policy for such articles, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The Murray Park Volleyball League does, indeed, meet this requirement. The South Australian electorate of Morialta sends out an annual publication, detailing the available sporting competitions within the electorate. This is part of the national Be Active [29] scheme - a plan to increase fitness/health levels and to decrease the problematic obesity epedemic. While the league is amateur in nature, it is a genuine league that is used as a stepping stone for higher-level volleyball honours in Australia. It receives significant recognition from independent, secondary sources, as shown by the aforementioned government example. This is no different from such leagues as the South Australian Amateur Football League, which has a wikipedia article that has never been questioned; I would like to point out that the SAAFL article only provides references that are written by the executives of the league itself, yet this is allowed on wikipedia. The proponents of the Murray Park Volleyball League have provided credible sources, and the article is still challenged. For these reasons that I have mentioned, the MPVL article should not be deleted.Higginson21 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it's notable. From what I can tell, this is an intramural program at Adelaide University. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, not even an attempt at a claim of notabiity in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The link is to a one page blog with no indication of notability, Google turns up nothing. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable amateur league. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this League is not an intramural programme. It is in fact played at the University of South Australia. Link may be found at http://www.infosearchweb.com/document_index.cfm?document_id=689&dataset_doc_id=13&subframe=sub_frame&dataset_search=&council_search=&council_op=AND. This information is slightly out of date. The League is no longer part of a fitness class but has developed into a thriving competition with 21 teams. The Campbelltown Council in Adelaide South Australia has been contacted to update this information. The lack of other links is due to the low status of volleyball in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mug811 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanda the Panda[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a comic that doesn't seem to demonstrate its notability. Has been notability tagged since June. Article also consists entirely of plot summary. If this is deleted, the article about its parent company should be deleted as well. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'm not convinced this does not meet notability requirements but I feel it needs attention from someone with more knowledge of the genre to me. With 25,000 G-hits, it seems a likely assertion that it is notable. Redfarmer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 google news hits, can't really tell if they provide substantial coverage. Polarpanda (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it get coverage [30], its also listed as the longest running comic of its kind, having been published continuously since 1992. Dream Focus 02:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Claims of "longest running comic of its kind" appear to be incorrect, as for example Usagi Yojimbo and Cerebus the Aardvark are much longer running. Starblueheather (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for the user but I think of the kind means of the same genre. This is hardly in the same genre as Usagi Yojimbo, unless Usagi Yojimbo has started doing furry since I last read him. Redfarmer (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought by "kind" they meant "anthropomorphic animal comics." If we want to discuss whether the longer-running anthropomorphic animal comic Usagi Yojimbo is a furry comic, maybe we should do it at List of furry comics where Usagi Yojimbo is listed, or Template:Furry comics where it is listed, or Category:Mid-importance_furry_articles where it is listed, and on and on and on. Starblueheather (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I guess I may misunderstand the genre. We seem to have a narrower definition than what I'm used to (I've always thought there was a connotation of a sexual or adult nature with furry). If that is not the case, I concede your point. Longevity isn't a very good argument anyway even if all parties agreed it was the longest running of its kind. Redfarmer (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:GNG. Crafty (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is very little coverage that I can find, which means it is going to fail WP:V as well as WP:N so I do (so I don't hold out much hope for producing even a well-rounded article, before we even look at notability). If anyone has any good sources to hand then add them. (Emperor (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment There may be some coverage of this company and its work in Comic Buyers Guide #1379 (21 April 2000), if anyone has access to that. GreenReaper (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrates[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to demonstrate adequate notability. The game has not been released yet (it is in open beta), and it was runner up (not winner) for a Gleemax award. The Gleemax website only existed for one year, so the notability of the award is questionable. It doesn't seem to have garnered much attention from press or anything else. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree this is a case of not notable yet. Fails WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per sources found below. I'm still not overwhelmingly convinced but they appear enough for WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a very well received and award winning game (I've just added a second award and some links) I think it achieves notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of that award is questionable, as well. The only source that might help establish notability is a mention at VH1 that 404s, an archived version can be found here. Seems to be a trivial mention in a blog-like format. If this game was well-received, as you claim, then surely it must have been reviewed somewhere notable? There's nothing at Mobygames, or even GameFAQs, which has fairly low standards for including a game. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jay is Games is notable - see its talk page for some links, the page needs some work. The IGF is a real event. GameFAQs and MobyGames seem mostly set up to cover console games - I don't see online/browser games in either of their categories. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser games are in fact covered by both. GameFAQs has Online/Browser and Flash, while MobyGames has Browser. But data for browser-based games is provided exclusively by the users of the sites, and GameFAQs has several restrictions on what browser and Flash games are allowed while MobyGames has none at all, so GF/MG's lack of a page for the game isn't necessarily a sign that a game isn't notable any more than lack of a Wikipedia article is a sign that a game isn't notable. I think its awards might be a better gauge. Reach Out to the Truth 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's also an article on gamasutra, a mention on Rock, Paper, shotgun, a mention on IndieGames.com, a mention at SIGGRAPH, a mention at GameSetWatch, another mention at Gamasutra, another (very trivial) mention at GameSetWatch, a mention at IGN. SharkD Talk 05:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good links from SharkD - the Gamasutra article refers to a "student postmortem" at gamecareerguide.com which will be indispensable for a Development section. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. MuZemike 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep: per sources found above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep nominator withdrew 7 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engreet[edit]

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

Taqi Haider (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ratliff[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. He doesn't appear to be notable outside this event. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, news fodder. P.S. this appears to be double listing, unless my browser is acting up. JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It must have happened when I had that twinkle error. I nom'd the page using it, but when I got here, it wasn't created yet, so I did it again, and that time it worked.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides this journalist having been a major contributor to Wired Magazine he was the subject of National Public Radio and San Francisco Chronicle interviews outside the "one event" the nom referenced.[31][32]. His work has been referenced in numerous books [33], again outside the "one event".--Oakshade (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable outside the one event. SirFozzie (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a few events he's notable for, not just one, so it doesn't really fail WP:NOTNEWS, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hillsong Church. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church Stockholm[edit]

