Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 11

< 10 February	12 February >

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 Merge to Ray LaMontagne discography

A clear consensus to do so. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acre of Land[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any coverage for this album. Mattg82 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ray LaMontagne discography. According to the discography, this was a demo album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -as per User:Whpq. I can't remember for sur , but I think however that it will mean losing the album cover pic.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I don't see enough coverage of this specifically to constitute a separate article. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 760[edit]

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

This was a unsourced article that was PROD-ed. The PROD tag was removed and a source was added, but I don't think this meets the criteria for inclusion. There's no reliable source that backs up the existance of this state highway, or any state highway under this designation. To keep this article without a source would be to perpetuate a rumor. This article does not meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The only source listed is a post on a bulletin board forum, which does not meet the requirements of WP:SPS. The discussion there purports that there is a single exit sign showing this designation on a bid contract. If that graphic is correct, it does not support where the designation might be used except for at one single location. Since the signs have not been installed, they could be changed at any time for any reason, meaning this highway may or may not see the light of day. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The forum post indicates that the designation may be used, but there's no guarantee that it will. Additionally, that one post and the drawing contained in that post do not provide any details that can be used to say where this route would begin and where it would end if assigned. – T M F 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No proof this highway exists. ---Dough 48 72 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am suspicious that the creator of this article deleted the AfD template in previous edits. Perhaps it's new user naiveté of the AfD process, but since there was no edit description, I can't entirely AGF. --Fredddie ™ 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's description of the alleged road: "Pennsylvania Route 760 is located in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. It connects Interstate 376 and Interstate 80 to Sharon". The infobox says that its south terminus is at I-80/I-376 and its north terminus is at US 62. From looking at the map in my car (original research! shocking!), the only road that actually meets that description is Pennsylvania Route 718. Pennsylvania Route 518 almost sort-of qualifies: the designation terminates at Pennsylvania Route 18 shortly before I-80/I-376, but the road itself (Longview Road) continues down to the junction. But in any event, no State Route 760. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, PA 760 is allegedly the part of old PA 60 north of I-80 in Sharon that did not become part of I-376. – T M F 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, I live in a Canadian province which, for purposes of internal mileage accounting and inventory, gives hidden highway numbers to certain stretches of road which have strategic importance to the transportation network but don't meet the usual criteria to be given a real highway designation (e.g. funny little stubs left over from highway realignments, etc.) I'm familiar enough with the situation in Ontario to know that while in most cases they aren't really notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, there are some cases where a salvageable article can be written by downplaying the highway designation and concentrating on the road's name and transportation purpose. Is this possibly a similar case? No !vote, just two cents for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, but in that case, there would be an official source detailing that designation. In this case, there isn't one. Hidden designations are common in the US, but state DOTs have route logs or other documentation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Abrams (reporter)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local news anchors are not always considered to be notable. This is difficult to source. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for reliable sourcing, too (with several search attempts, to avoid false positives about our favorite weather gal), but the results were limited. Local individual with no significant media recognition/achievements otherwise, failing WP:BIO. Jamie S93^❤ 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability, with almost no reliable sources available. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7) by Mifter (talk · contribs).. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roberts (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I have searched for reliable sources to document the notability of Roberts. I have not found a single reliable source mention. The only hits were paid PR releases that never got picked up in any news outlets. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tagged for speedy delete, non-notable biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PixelPoint[edit]

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

This is blatant advertising; it is an orphan page for a non-notable company with all "references" coming from the company website. A clear case of self-promotion. See similar: Volante Systems, PCS Revenue Control Systems. Timneu22 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam RadioFan (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. The company doesn't even exist any more, having been absorbed or merged with another non-notable company in 2005. Even that merger didn't make the news, which shows how non-notable both companies are. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle. Timneu22 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say merge, but the parent company doesn't even have an article, so there's no where to merge to. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but only if it is rapidly expaned with more detail about how it is employed in its user environment, more about the technology involved, and something about similar products. I've had a quick go at improving it: there are thousands of applications out there for niche market solutions and while most of them do not get rave reviews in the print media, some of them do quite well. Pixel Point may be one of these. Its article in Wikipedia might be advertising, and there might be COI, but I'm assuming it was created in good faith, and that it can take its place alongside dozens of similar Wikipedia software articles. --Kudpung (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volante Systems[edit]