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

Notability of this religious organization is not sufficiently asserted. Although there are secondary sources, these sources do not address the notability question. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hillsong Church Stockholm is also referred to as Hillsong Stockholm in news articles not Hillsong Church Stockholm. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 13:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillsong Church as this appears to be a chapter of it. There is no independent notability that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but I think that it is a (not so clever) idea, because then you will also have to redirect Hillsong Church Cape Town, Hillsong Church Kiev and Hillsong Church London, because they are also chapter of Hillsong Church according to your idea. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, if the outcome of this AFD is redirection, the others should be reviewed to see if the same should apply there. However, each needs to be reviewed on their own merit and don't have any real bearing on the decision for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep K, Plastikspork according to u what is the notable question. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per WP:ORG, there needs to be significant coverage. The sourcing in the article merely mentions Stockholm as one of the places where the church has expanded. Note also that this same guideline indicates that local chapters of natinal and international organisations are not usually notable indpendently unless significant coverage can be demonstrated beyond that chapters local area. None of the sourcing in the article meets these guidelines, and searching for more sources does not turn up anything that would establish the Stokholm instance of the church as independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey, This is from Wikipedia:ORG

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

1. CHECK

2. CHECK

Additional criteria are:

Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead.
The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

Point 1. CHECK, because DAGEN is a Swedish national newspaper, SMH is the newspaper for Sydney

Point 2. CHECK, because they are know around the world

It meets the requirements --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is the Stockholm chapter of the church international in scope? Where are the reliable sources to establish this? How does this chapter distinguish itself from the parent organisation? I don't see the sources establishing any of this. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the argument is that the Dagen articles are about the Stockholm congregation, and we do have the rule WP:GNG--technically, it is just past the borderline of notability. I agree the evidence is fairly minimal , since the key reference, [34] indicates they have only 92 members, but that was in 2006. I could find no later figures. I think the best way to deal with the Hillsong branches is to merge the articles. Looking at the template, I am a little concerned we are building a WW:Walled Garden. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hey yea it is true that they started of in 2006 with 92 people they where called Passion Church and changed to Hillsong Church Stockholm since then they have grown, but the numbers are not published yet. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 12:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just added a WSJ article as a ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey thx for your ref. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 14:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hillsong Church per WP:CLUB, "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." Click23 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas James[edit]

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

Extremely non-notable entertainer/personal trainer. The article reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia entry. Warrah (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like complete self-promotion to me. Author LJPT = Lucas James Personal Trainer? Formerly 'CelebrityPersonalTrainer' Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline G11. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a mile. Ray^Talk 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable in the extreme 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffersonian Christianity[edit]

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

No verifiable reliable sources exist to document the existence of this as a group or movement; and certainly nothing establishing notability or even tending to it. (Note that the article is about a current ongoing religious group or practice called "Jeffersonian Christianity", which is not the same as the religious beliefs Jefferson had, which are already well discussed at Thomas Jefferson and religion.) Tb (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from nominator:

A speed deletion request was denied here: [35], with the admin commenting: declined, A7 really doesn't/shouldn't apply to this, which is a religious denomination. Once the author is given a chance to add sources, take to AfD if you still believe that it lacks notability. I do not understand the admin's statement that A7 doesn't apply to religious organizations.

The author created a web page for this group, with content initially virtually identical to the article, though later the article was changed. See [36]. First the author said, "I found this website" [37] and when I asked if perhaps he had created it, he said he had: [38]. A Yahoo group was created by someone as well: [39] with virtually no content. Tb (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that speedy deletion was correctly declined, in that the article asserts a direct connection to a notable work of one of the founding fathers. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make sense; it's different from what the admin said, though it doesn't seem to matter much any longer. Such things are always judgment calls. Tb (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After searching Gscholar and Gbooks, I can find no evidence such a denomination exists. That said, "Jeffersonian Christianity" does appear to be a politico-social classification term, used to describe Christianity in America with a particular orientation called "Jeffersonian" (as opposed to, say, Hamiltonian or Jacksonian). It is possible that we might have an article on that topic of this name. But that's not this article, and this article could offer no contribution to it whatsoever. Ray^Talk 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources document a non-trivial religious organization existing today. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG: is not "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] reliable, and independent of the subject." Article is sourced to the topic's own website, single sentence bare mentions (which WP:NOTE describes as "plainly trivial" coverage), anonymously-authored pieces promoting FI courses and/or mentions by affiliated persons/organisations. Sources to date are:

Faraday website

[40][41][42][43]

Bare/no mentions

[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] (Most of which simply repeat the point that Denis Alexander is the FI's director)

Affiliated

[59] (McGrath is on the FI's Advisory Board)

Promotional

[60][61] (the latter isn't in the article, but has been discussed multiple times on article talk)
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would accept merge to to St Edmund's College, Cambridge, per RayAYang, as an alternative to deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the title of the collapsed section below, the "nom" has repeatedly stated that such questions belong on afd-talk. They have been answered there. The "nom" does not wish the answers to be reproduced here, and refuses to answer any follow-up questions that are not made on talk where they belong. Epeefleche's "hope" is therefore plainly stillborn. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for nom, hopefully w/nom's answers reflected directly below each question (see below)

Questions. Just so we're clear, unless otherwise indicated by you above, you agree that the indicated refs are: a) verifiable; b) non-trivial/incidental; c) reliable; and d) independent secondary sources?

You've misunderstood my question, as will I expect be clear if you re-read it.

Also, do you agree that:

in addition to those indicia we are to consider notable and demonstrable effects on education?
Is that a yes?
if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability?
But don't you agree that where the depth of attention is not substantial, that multiple less substantial independent mentions can be cited to establish notability?
evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability?
I'm confused ... perhaps our Qs and As are out of synch.
trivial coverage for these purposes means coverage such as (for example) newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories?
You would add? That's just your subjective view, correct?
Institutes are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and information about the Institute and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources?
Do you mean to say that you can't simply answer "yes" to that question?
Institutes activities that are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the Institute's local area.
And then it would be indicia of notablity, correct?
the Institute's major achievements, or other factors specific to the Institute, may be considered?
Do you mean to suggest that you won't consider the Institute's major achievements if they are not covered by third parties?

--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answers are on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Faraday Institute, where I said they would be, and where such lengthy lists of questions belong. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt to reproduce my answers here is against my express wishes and will be reverted by me. Any follow-up questions posted here (not on talk here they be belong) wil not be answered!

Please stop yelling. I'm puzzled. You moved my text. And then you yell at me? You're the one who started moving another editors' text. It makes sense for your to reply here, with your answers directly below my questions. Moving my text, and then failing to respond below my questions, renders the discourse gibberish to anyone seeking to follow it. Please stop moving/crossing out my edits. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your text once. When you objected to its move I did not persist. You have moved my text back here twice, in spite of the fact that you knew that I objected to this discussion being here even before the first move. I have taken care to ensure that it is clear which of my answers relate to which questions, and see no need for refactoring. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Custom on Wikipedia is that, until a separate institute garners sufficient history and notability to support its own article, we merge to the appropriate article within their University (otherwise we'd be buried under articles about various departments, institutes, centers, and other administrative subdivisions inside Universities). I don't think this institute is quite there yet, but it might well in time. Ray^Talk 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a distinctive institute, with enough references, and it is hardly surprising that the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position are on the advisory board. The general rule of merging gives an absurd result here. (And this is the first time I saw an article nominated based on what was on the talk page). Just as a general matter, my view of Wikipedia's cultural bias is that we have a tendency towards science and against religion here, and therefore should if necessary go a little further than usual to make sure we do not exclude articles on religion, especially on organizations and people working to show the compatibility of religion and science. I have seen too many articles nominated for deletion on the very few scientists with creationist or even religion-compatible views and on their publications and organizations to feel that all this is objective. Similarly for the very few serious scientists who support the existence of psi, or UFOs, or oppose the standard theory of global warming. It almost looks as if we want to pretend they don't exist. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position" (even were this substantiated) would appear to be a largely self-selecting criteria -- so does not seem to add to notability -- particularly as this is only represents a tiny (and probably not the most "eminent") proportion of the membership of the Royal Society.
Listing a single reference that received prominent discussion on article talk is not basing the nomination "on what was on the talk page".
Basing an article on self-published/trivial coverage is not "go[ing] a little further than usual", it is throwing the notability guidelines into the dustbin.
Your personal inability to WP:AGF is not a basis for keeping an article. Kindly discuss the merits of the coverage, rather than your perceptions of biases and motivations. And I would point out that I have made substantial contributions to articles on a large number of creationist and compatibilist scientists, other individuals and organisations.

[belatedly Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Just hours ago you personally attacked DGG, substituting your personal subjective view for defamatory "fact", and wrote on Wikipedia for all the world to see: "DGG is notoriously radically inclusionist". You now turn around here--presumably straight-faced--and accuse him of a "personal inability to WP:AGF". This strikes me as perhaps a fair entry into the competition for the poster child of projection. Perhaps we would have a better conversation if we were to keep our civility at a high level, and avoid histrionics.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's pronounced bias towards inclusionism (which I commented upon in article talk in response to NBeale's claim that DGG's views are in some way conclusive) is evident in his above statement (as well as a large number of statements elsewhere). It is hardly a violation of WP:AGF to take notice of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say you view someone as "notorious" ("ill-famed: known widely and usually unfavorably") is ugly. To state it as fact is defamatory. An editor was indef blocked this week for calling an al-Quaeda member evil. I would suggest that DGG deserves better from you than defamatory statements, which are direct violations of Wikipedia guidelines. But I expect you're aware of this, and are just wikilawyering, so let's get back on topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're complaining about my (since striken) use of the word "notorious", on another page. Certainly an issue worthy of a lengthy thread on an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Keep and (given the 9 straight keep votes, above and below) Snow Keep. Per DGG's well-stated comments, directly above. Though quite frankly, were this a science article with this level of multiple third-party coverage, impact within its sphere, non-trivial coverage (as that phrase is used in the guidance), etc., I would have precisely the same view. I'll no doubt have further comments after the nom replies to my queries, that now await him within the green bar above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. There are sufficient refs that are verifiable; non-trivial/incidental (as those phrases are clarified in the guidance -- such as newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories), reliable, and independent secondary sources. In addition, as the guidance suggests that we can also -- in instances where the refs are otherwise lacking -- consider notable and demonstrable effects on education, that if the depth of coverage is not substantial we can consider the existence of multiple independent sources to establish notability, that we can consider the fact that sources are national or international rather than only regional, that institutes are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and that the Institute's major achievements and other factors specific to the Institute may be considered, that under each of these criteria (let alone all together) the Institute is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with your reasoning on the merits of this case, but keep in mind that AfD contributions are not votes, and it is against guidelines to count them or promote thinking of them as votes. Tb (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lack of extensive coverage in any one external reliable source is an issue, as Hrafn has pointed out, but I feel that this lack is compensated for by the number of mentions the institute gets. Each one in itself is pretty trivial, and many of them appear to be self-generated, but the quantity of separate references is adequate. However, that does not give licence for the article to be puffed up with lots of notability-boosting comments from the Faraday Institute's own publicity material. Keep it, but keep it brief. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any institute at a world top 10 university with a Nobel Laureate on its advisory board and a whole page article in Science giving a rave review to one of its "end products" would be a clear keep for me: masses of GHits and mentions in most of the major UK news media make this clearer. In fact this institute is well known to anyone active in science and religion in the UK, and has a significant international profile, many of us are "Associates" (including me)- it even gets 136 hits on richarddawkins.net. NBeale (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has admitted to being a Fellow of the Faraday Institute, so per WP:COI should not be participating in this discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by declaring his connexion here he has ensured compliance with COI. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I agree with Duncan. As the guidance instructs us: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.... Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.... in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view,... underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This passes notability per DGG. Martin451 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage [62], clearly notable. Artw (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have multiple WP:RS news cites, easily satisfying basic criteria for organizations. However I do agree that there is a lot of self-referencing in the article that should be trimmed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Artw and Shawn in Montreal. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I want to disclose that I came to this discussion because of a message at my talk by another editor supporting keep. However, I consider it appropriate, because I have made edits removing links on other pages to this page. And I'm disappointed to see the personal attacks that have attended parts of the discussion of this page. Having said all that, there is no reason to think the page fails notability (and I'm not sold on the merge idea). The correct course of action is to delete any material within the page that is promotional (or to label it as a direct quote attributed to the source), to remove any POV sources that are used inappropriately, and to add reliably sourced criticisms of the Institute. Any editors who are affiliated with the Institute should refrain from editing the page in a COI way, and should be brought to an appropriate noticeboard if they do not cooperate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a highly respected research institution whose findings are widely quoted in academic papers and discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. "Highly respected?" I wouldn't go that far. But that doesn't affect my position about keeping. Or about the need to edit it for NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's an internationally known research institution, active in publishing, scholarship, and so forth. The article could use some improvement and depth, but it's an easy keep. Tb (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To save other editors who have yet to comment a waste of their time, given the consensus of all other than the nom here, perhaps the nom may wish as a public service to withdraw his nomination in deference to consensus of his fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if he wanted it blanked, I would not object--fwiw, I have now done 9027 deletions., #123rd among admins. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no independent coverage has been turned up that isn't "plainly trivial", the basis for the nomination remains sound. That a large number of editors have seen fit to WP:IAR & ignore the guidelines and/or the paucity of coverage, is not a good reason to withdraw the nomination. I therefore reaffirm nomination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, too much to ask, I expect. For that I apologize. Perhaps some kind soul with sympathy for peoples' time who value the consensus of the community more will drop by, note the 11 editors who have a different view, and snow keep this.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Hrafn is correct; based on the available sources this Institute does not meet the notability requirements. I considered nominating this one for deletion, but saw that it had impassioned supporters, and that the quantity of its mentions meant that it was only an oversight on the part of journalists that a solid source doesn't exist yet. I suspect that the existence of this Wikipedia article since July 2006 may have forestalled the creation of a real source. Abductive (reasoning) 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I think the article has been improved a bit since the discussion started.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Editor Hrafn makes a strong case and admitedly while there are thousands of web hits and scores of google news article hits most do seem to mention the institute only in passing. However the Faraday Institute is so frequently refered to and such an important subject that a dedicated article seems warranted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click on Google News search at the top of the AFD, and I see this organization is notable enough to get mentioned in the news for their published research. Dream Focus 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge as per Abductive (reasoning), Hrafn^Talk_Stalk and Ray. --LexCorp (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A research institute with a $2M grant sounds notable to me. Merging with St Edmund's College, would probably unbalance that article, unless there were a lot of other research institutes added. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to pass NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Roberts[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. The original WP:AUTO author had her autobiography speedied several times and she, and her sockpuppets, was eventually blocked (she has since continued editing the article under mutiple IPs). Before this happened, however, her last submission seemed to me to be an acceptable article, but I failed to locate reliable sources for various assertions of notability in the article (perhaps this is a reflection on my google-fu), leaving one which no longer passed WP:BIO. The prod was removed by an IP, presumably Janice, so now I'm here: it's time for this to be expunged. Josh Parris 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have received any significant independent coverage. ^Bongo_matic 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete~~Keep~~ (see below) She was a senior VP at 3com, at one point with responsibility for managing the Palm division [63]. She gets quoted variously in the press, as is common for such high level executives [64] (one of many), and was interviewed by CNet back in 1999 [65]. She was at one point managing director of the Mayfield Fund [66], managing about $2.3 billion dollars [67]. I think we can establish her importance, but we are having difficulty finding sufficient sourcing information to do a full-length bio, hence notability is a question. I'm of the feeling that, in this case, the subject is unquestionably prominent and a significant player in Silicon Valley venture capital, and the sources probably do exist that do not turn up easily under a quick google search (I had to do tricks with Google to get articles about her and not other people of the same name, but my contortions could easily have thrown out a lot of good articles along with the bad ones). Ray^Talk 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - The Mayfield Fund is a 15 person company, which uses the term Managing Director differently to the rest of the world, as they have about a dozen of them. I think they mean "person who monitors out investments by being a director on the boards of them". So, Roberts wasn't the Managing Director of a $2.3b organisation. She was responsible for directing and monitoring investments in the companies listed in her article, a job description shared by most of the employees of the Mayfield Fund. That's why Janice Roberts is referred to as a Board of directors director, rather than an executive director or Managing Director. Josh Parris 05:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. That does put a fairly different color on it, and my estimate of her significance is dropped quite a bit. I'm changing to a weak delete. Ray^Talk 05:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wrong venue. Take this to MFD if needed. Triplestop x3 03:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basementkids[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy group. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 02:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic use in cows[edit]