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

This is blatant advertising; it is an orphan page for a non-notable company with all "references" coming from the company website. A clear case of self-promotion. See similar: PixelPoint, PCS Revenue Control Systems. Timneu22 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable-source coverage at all. Google reveals the company's own website, press releases, and this article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business is a a point of sale/ERP/CRM software corporation. If you understand that, your film badge dosimeter is showing overexposure. I'd say this stub makes no minimal case for importance as an organization. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the link up top that says Google news. Do you think every company out there is seen as important enough to get mentioned in the news at all? There are 72 news results which mention this company. Their parent company was bought out in 2006 by Commander Communications, which I assume now owns them. Dream Focus 05:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a remarkable similarity between this article/software and PixelPoint - also up for AfD, and also in Toronto, as mentioned by User:Timneu22.--Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCS Revenue Control Systems[edit]

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

This is blatant advertising; it is an orphan page for a non-notable company with all "references" coming from the company website. A clear case of self-promotion. See similar: Volante Systems, PixelPoint. Timneu22 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not in the least "blatant" advertising. I think the lead also makes some significant notability claims. The claim that it is "clear self-promotion" would require that the article was created or heavily edited by someone affiliated with the company, which it is not. I agree that it needs some better sourcing, but your deletion rationale is a little over the top in my opinion. Beach drifter (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Beach Drifter has noted, and as I was about to note, it can't be "blatant advertising" when I have no affiliation with the company, and no one with affilation with the company has edited the article. User:PCHS-NJROTC (logged out because I'm having problems related to beta) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.156.14 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this is a food management technology company and producer of point of sale terminals and related devices and software based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Its main focus is educational institutions' food service programs.... I'd say "cash registers for schools" would be a better way to put that, but what do I know? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original research, but I've heard of PCSRCS devices being used in non-educational settings such as hospital cafeterias and retail stores. If this were self promotion in violation of WP's policies, I'd have went ahead and violated WP:OR as well, but since I have no affilation with the company besides the fact that I've seen their products in use, it can't be self promotion as the deletionists are claiming here. However... what do I know? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable company, spammy article which read like a glossy brochure for the company RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has a little better claim to notability than the other two. Still can't find any actual coverage to establish notability, but at least this company is listed with Hoovers and the Better Business Bureau - a Google search is not JUST company sources and Wikipedia. Still, no news coverage or recognition by reliable sources so doesn't make the cut IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted (which it's looking like it will be), then the company's logo needs to be deleted as well. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since the material has already been merged. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Bagans[edit]

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

No evidence that this person is notable. References are trivial, not independent or not about the subject. Can't find many independent sources at all. Fails both WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-trivial reliable sources can be found that discuss Bagans in a significant manner. Sources presently cited are either TV network-related promotional sites or "What's on TV Tonite" news items and program listings that focus on the show rather than the individual. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some of the content/info/details that are not on the Ghost Adventures article should actually be merged into it. --Twinsday 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete not notable. I am not sure what details Twinsday is talking about merging. --Bejnar (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Merge apparently done. Nick Groff and Aaron Goodwin (cameraman) also merged—please redirect them. --foxyma (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile (2011 film)[edit]

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

Unreferenced (the external links are for a different film) and unverifiable future film. The lack of information I could find about this film, plus the creator's past history, suggest this may be a hoax. I42 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I suggest offering to WP:USERFY prior to deletion, so that (assuming this is a non-hoax) the creator can bring it back if and when a reliable source surfaces that indicates that filming has commenced. I saved The Runaways (film) to my userspace when it was being (rightfully) PRODded, so we wouldn't have to start from scratch when it came back; same idea. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight case of ignoring the rules here and jumping the gun as I have filed a report at WP:SPI, but this is so clearly an Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) creation in the inimitable Alexcas11 style that there is probably nothing that can be saved here. Occasionally he creates articles based on real projects, but the lack of sources would tend to suggest this isn't one of them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Definitely an Alexcas11 sock, according to SPI. That and the lack of any sources for the existence of this project (particulary given the high-profile cast list asserted) means that it is almost certainly a hoax article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Just to clarify my last comment: there may be a project of this name, but the assertions in this article have no basis and in that sense, it's a hoax.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreferenced and unverifiable future film. It seems to be a hoax. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