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

Context-free, non-neutral essay. Would require a complete rewrite to be acceptable. Salvageable data is redundant to material in antibiotic resistance. Danger (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Danger as to the current status of the article. However a quick google and cab abstracts search suggests that agricultural antibiotic use is under-represented in wikipedia, with only a small paragraph in cattle feed & a mention in antibiotic resistance (plus a few odds and sodds elsewhere such as manure). A google search seems to indicate that antibiotic use is politically sensitive, and as it stands wikipedia is not a good place to glean actual facts on the matter. I would suggest the creation of a broader article such as 'antibiotic use in animal production', covering matters such as relationship between feed and need for ab's, withholding periods and risks. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the topic is notable and deserves more coverage. I think, however, that it is better for the encyclopedia to have no devoted article than a strongly biased stub. --Danger (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- While the topic is clearly notable, this is a completely useless article with no salvageable content. Andrea105 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fair enough. I'm happy to delete, though I think it'd be worth putting in a request for article (I'm no expert in the field).Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close enough to G11 - would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Closing admin - do offer to userfy if the user wants to work on it, though, as this was just created today. Ray^Talk 04:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article on antibiotic resistance which covers this subject matter and the only source in this article that is up for deletion is not particularly great so nothing worth merging.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplication/forking. May be recreated in the more general context of an article about antibiotics as a form of growth enhancement, which is not limited to cattle. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs significant improvement, interesting subject though 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Latvian relations[edit]

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

only 3 state visits in 18 years of diplomatic relations. the bilateral agreements are standard for fellow EU members. this relationship lacks any significant third party coverage [68]. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. No reliable, third-party sources discussing these countries' relations in any depth are cited in the article, and couldn't come up with any on my own. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Can't deal with this crap anymore...... Yilloslime ^T_C 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How was I to find all the third party references and you were not able to? The tools I have available are the same as yours. I have Google and human brain and fingers to type. We are in the the same field in the sciences. I suspect you vote before you perform the research. You can't look at the first page of the 10K Google results and give up. You have to refine the search. I looked at the information at the consulate websites then took the names of the visiting dignitary and searched for their name and the country they they were visiting in Google News. That gave me the exact reference for that state trip. It is not impossible work, but it is work. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. \//\ - 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and notable. The nominator is just looking at the current state of the article instead of the current state of information on the relationship. We are voting on the topic, not the state of the article as it is now. There are more than 3 state visits according to that magic thing called Google. You just have to do a search and look through the results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in the article as it currently stands. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationship between the two nations is notable, they having made agreements with each other, and had their leaders meet on multiple occasions. All of these events would've gotten news coverage in both countries and perhaps elsewhere. News coverage equals notability. "Greece made an agreement with Latvian over..." and then an article about the two nations agreement. Anyone doubt such coverage exist, and that it meets the suggested guidelines for notability? Dream Focus 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per absolutely stellar work improving this article by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Several bilateral agreements, numerous state visits covered by third party sources. Notability easily established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article subjects ought to have been covered in depth, not in a series of trivial news items Richard Arthur Norton happened to have found while googling. No, independent sources actually about "Greek-Latvian relations" do not exist, much as some might like to pretend they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule demands that the references refer exactly to the phrase "Greek-Latvian relations". Articles are about the concepts not the words, if it were about the word, we would be a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. We use sources for the Iraq War that call it "Occupation of Iraq" and "The Second Gulf War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as well as the "Iraqi insurgency" and a handful of other synonyms. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule requires that the facts come from a single source. If an article has 10 facts, they can come from 10 sources, or come from 1 source. Mathematically, both methods have the same depth of coverage, which would be 10 facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient independent sources to establish noteability. Its good to have a mix including primary sources for this sort of article so we can offer more complete information to our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Plastikspork. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPGRADE COMPLETE!![edit]

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

Non-notable flash game. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources in the article and I didn't find any either. Should they be provided, it's a different matter, but until then the requirements in WP:GNG aren't met. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable game, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure promotion. LadyofShalott 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markstay Warren Challenge the Champ Sled-Dog Race[edit]

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

Not verifiable, maybe not notable. No secondary sources given, no Google News hits. Nothing of consequence was found via Google web search. Prod was removed by author with an edit summary of "Independant sources: sleddogcentral.com, mushing.com, markstay-warren.com, isdra.com. Google News, no hits due to previous staff being computer illiterate. News on all Ontario TV stations, plus newspa" (and then the edit summary ran out of characters, I presume) - sleddogcentral.com has a table of 2007 results which serves to verify the competition's existence, but little more. No results for 2008 or 2009. Markstay-Warren.com has a barren external link without any information whatsoever beyond 2009 date and location. Mushing.com has some information that reads like press releases, not an independent source. On Isdra.com I found a few lines written by the organizer, nothing independent. Newspapers should probably have been found via Google News. Huon (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Nothing to suggest notability- could well fail all three of the key content policies- WP:V, WP:N and WP:OR. If something can be found to verify more than the mere existence of this event, I wouldn't oppose a merge to a relevant article but I'm not holding my breath frankly. HJMitchell You rang? 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 1 gnews hit [69]. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

here is no evidence of notability for this software. References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all! Reference 4 is simply an WP:OR assertion. Reference 1 is a promotional message in a newsgroup. There is no coverage in reliable sources demonstrated. Miami33139 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, would the nominator care to explain why he nominates this article once more, when his last nomination less than a year ago failed. The question is -- WP:NOTAGAIN and why the already overburdened AfD circuit should be strained once again. Second, it is a so-called "half-truth" that "References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all!" - the references do contain the text string "FreeAmp", and Zinf is a continuation of FreeAmp, as clearly explained in the article, and easily verified in a basic search. Third, to those who "cannot find coverage", I will say:
- The Linux cookbook: tips and techniques for everyday use By Michael Stutz [70] p475 picks seven of "the better" music players, and includes Zinf.
- UNIX: the complete reference By Kenneth H. Rosen, Douglas A. Host p1051 - Free preview is limited, I cannot assess if it is in-depth mention, but it is more than passing mention.
- A PhD thesis on Open Source Software Development [71] examines three cases, amongst them Zinf, because it has "an innovative way of keeping track of ones music collection"
- FreeAmp was used in a test-setup in MSc. project on Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice [72]
- FreeAmp and Zinf were likewise used in a MSc project Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio [73]
- ZInf is also used in this thesis ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO [74]
- FreeAmp was picked for a streaming experiment testing of a prototype of sorts in THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - Proceedings of EUNICE, 2000 - [75]
- Add to this that Gsearch Zinf FreeAmp [76] returns about 41k hits, indicative that it has some popularity, supportbase, general interest, ... or whatever.

Keeping a short article on this software seem to be perfectly legit for an encyclopedia. The basic problem is that it takes a few minutes or less to nominate an article for deletion, about the same or shorter not to find any sources, and disproportionately more time to challenge it Power.corrupts (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last nomination did not provide any new sources, just WP:ILIKEIT claims. I copied the deletion rationale here, from another AfD contributor there, actually. That is JLL's response. Your basic accusation here is that I did not examine and look for references. I have looked for references, and I found them lacking. You found more references.

Let's examine your references.

- - Linux Cookbook, one sentence does not confer notability
  - Unix Complete Reference, a passing mention of one paragraph in an entire chapter of one paragraph descriptions of available software. Appearing in a list of things does not confer notability.
  - Open Source Software Development Edwards.dk Thesis - does not confer notability, millions of theses are written each year, typically read by a dozen people at best. The Zinf specific information consists of how it was installed on Linux compared to the ease of use of the installation on Windows. Even if this was a mainstream book, this would not be a significant mention.
  - Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice - does not confer notability. This is another thesis. And these sources say "freeamp was used" in the footnotes. That's it.
  - Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio. - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf includes the sentence "Zinf is an audio player for Linux and Win32" and one screenshot.
  - ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf are three sentences that says Zinf is an audio player. Zinf is a continuation of Freeamp. Zinf was able to decode an IP stream in real time, plus the download link. That's it.
  - THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - "Windows based RTP aware mp3 players, such as freeamp", plus the download link is the entirety of this mention.

What is clear here is that of these seven references you have provided is that none of them is about Zinf. Four of them are theses, which might make good reliable sources if they actually said anything about the product. They DO NOT. The other academic reference sounds promising too, except freeamp is not even the subject of the single sentence in which it appears in that source. The two books contain one sentence and one paragraph respectively. All of these references are why Notability requires significant sources about the subject. You have provided a list of trivial mentions in sources about other things.

I do agree with you that finding references and writing an article about them is hard work. That is why the edit page for a new article says in bold that an article not based on references will be quickly deleted. That sucks for the author, but that is the way it is. Miami33139 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Cookbook - being picked as one of the seven best players is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Devoting 1/3 of a PhD thesis to studying the evolution of Zinf is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Are you really sure that "millions" of PhD theses are produced every year? But our disagreement here is at the heart of WP:N, precisely because it is vague and subjective, for what "significant coverage" anyway. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thesis does not provide 1/3rd of it's coverage to Zinf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I click on the link at the top of the AFD for Google Books, and find over 700 results. Some of them are about this software. iPod and iTunes is the book at the top, giving it notable coverage. Of course, for the software to be mentioned at all in so many books, it must be notable(worthy of noting). Dream Focus 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sigh. I just added five references, there are more out there as well about this product.--Milowent (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the arguments at the first AFD being WP:ILIKEITs, and though sufficient time has passed so that WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply, the relisting HAS resulted in additional sources being added to address concerns from his first nomination and from his second. Kudo's to those who used this nomination as a forced WP:CLEANUP per WP:AFTER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't reliable sources, those are download directories. How does adding links to download sites show notability? Miami33139 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Available sources are not all download directories. For instance, there's iPod and iTunes by Guy Hart-Davis and Debian GNU/linux in der Praxis: Anwendungen, Konzepte, Werkzeuge by Wulf Alex. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two paragraphs and two screenshots in each book. Or, what we call trivial coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though 2 decent paragraphs are slightly more than a trivial listing, sources need themselves be significant only if notability is dependent upon those sources. What is being recognized at this second AFD is that the article CAN and IS being improved... just as guideline encourages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no basis to revisit the first AfD; and the sources in the article in its present state clearly demonstrate notability. TJRC (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Ability[edit]