This was prodded and deleted about two weeks ago. However, I had to undelete it to make way for a history merge, and I thought that this might need to go through AfD. Original rationale: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO." No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. NW (Talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as "Rhett Routley" was Man of the Month" centerfold for the December, 1985, issue of Playgirl. Appears that under both names he has coverage in genre-specific sources. Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Epbr123, but Ash has made an excellent observation below. Quinn's carrer has an historical context within his industry which pre-dates the awards listed in the PORNBIO criteria. Notability is not supposed to be temporary, but more important, deletion considerations cannot be based upon this actor not meeting a award standard that didn't even exist during the fellow's career. By way of comparison (and noting that Quinn is known for something completely different), but would someone suggest deleting Mary Pickford because she did not win awards that were not even in existance during her career? Guideline suggests and encourages the use of common sense. If any actor, no matter his field, is used by others to characterize his profession, that would seem to be most indicative of his enduring notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mary Pickford passes WP:GNG, Jeff Quinn doesn't. Epbr123 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They both pass WP:N but for different reasons. That fact that PORNBIO includes consideration of an award that did not exist during this man's career is a flaw of PORNBIO, not a flaw or strike against this person's notability. Sorry I was not more clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You need to be clearer how Jeff Quinn passes WP:N. Your only reason so far is that he hasn't won an award. Epbr123 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I was quite clear, ignore it as you will. The awards did not exist during his career and PORNBIO is flawed in not considering historical aspects or stars BEFORE the existance of the modern awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, ok. So every porn star before the 90s passes WP:N because PORNBIO is flawed? Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry. We're not talking about "every porn star before the 90s". We're talking about one individual, and part of your argument is that he could not be notable because he did not win an award... one that did not even exist when he was prominent in his career. THAT is the flaw of PORNBIO, and shows the weakness of relying on that flaw in arguments. 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep sufficient prospect of sources being improved that WP:ATD applies. It seems odd that PORNBIO is used to keep articles such as Adam Bristol where he is only notable for winning an award and yet an actor such as Quinn who has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s (a Google Books search will provide some of these matches) has been deleted (this is a resurrected copy) on the basis that nobody has found a porn award in his name. Not surprising as most of the awards did not exist until the mid-90s, consequently applying PORNBIO over-literally leads Wikipedia to have no record of the most notable figures from the 80s adult film industry. Some of his films are highly notable and AVN winners. Ash (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're caught in a loop of refusal again. As pointed out and not refuted, PORNBIO is flawed and thus inapplicable in determining notability for porn actors whose careers predate the list of modern awards, thus missing and ignoring historic context of some actor's contributions. Another flaw in interpretation of PORNBIO is in some editors reading it to only allow of consideration of female notability in its wording that allows consideration of Playboy Playmates, while ignoring being man-of-the-month for Playgirl... the magazine that shows specific notability for the other gender invloved in adult entertainmant. Further, and not refuted, Ash has already pointed out that Quinn "has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s", which meets the intent of PORNBIO #4 for his contribution to the industry as whole, if not for one specific sex act. His being characterized in multiple books as shown by Ash, meets WP:GNG, specially as porn stars do not get headlines in mainstream press. Your simply repeating a claim "he does not" after others carefuly explain how he specifically does, is not as helpful as might be hoped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Playboy Playmate criteria is about to be removed from PORNBIO, so being man-of-the-month for Playgirl certainly does not confer notability. There isn't even a source that Jeff Quinn and Rhett Routley are the same person, which is a serious BLP violation. The claim that he "has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s" needs to be verified. As you should know, if you want to show Jeff Quinn passes WP:GNG, you need to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I've looked on Google Books and Google News and there's no non-trivial coverage of him. Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The notability is per WP:GNG in the Playgirl coverage being significant coverage in a nationally recognized genre-specific publication. I was not aware of any discussion to change that guideline from its current form, but found in and commented. Perhaps you should post a link to it here so other editors might contribute in reaching a proper consensus in that discussion.. one which might then adequuately expand the criteria rather than remove them... most specially as genre-specific soucres are what are required in any consideration of genre-specific notability... and even more specially for actors whose notability predates modern awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your conviction that coverage in a nationally recognized magazine cannot show WP:Notability runs contrary to established guideline. Coverage as a Playboy's Playmate of the month, or as in Quinn's case Playgirl's "man of the month" (both nationally recognized publications), quite adequately meets WP:GNG (at least until attempts are undertaken to rewrite that as well). That coverage, coupled with his notabilty as a pre-award icon who (as written in many books) characterizes his genre during the 1980s is more than enough to show notability. I do not see guidelines as in any way meant to be exclusionary, even if rewritten to seem so. I see them intended as tools which (should hopefully) encourage common sense in determining notability for different topics in different situations. Quinn is notable. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Basically, if you want me to change my mind, find some significant coverage. If you can't, ask yourself whether you should be "rescuing" this article. Epbr123 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not think your mind can be changed. The significant coverage in the genre-specific nationally known publication Playgirl, and his being referred to in books as the characterization of 1980's porn in numerous books, show notability. You say it does not. Others say it does. Further, your dedication to an inapplicable portion of PORNBIO (demanding modern PORNBIO awards for a pre-award actor), convince me no amount of discussion will change your mind or encourage that you yourself could WP:IMPROVE this article per WP:ATD. That I or others have not added them to the article is not the issue. The issue is that the article CAN be improved.... and THAT makes it a keeper even if others have not jumped through the hoops and done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Appearing as a Playgirl centrefold isn't independent, significant, reliable coverage. You really should know that. Please direct me to one of these book references so that we can discuss it. As I said, I've looked on Google Books and can't find any significant coverage. I won't be discussing this much further if I keep having to repeat things I've already said. Epbr123 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> Playgirl is genre-specific and expert enough for this field for this individual. Unlike total unknowns that get promoted in Playboy and then may or may not have a career based upon that coverage, Quinn had his career both before and after the Playgirl coverage... coverage that was initiated because of his career and its notability. THAT makes the coverage significant enough. Was paid for his appearance? Probably, but he was also paid for his film appearances, so the coverage is of the same quality... a paid appearance in a media that had wide distribution. Unless of course, you have documentation throuh OTRS that proves his career stemmed from the Playgirl coverage, rather than that coverage stemming from his career..? But then, both those options show notability as well. Using common sense in considering the careers of individuals whose careers predate the awards and organizations listed in PORNBIO is perfectly allowable, actually encouraged... and too often ignored. (See below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE