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

Non-notable band which doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Also, if you look at the history, it appears as though this was created by Brian Lanese, the main vocalist, which is a major no no. The links go to local publications or MySpace. Basically a locally successful rock band. Not enough for our purposes User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does it have two notable members?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. Steve Andino is a member of the band who used to be in a band called Tourniquet, who has an article. However, he and only one other former member of that band have articles. And he hasn't done anything else to make him notable (there are 0 references in his article). As for the other linked member, Brian Lanese, its similar to Steve except Brian wasn't in any notable bands. I actually put Brian's article up for deletion for similar reasons as this one. My main issues are that the band itself isn't notable and its a self-written article with next to 0 independent sourcing. I don't think Steve's presence makes the band notable enough. There just isn't enough else there. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if it is NN, it should be deleted. As to the COI, I note that the COI guideline instructs us "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to.... However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community."--Epeefleche (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Permanent Ability's page should NOT be deleted due to the notable accomplishments, regardless if they are an indie local band...google the band. These guys are on their way, and a Wikipedia page has to start somewhere. :Question. Why is it such a huge deal if the page stays? It's harming who? If its such an outrage, help make the page more wiki friendly!

There's no easy way to explain and define that, but this isn't the place to take it up. This discussion should relate as closely to Wikipedia guidelines and philosophy as much as possible. Speaking of sticking to deletion, could you please not delete the AfD discussion link section from your article? Pretty please? Such things tend to upset admins-- you should focus on your article; don't put yourself in danger at the same time. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the cited articles in the Columbus Dispatch http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/weekender/stories/2009/07/02/9A_LIME02_ART_07-02-09_T14_MIEB3NJ.html?sid=101 and Tastes Like Rock http://www.tasteslikerock.com/interviews.html I think they scrape a pass per criterion #1 of WP:BAND. I'm not overly concerned about the COI issue since the article isn't intolerably promotional, and although writing an article about oneself or one's own band is generally discouraged, the important thing is that the author/ editor in this case appears to be honest and upfront about it, which I respect. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CMP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2009

Keep, sources meet WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per Gongshow's cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Claims notability with multiple albums. However, I have been unable to find any significant coverage in third-party sources beyond this review in Deseret News back in the band's earlier days. The only other hits on GNews simply stated that they'd be playing somewhere, or were false positives. Last AFD kept because of two "keep" !votes, one of which was a WP:PERNOM and the other of which failed to address the lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass criteron 5 of WP:BAND: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." This band has released three albums on Metal Blade Records. Also, here are two articles at Blabbermouth that provide coverage for the band. [77][78] These, combined with the above Deseret News article, satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Lastly, two of the band's albums have appeared on CMJ's Metal albums chart. [79][80]. While I wouldn't call this fact "significant coverage", it helps support my belief (given that criteria 1 and 5 appear to be met) that the band is notable. Gongshow ^Talk 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think one review and two primary sources are enough to meet criterion #1? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and upon reading them more thoroughly you're correct that the Blabbermouth pieces are primary sources. Instead, I'll offer these [81][82] (including another album review). Both articles are short, but I think each has enough information to go beyond "trivial" mentions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have incorporated the above references into the article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'[edit]

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

Speedy delete: per WP:CRUFT, WP:NOTABLE. Hard to believe the page has been around this long without challenge. [email protected] (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind explaining how 'cruft' and 'notable' apply? I'm not sure if you're asserting the article writer (me!) is a big fan of O'Connor, or if the sourcing isn't reliable? Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of interest, what's the 1E - presumably dying? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings: Sorry if my language was too harsh. I probably should have just stuck with lack of notability. The guy was not notable. Your sourcing is not the question but yeah the page does read kind of like a misguided tribute, which would be OK in some other venue. Maybe I am just the only one who bothered to mention it. I have no ill will towards the late Mr O'Connor, or "Pal", but the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which is why I created this AFD, which you haven't actually contested. (I don't know what 1E is either.) Yours, [email protected] (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Passes part of WP:BIO in that he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which it has, but the article could also be interpreted as failing WP:BIO1E. 1E deals with separate articles on events and people associated with them, but the refs in this case are mostly about the event of his death and the effects it had, which was really his main source of notability. I think it's pretty borederline when it comes to the 1E (which means "one event", by the way), but I'm going to have to say delete. Sorry. Quite an interesting article, tho, if it makes you feel any better, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Association of Anti-Aging Medicine[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a Serbian non-profit organization that seemingly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Two external links are provided in the article; one appears to be their official website, while the other is that of the affiliated World Society of Anti-Aging Medicine, which does not itself have a Wikipedia article, so far as I can tell. These links do not really establish notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added their actual Serbian name: Srpske asocijacije za Anti-aging medicinu to the article, & checked it in Google & G Scholar--and found nothing relevant to notability In the circumstances, I think that's enough of a check DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. there's not even a Serbian WP article on this. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of improvements and heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Billcock[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. this article has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced. hardly any third party coverage.gnews LibStar (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It helps to read the Google News hits as well as count them. The subject won an Eddie in 2002[83] and the International Award for Filmmaking Excellence at the 2007 Australian Film Institute awards,[84] and was nominated for an Oscar in 2001,[85] clearly passing WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject's notability is asserted and sourced. With respects to the nominator, "no one's been working on it" is not a valid reason to delete something when notability is so easy to discern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my reason for nomination is failing the significant coverage test. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice then that Phil Bridger added sources. passes WP:ANYBIO. Good job Phil!