"Let's try common sense. A novel concept."
— Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."
"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely."
— Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, Section:Use common sense

It's never wrong to use common sense and proper perspective. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content and sourcing added to show they do meet notability. When more pre-1995 newspapers become digitized his impact will also be more evident to all. -- Banjeboi 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you've added appear to be unreliable, except for this, which is just trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that sources are improving supports my keep rationale above, as per the ATD guidance, such articles should not be deleted but marked for improvement when there is sufficient prospect of sourcing problems being addressed. If specific sources added by Benjiboi fail RS, please take this up on the article talk page. Ash (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:PORNSTAR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While understanding your comment, discussions above show that WP:PORNSTAR has an inherant flaw which creates an unfortunate systemic bias against individuals whose careers pre-date the listed awards and organizations. As Wikipedia is not supposed to be only about what has happened recently, an individual, specific genre or no, who can be shown to have a notability which predates the criteria being used, per WP:NTEMP, is notable none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Any and all talk about porbio is irrelevant! In fact ALL of BIO is irrelevant because this actor def. passes GNG and according to the second paragraph of GNG "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines (like BIO)." Closer take note - all deletion arguements based on not passing PORNBIO are invalid if GNG is met. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And all keep arguments based on passing GNG are invalid as all the sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions in movie reviews. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you said earlier in this discussion, and yet you failed to provide detail about your problems with specific sources on the article talk page (or anywhere else) so that improvements could be made. Vaguely suggesting that there are reliability problems or the sources are insignificant without backing up your claims seems rather shallow as an argument. Quinn's body of work is demonstrably notable, the films themselves are sources, the awards they have won are reliably sourced, that he was a well known model and Playgirl centrefold is not disputed. The fact that leading writers in the field of Queer Cinema, such as Dyer, use him as examples in their books is not disputed. GNG specifically allows for sources where the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material". Please consider IDIDNOTHEARTHAT as you seem to be unable to take these facts on board. Ash (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are the unreliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The rest are trivial sources, eg. [5], [6], [7]. Epbr123 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disagree on all your assessment. Lavender Lounge looks like just a blog but upon closer inspection he is considered an industry expert. The source by the way, is only asserting that a centerfold spread is him. The archived Playgirl listing is simply showing what the magazines contents were, we could just simply cite the magazine itself if you insist. Etc etc. You seem to miss that gay porn stars are discussed in mostly gay porn magazines and not mainstream online sources, especially for people who were active before 1995. If you insist on going down this rather argumentative path we can ask at RSN for each source supporting each statement and then add every magazine article he did. Do we really need to go that route? It would seem a better use of community energy to maybe source some unsourced BLPs since that is fresh in people's minds. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be properly referenced, the sources seem reliable to me (eg whether directly or indirectly referenced, Playgirl is a valid source), and the guy has had a significant career in his industry and has been noted as such by reliable writers -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the reliable source that Quinn and Rhett Routley are the same person? Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photographs in Playgirl are obviously the same person, the magazine itself is the reliable source you are looking for. Your scattergun approach to find new reasons for deletion is pedantic. One can improve any article indefinitely, the issues you are raising could be discussed, researched and resolved on the article talk page and do not need an AfD to be addressed. BEFORE and ATD apply, deletion is heavy-handed. Feel free to either check the source quoted yourself or add {{verify source}} against that text if you wish to encourage improvement. I note that smutjunkies lists him as appearing as a glamour model in MANDATE: The Men of Matt Sterling (1998), ADVOCATE MEN Oct 1987, HEAT Dec 1987, July 1988, Dec 1988, INCHES Jan 1987, JOCK May 1990, July 1987, MANDATE Aug 1987, PLAYGIRL Dec 1985, STALLION Sept 1987 (v06 n05), TORSO Aug 1987, BOLT May 1988, STUDFLIX Aug 1987 and LEGENDS: MEN OF FALCON Bruno Gmünder, Falcon. There seems no particular reason to think that such listings are false, in fact the magazine covers on the website are reasonable verification evidence, and if only some articles can be verified by editors checking archives, then these are all potential reliable sources for his notable modelling career in addition to the films he was credited with. Ash (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Epbr123, I don't think that blanket arguing against everyone who doesn't share your opinion is really likely to help your case - I suggest you might do better to chill and let everyone have their say -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll assume you agree with Ash's answer. Just for your information, people looking alike in photographs isn't a good enough source for such a contentious claim, and it's original research at best. Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be misrepresenting my statement. I did not say the only basis of verification was photos looking alike. For the third time, if you wish to pursue improvement of sources, this is a matter more suited to the article talk page rather than an AfD. Ash (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The photographs in Playgirl are obviously the same person, the magazine itself is the reliable source you are looking for." - I can't see how I'm misrepresenting that. Also, smutjunkies.com is unreliable as it's content is user-generated. Epbr123 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you getting stuck in a loop again? I did not say the only basis of verification was photos looking alike. As for smutjunkies, that fact that logged in users may make comments on some pages is not the same thing as the actor profiles which are not user editable and do not have any user comments. The profile pages clearly state "all information compiled and presented by smutjunkies.com, GayEroticArchives.com, Hysteric Industries." For the fourth time if you wish to pursue improvement of sources, this is a matter more suited to the article talk page rather than an AfD, particularly as you are now challenging potential new sources which are not even used in the article. Ash (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The site also states ""While every attempt to present real & reliable information is made, we acknowledge that sometimes we will get it wrong. Contributors are requested to give information they "Know To Be True" rather than "Feel To Be True" or rumors they remember or can not confirm." Not the sign of a reliable source. Epbr123 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The facility for user feedback to improve website data seems sensible, not the sign of a poor source. The quote you give shows that care is taken not to accept unverifiable user feedback. Why are you keen to debate sources not included in the article? Take your recommendations for article improvement to the talk page where they may do some good. Ash (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real evidence he passes either the WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Contrary to Schmidt's ridiculous claims regarding the additional criteria, they do make provisions other than winning awards. However, neither the article, nor any of the arguments here, are substantial evidence of him qualifying under #4. What makes him anything more than a run of the mill porn actor? Nothing that's shown.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Horrorshowj: A run of the mill porn actor is not a man-of-the-month in a national magazine, nor referred to in books about that era as being representative of 80's porn, unless he in some way or for some reason was. The use of common sense is encouraged in the use of every guideline. And thank you for the wonderfully polite and civil phrase "Schmidt's ridiculous claims". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thank you for noticing the effort. Let us use common sense. Playmate is losing as sufficient, Penthouse Pet went, I'm not sure Hustler ever qualified, and even xxx of the year from Score didn't hold up. Why, specifically, is "Man of the Month" for Playgirl such an awe inspiring accomplishment/achievement that it should be regarded as sufficient for notability? He's "mentioned." That sounds an awful lot like trivial coverage. Convince me with actual evidence that it's significant coverage and I'll change my position accordingly. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned? As man-of-the-month and centerfold with in-depth coverage in a magazine with national distribution? Seems somewhat more-than-trivial to me and others, even if not to you. I do accept that those wishing to have no coverage of adult genre topics within Wikipedia will naturally dismiss coverage in genre-specific publications, ignore the WP:GNG and the caveats at WP:RS that encourage that a source's reliability be considered in context to what is being sourced. And some editors consider any coverage of such topic, if not in the New York Times or Washington Post, to be "trivial", even if not. But that is not making use of guideline encouraged common sense. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely soapbox, but not very effective at debating anything I said. You seem to have divined my secret anti-porn crusade, good for you. Since that would obviously be acting in bad faith, perhaps you should start some sort of grievance procedure that I might face the full wrath of the community and its mechanisms. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Scott (British Politician and Social Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Delete non-notable politician Boleyn2 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and the criteria for politicians. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable politician who has been selected to run in a seat he is unlikely to win. Candidates against party leaders very rarely win.Should he cause an upset then notability would be established. At the moment he is just a wanabe MP. noq (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two mentions in local papers is way short of notability. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely contains a claim to notability; being a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate does not count. Foundation for Social Inclusion does not appear to be notable; all the top Google hits are for other organisations of the same name, and no news coverage. Warofdreams talk 10:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is looking like a "delete" decision, but if not, the capitalization needs to be fixed. We don't capitalize words like "politician" in disambiguators. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). NAC. Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraqi football transfers summer 2009[edit]