And with respects Libstar, the GNG does not mandate lots-of-sources. It does not mandate 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 pieces of coverage. RS is RS, and searches find her being written of since at least 2001. It does not matter that she does not have hundreds of articles written about her elsewhere, as long as what IS written allows her to meet our guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quality of sources is more important than quantity. although I'm sure you know that as well :) LibStar (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... as you clearly stated your concern that the article "has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced". I found Phil's providing of Los Angeles Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Sunday Times as showing he shares that same concern for quality of sources, and was willing to add them when this AFD forced cleanup. The assertions of being a multi-award winner have now been properly sourced. Per Bio's basic criteria, depth of coverage is required only if notability is dependent on that coverage. Her notability is through her meeting WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"... and such has been confirmed in reliable quality sources. Kudos to Phil! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my point is regarding the 4 years, if it existed for 4 months I would not have nominated on it. sometimes (not always) the reason for poorly referenced articles that have existed for many years is that there exists little coverage of the subject. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thoughts, but per WP:IMPROVE, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:NOEFFORT, that no one's been working on it is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. I am glad that Phil Bridger dealt with the sourcing concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in WP:RS discussed above and awards. Andrea105 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. An Oscar-nominated film editor with multiple other awards and nominations in the field of editing satisfies WP:CREATIVE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Allan[edit]

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

Non-notable author of a single fiction book for teens. No evidence of coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)delsort[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book, news, and internet search bring up no outside sources from which verifiable information can be added to the article. Mrathel (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any good sources on this either Ace4545 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Chamal N. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JimJimster[edit]

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

⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as utter nonsense. Author has removed AfD and CSD tags. Restored and warned. DarkAudit (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(speedy) Delete as blatantly obvious bovine manure. Andrea105 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmux[edit]

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

This is non-notable and unsourced software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage either. I realize that sometimes others are better at finding this sort of thing than I am, so feel free to leave me a note on my talk page for consideration if something does turn up. JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Graphics Institute[edit]

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

Self-advertisement by obscure company; what few references we get are tangential to a conference it sponsors. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious advertising without a ream showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and meets WP:V. Their conference attracts speakers like Michael Eisner, Al Gore, and Marissa Mayer which should be enough to meet WP:N and it is much larger than MIX_(Microsoft). Their large number of current books published by Wiley_Publishing also meets WP:N. Edward Dewey 05:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- response - Notability is not inherited; the company does not become notable because its staff may be notable; far less because its staff had books published by a notable publisher. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" notability by being a customer or patron of a notable person. Hiring a notable speaker does not make me or my event, be it conference or bar mitzvah, notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - The organization is notable at face value. They host an annual event that attracts more than 9,000 people and has been running for many years - unlike a one-time bar mitzvah. Even without the speakers, the event is notable. You don't just call Google and hire their execs or Apple board members to speak like you do a DJ at a bar mitzvah, so I think the comparison is off-base. The idea that all these companies come together to support an event shows notability for the event, as does the size and the history. They also publish books - the links show that they have their own imprint jointly published with Wiley and distributed globally, and the organization is listed as the author of the books. So they are a publisher and author with multiple book titles that are distributed globally, not just a company that happens to have a few employees as authors. Recently updated links show that they create books that are being used by schools around the world. You could even return to your alma-matter's library and find their books: AGI Photoshop book at UW library and AGI Dreamweaver book at UW library. The entry could use some minor clean-up, but keeping it is the right thing to do as it meets WP:N on its own and clearly WP:V. In the spirit of WP:HEY I encourage you to take another look at the entry with its updates. Edward Dewey 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Dewey (talk • contribs)

Correction: Those books are in the library of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; I am an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (and briefly attended the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay). My only connection to the entity in Madison is through all of my Union brothers and sisters (AFSCME Locals 2412 and 171) who work there. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep An organization that writes or publishes a number of standard books in its field can become notable by doing so. It is their activities that make organizations (and people) notable. I think they have that role for Adobe software. It would be nice to have some better references, though, such as 3rd party reviews of the books that specifically talk about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Dewey. Just enough indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big data[edit]

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

Contested prod. "Big" is an adjective that can be combined with many words; there is nothing novel or notable about its use with "data" - indeed, data is more likely to be described as "large" (Google gives more than 10 times as many hits for "large data" over "big data"). Even "large data" is merely a dictionary term; for an article on the particular difficulties that large data presents, the article Computer data processing might be a good place to start. I42 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if someone were to create a combined entry on big/large data. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - can't see any reliable sources here. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Nature is a reliable source? There is an entire issue of Nature dedicated to the subject. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, nature is a reliable source, but the nature reference somehow doesn't really fit in the article. is big data a neologism or a dictionary definition? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like just a neologism. The only provided reference, the Nature article, doesn't actually even mention the term "big data", instead talking about big data sets. JIP | Talk 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "big data" is increasingly used in discussions about scientific research and web platforms. Perhaps the problem is that its notability isn't apparent from this very short stub. Neilfws (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an example of notability, there's a entire special issue of Nature with the title "Big Data", and the term is used with increasing frequency by scientists. The Nature link is: http://www.nature.com/news/specials/bigdata/index.html Agree with Neilfws that the stub needs to be better fleshed out for the notability to be apparent.--Michael Nielsen (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, documenting a neologism. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - it is simply a combination of big and data, dictionary words which have no place here. I'm not even sure it's a neologism, and even if it was it doesn't need an article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not an article subject. Special techniques for handling large data sets can be covered in other articles. Nothing here worth merging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GraphLogic[edit]

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

Non-notable tech business or web content. Contested proposed deletion.

Obvious advertising making grand but vague claims, to the point of patent nonsense: The platform is a graphical realization of a Turing-complete programming language coupled with a patented run-time environment that together deliver a fully-realized Software as a Service Web 2.0 application development platform designed for cloud computing.
All of these "... as a service" businesses are really only web sites, and need to meet the web content notability guidelines as well as the organizational guidelines.
Google News Archive yields only local newspaper stories and a few court cases they were involved in.