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

I'm the article creator, I made this article but the source turned to be not reliable and most of the transfers are rumors, incomplete and false list Mussav (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Speedy Delete, under G7, "author requests deletion". In this case, nobody else has made any edits. Mandsford (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we can't present rumours as facts. Source is a forum, which is plusungood. Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. As Manford said, we just need Mussav to make it official by slapping a speedy delete tag on this if he really feels this needs to be deleted. However, there is precedent for articles like this to be kept - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian football transfers Summer 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Transfers for Torneo Apertura Chileno 2007. As long as a reliable source can be found, there no reason why we can't keep this. Bettia (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - how to tag the speedy delete? thanks in advance. Mussav (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insert {{Db-g7}} at the top of the page. Bettia (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete

I was considering userfying this, as a couple of editors suggested, but as the account to which this would be userfied appears to have a Conflict of Interest, I believe that deletion without userfying would be the most prudent course of action. However, should the site meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the future, there is no reason why it cannot be created at that time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Week[edit]

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

Unsourced and promotional article about a non-notable website. Alexa rank is 2.7 million. Prod was removed without any concerns being addressed. gadfium 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works. Can you guide me. I began loading this entry for The New Zealand week and when I returned to edit further there is this mark for deletion. This a genuine news site and a genuine wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / userfy for not meeting WP:N / WP:WEB. See no results for this website from the NZ Herald, stuff.co.nz, TVNZ, TV3. Don't see the site at the Qantas Media Awards 2009 results[8]. XLerate (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a real friendly group aren't you. Ok, let's try again. We are a new news site and why would competitor sites be interested in promoting a new minor site, therefore whay would the Herald, stuff.co.nz, TVNZ andTV3 give us any attention, nice if they would. And no this isn't in the 2009 Quantas awards. (a) because the site didn't exist before the last round and (b) because we're not spending the thousands of dollars it costs to enter the awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a competitor to mainstream news organisations could make notability a little harder on one hand, but then if for example the NZ Herald publishes a story from the site then perhaps WP:WEB #3 is met. I did check the competitor issue, the Dominion Post has over 1000 hits at the New Zealand Herald[9], though it is large and not new. Reliable sources aren't limited to mainstream news, Te Ara, DNZB for example. I suggested Userfy because the site is fairly new, maybe it meets a notability criteria in the future, and the article could easily be recreated. XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / userfy as above. Single issue user, possible COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above. What's a COI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, conflict of interest. XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to clarify nature of site, which may serve to answer some of the questions raised. The New Zealand Week (TNZW) is a news review site. This being the case it doesn't generate news stories which makes it highly unlikely another news source would have need to quote or reference TNZW. Further TNZW is unique nature - it is the only, and therefore first, news review site in Australasia. This combined with the small size of the New Zealand market does mean, I would argue, that it meets the notability criteria. Here are a couple of other smaller news sites that have referred to TNZW: [In view of criticisms re not being cited by leading news source websites. Here are links to two smaller outlets that have refferred to The New Zealand Week. Home paddock rural news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • --Larryboy123 (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may meet your personal notability criteria, notability on Wikipedia is established by the fact that other people write about a subject if it is notable. And not just anyone - Reliable sources - which the blog you have linked to is not. The site might become notable in the future, but that will take time to establish. Oh, Delete. dramatic (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then redirect to ImClone stock trading case. Note that none of the info from this bio was merged to the target page, so there's no GFDL/attribution issue. Jamie S93^❤ 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bacanovic[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E: no notability independent of ImClone stock trading case. Also WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. THF (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable broker, one event, redirect and delete. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I keep forgetting about WP:BOLD solutions for this sort of BLP1E: would anyone object if I short-circuit the process, withdraw the AFD nomination, and simply turn the page into a redirect? THF (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had this idea that speedies were out of fashion, better ask someone in authority, personally I wouldn't object but allowing due process has its benefits, such as no comebacks no recreation. Saying that it hasn't really been touched since last june... Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never mind. THF (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to ImClone stock trading case. Yworo (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Merge information as appropriate. Ray^Talk 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ImClone stock trading case. Data is merged. --Bejnar (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