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smerdis found no sources. They aren't in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Desktop[edit]

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

unimportant web product sourced to self-published sources and press release reprints. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like a user left on your talk page, what is "self-published sources" and who are you to deem something "unimportant". This seems like an irresponsible AfD to me. You initially added a PROD (deleting such pages after 7 days if no objections are raised), then waited 2 days, then added an AfD. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It's a member of the Dojo Foundation, was featured in ComputerWorld, Ajaxian and is mentioned in a few other online articles. If needed, I'll add further citations (there's more on the Internet if you bother looking). Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's no real benefit to deleting it, plus it seems notable enough, as Xenu mentioned. 71.190.222.220 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only edit from this IP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News search results yield no substantial coverage, and nothing outside the IT field. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant coverage LoudHowie (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to closing Administrator: This account has only been used for modifying AfD discussions. See user's contributions. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Henshaw[edit]

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

Not so much as a biography as a clumsy advertisement for the subject's company, which itself is not notable as per WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article supposedly about a person that actually says nothing about that person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Will Smith#Personal life. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Smith[edit]

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

Actor with only a couple of minor appearances that don't meet WP:ENT, and a high-school athlete who doesn't meet WP:ATH. Gets mentioned in sources because of his father, Will Smith, but per WP:NOTINHERITED that isn't enough to make him notable in his own right. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his father's article at Will Smith#Personal life. Unlike his younger brother Jaden Smith, Trey does not appear to be actively pursuing a career in the public eye. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheneckentaenze[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this bootleg; does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS nor WP:GNG; the most extensive statement I could concerning the album was "Yet another bootleg. Sound quality is poor but it's a good show" and that was from a fan site. J04n(talk page) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with arguments about notability above. Note that an unofficial bootleg album can achieve notability if there is robust third-party discussion about it (for example, see the category Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings), but little or no public knowledge of this one is apparent. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft - "live concert bootleg LP. The exact date/venue is unknown at this time." Bearian (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of dogwood festivals[edit]

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

Delete as a non-notable and indiscriminate list. WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix | Talk 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of these link to city articles which do not mention the festival, or which have no references supporting the festival. the articles on festivals are stubs, with little or no references. I think its established that dogwood blooming is a notable time for festivals in the regions they grow, but i dont see this article as being substantial enough yet. if someone wants to try to rescue it, i think its an inherently acceptable idea, but only if these festivals can be shown as notable. as it stands, its not a list of notable events. I disagree with the nominator that its indiscriminate, its actually very precisely discriminate, and that is necessary but not sufficient for a list. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This had been called Dogwood Festival until someone thought it would be a good idea to add the dreaded "L-word". They might as well have nominated it at the same time. The name change was more accurately descriptive of the article, but it's kind of like putting a "kick me" sign on your own back. However, it strikes me that, with only a little bit of context, this would be more than simply a list of dogwood festivals. It's not entirely indiscriminate, but it lacks the background for explaining why certain communities celebrate the arrival of spring with a festival tied to dogwood trees (or for that matter, why many municipalities plant the trees to beautify their streets). I think it's an easy fix, I'll see what I can do. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article can be modified per mandsford.i hadnt caught the name change, which does cause most of the problem. i had trouble finding info on the history of dogwood festivals, but i probably didnt try hard enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The topic of dogwood festivals is notable, [86] so if this is all we have for now, we should keep it.--Pink Bull 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese_of_Aberdeen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Diocese of Aberdeen

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

redundancy

I don't know if I've done this correctly. I'm going through the 'old diocese articles, and I came across this one. It seems to me like it is a POV fork for the two diocese articles, one with the COE and one with the Catholic dioceses, both successor dioceses claiming a connection to the ancient one. Do we really need this article? From what I can see, the information contained has been copied and pasted into both the current COE diocese and the RC diocese. Unlike most of the other ancient diocese articles, this diocese continues to exist. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed format some. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Benkenobi18 was engaged on a crusade to rename all "Roman Catholic" dioceses, adding "Roman Catholic", and has edit-warred most all of the copious resistance he's encountered, most people giving up because of his tenacity. Before he came along, articles such as this covered both the historic Scottish diocese and the modern Roman Catholic diocese. They had to be split to stop him edit-warring, because of his insistence of adding "Roman Catholic" to the front. As has been explained to him by several users, the historical Scottish diocese articles aren't synonymous with modern Roman Catholic dioceses, as they had different boundaries and were both Catholic and Church of Scotland (c/f articles in "Bishop of ...", e.g. Bishop of Galloway, that Ben's edit-warring hasn't touched). Find it difficult, given Benkenobi18 disruptive history in this area, to see this nomination as anything but bad faith ... I mean, now that he's got what he wanted, why does he want to delete the article on the historic diocese? But in case it's good faith, I'll explain to him again ... All these dioceses have separate Catholic and Episcopal successor dioceses, some of which share the same name, some of which don't. The episcopal structure is based on the old Scottish dioceses (usually merging multiple dioceses into one, in this case Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney), the Roman Catholic structure is new, though often employing the same names. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was founded as a Catholic diocese, but following the Scottish Reformation the diocese became prostestant. The Church of Scotland (not COE) diocese continued until it was abolished in 1689. The Scottish Episcopal Church then used the diocese name until 1865 when it united with the diocese of Orkney to form the current Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney. The current Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen was resurrected in 1878. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the article should remain. It contains information about each religious denomination. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem with this article. However, it should have been tagged with {{catholic}} to indicate that it was derived from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see that this is a POV fork. It is related content, but that's completely okay, as these entities change names and shapes over time. After all, we have separate articles on the Roman province of Hispania, and Portugal, and Spain :) Ray^Talk 04:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen would be the POV anyway, as that post-dates this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - self-evidently a bad faith nomination, as witnessed by the repeated refererral to the "Church of England" (sic) in reference to a Scottish article. This is baiting, pure and simple. Why do Admins not just block disruptive editors? By not blocking such people you are just wasting vast amounts of your own (and other users) time and energy. Therefore my sympathy for the plight of Admins is limited when I find out about new trails of destruction like this one. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's about a historic entity, and part of a set of articles on Dioceses of Medieval Scotland. (Note as well, that there is no "C of E diocese" in Scotland.) Tb (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Historic District[edit]

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

I believe this DAB page is unnecessary since all but one list entry are redlinks. The "see also" is fine, but could at worst be hatnoted on the remaining blue link, and in any case it is unlikely that someone would arrive at this page by accident. I propose the DAB page is deleted and either redirected to the existing blue link (New Market Historic District (New Market, Maryland)) or that link is then moved into its place. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:Keep: Clearly, there's a distinction between other "New Market Historic Districts." It's obvious somebody has been planning to write articles for the other three, or they're leaving room for somebody else to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dab pages like this are useful. Redlinks encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since all of the redlinked articles are NRHP sites, they "should" all have articles and will, eventually. If this page is deleted now, it will just have to be recreated later and it costs essentially nothing to keep it. It will also save editor time when those articles are created because it makes obvious the fact that the new articles must use a dab form, such as New Market Historic District (New Market, Virginia). . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can well see the points there, except perhaps that really it's not a DAB, but a list (and I am not trying to argue that). There's also New Market (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) which is not an historic district but is on the NRHP (I guess it's a landmark or something else other than a district). This whole DAB is very much a side concern for me, as I am more concerned to merge the DAB articles New Market and Newmarket, and considering those well put arguments, I beg to withdraw my proposal to delete. Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for withdrawing your proposal.--Pubdog (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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