With no 'keep' comments, there is a clear consensus to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mercer[edit]

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

Checked Google Book Search and Google News archive and found no hits for this person in conjunction with his city and station. Article creator has removed a "notability" tag repeatedly without adding any independent and reliable evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this meets the threshold criteria I can't find anything to suggest that it is notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, I'm not finding sufficient references RadioFan (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tables themselves are already in the index articles, and the comparison is WP:OR. Sandstein 07:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by economic freedom[edit]

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

This article is a composition of ratings based on contested and largely spurious assertions about "freedom" in the economy. Being based on a libertarian thinktank's personal views about what "freedom" means (presumably it means deregulation, no labour laws, no consumer protection, low taxes, etc, etc) it is not fit to be an encyclopedia article. It should be merged with Index of Economic Freedom - which must itself make clear that any rankings are based on subjective and politicised evaluations - and this article itself should be deleted. It's about as good as me creating a page on "List of Wikidea's favourite varieties of beer". I should add, I find this quite interesting, and I appreciate someone probably went to some trouble composing this - but the information should be merged and this page should be deleted. Wik idea 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article takes two tables published by separate organizations and compares them, which is original research. The tables are already correctly shown under the articles Index of Economic Freedom and Economic Freedom of the World. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Until three recent edits, the article baldly presented the rankings, without discussing comparison or contrast. (Certainly that statistical analysis needs “reliable” sourcing if it is to be retained.) —SlamDiego_←T 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason mentioned by The Four Deuces. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this information to be helpful, though I would like more explaination as to how these two organizations ranked the nations XM (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think it can safely be said that the topic as such is probably notable but the content needs work to comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Sandstein 07:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs and the Bible[edit]

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

Original research. The author is using Wikipedia to expand on his views presented at his own website. The use of many references should detract from the fact that the author is drawing his own conclusions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. An unwarranted promotion of fringe theories that doesn't represent all significant views fairly and without bias. — Rankiri (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI can tell you that the author does not have a website. I am not the author. The author is compiling a large amount of information of published material on a general topic. The author includes his own theory but also supports theories that are not his own to try to attain neutrality. The author does not link to or in any way monetarily benefit from the work he has done.

The author is also not computer savvy and open to any suggestions on cleanup, organization, or other suggestions to better neutrality. The author is currently trying to update the page to many references to these books. Each number in the work corresponds to a reference which has not yet been entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.44.50 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an 'is' should be inserted in front of 'open'? As it stands, 'open' is negated by the 'not' preceding 'computer savy' (should be 'savvy'). Peridon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea is a load of cobblers - but there is a hell of a lot in print about it. People like von Daniken are not so much discredited by the scientific establishment as never having been credited in the first place - but they and their theories are notable (unfortunately...). Apart from that external link (which I regard as spam), the article looks well researched and documented. I can't see much that violates WP:NPOV. The whole concept is 'fringe' WP:FRINGE, but it's much-publicised fringe - unlike some of the snake-oil peddlers and self-improvenent jockeys we get trying to push their own particular brands. To me, this attempts to cover the lot of this particular bee in the bonnet. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FRINGE: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Most of the article is direct WP:OR analysis of minority views, not supported by any independent major publications or notable scientific groups.
From WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Again, the article's views are extremely one-sided. From the very start, it threats fringe science as if it were mainstream and doesn't offer any objective commentary from reliable scientific sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the title was UFOs and the Bible? Since when has the Bible been mainstream science? Or science of any sort even... I couldn't say how many believers there are in these varying views - I do know the books sold very well. Please note - I do not subscribe to any of these views - and nor do I subscribe to the Bible being anything more than a book of myth, legend, legal codes, history, letters (and erotic poetry). Peridon (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, when I mentioned mainstream science, I wasn't talking about the Bible at all. The phenomenon of UFOs has been a subject of scientific inquiry for decades and I don't believe that the general empirical consensus is in any way supportive of the article's views. The article also contains a number of consensus-dodging claims and theories that would never be allowed to stay on such more carefully patrolled articles as UFO and Bible. Its language also gives such minority views as the "government cover-up" theory an inappropriate amount of undue weight. The whole "the governments of the world deny that we are being visited by an extraterrestrial reality, while UFO researchers claim that the evidence of a cover-up is overwhelming" bit is not exactly a neutrally-worded representation of all significant viewpoints, don't you agree? — Rankiri (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note that citing oneself is allowed but I think the article gives undue weight to Downing's views. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with severe cleanup. This is a notable (if fringy) topic. The tone of the article doesn't seem very wikipedialike, however. I suggest mass cleanup, but the topic isn't worth trashing. Articles are deleted for inappropriate/non-notable topics. This doesn't fall into that category. (update) This really needs TONS of cleanup. If it cannot be written to WP standards, then delete. Timneu22 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Edit The subject may be a fringe to many people, but the article does not represent WP:OR at all. However, it is nearly unreadable and needs to be heavily edited. Warrah (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concerning "fringe," the topic is fringe if we mean that the topic will not be discussed in church, synagogue, mosque, or temple at most religious services.

But students will watch the History Channel program, "UFOs in the Bible," and then go to Wikipedia, and type in "UFOs and the Bible," as I did, and find an invitation to write an article.

I wrote the article with students in mind; I could have left out the section on "UFOs and Religious Imagination," but I thought students need to see the wider perspective, including the mythological, psychological and cult dimension of the subject.

In regard to the "Angelic theory" (Downing) being too strong, I assume the proper response is to strengthen the other three positions: Ancient Astronaut (von Daniken) Demonic (Bates), and Fallen Angel (Missler and Eastman). Please offer suggestions on how this strengthening could be achieved.

Concerning the fact that UFOs are not mainstream science, notice that Psychologists like C.G. Jung can discuss religion and Flying Saucers, and likewise Lutheran theologian Ted Peters, without taking a position concerning the scientific reality of UFOs. At the very least, "UFOs and the Bible" is a subject for cultural anthropology. 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrydowning (talk • contribs)

Barry, you wrote the article in a style like an essay. It needs to be written to the standards of wikipedia. This is my only complaint about the article; it just isn't written like other articles. Clean it up, and it is definitely a subject worth keeping! Timneu22 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:FRINGE, WP:OR (the article is based largely on the editor's own work, which is published in books, but not ones that can be classed as reliable sources), and serious conflict of interest. Even if these didn't apply, I don't think the article can be cleaned up to Wikipedia standards: I note that the nominator made an attempt to do so before nominating it for deletion. At best I can see benefit in a short paragraph or two in Unidentified flying object. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bible itself is crap, so what is the problem to equate crap UFO theories to Bible? I smell a pro-Biblical POV is the motivation behind this nom and other delete votes masquerading as OR. If the article has COI problem, then edit it, do not delete it. Defender of torch (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you still perceive any foul odors, a nice cold shower may do you some good. — Rankiri (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a summary of mostly well-known theories, nonsensical though they are. It is perfectly understandable that people in the Judeo-Christian culture area would use Biblical imagery for what they dream or imagine. it's not sourced in detail, but it could be. It's not promoting fringe, it's talking about it. The need to rewrite an article for style is not a reason to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me it's a very POV discussion, mostly pushing the personal view of the editor (Downing) that "UFO beings are not here on earth only as observers, but rather that they are directing and controlling human destiny... they are a divine, or angelic power, guiding the development of life on earth." His description of his personal debate with Bates is also very POV, with a rather extreme COI. Not to mention that the whole article assumes a certain POV on what UFOs are. I'm sure an objective sociological discussion of religious views on UFOs might be useful to Wikipedia, but this article is hardly that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not WP:OR, but based on a lot of published work. My personal belief is that the whole business a a load of cobblers, but that is my opinion. A lot of published sources are cited, and editor's views of them are their WP:POV. I am certainly not an expert of the subject, but it is a view that people hold, and they are entitled to seek to put forward that view. There is a significant difference between an article about a view, and a POV article. If the article is expressing only the POV of its believers, the appropriate course is for some one to add a section setting out the arguments of those debunking the theory, so that the reader is offered both opposing POVs, and can make his own choice. However, that implies improving the article, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: An editor has deleted the section "Angelic theory" on the basis that this theory seems to be solely the product of Downing's making, and as the author of this article, that editor felt there was a conflict of interest. Looking at the references, the article appears to be a coatrack on which to hang this self-developed angelic theory. Without that section, the whole premise of the article (that UFOs are specifically related to the Bible) seems to fall apart. The "ancient astronaut" theory (which already has its own article) is not specific to the Bible, but addresses ancient imagery from cultures around the world. The "demonic theory" and the "fallen angel" theory appear to be synthesis on the part of the author to relate the UFO phenomenon to issues addressed in the Bible. No references are given to indicate that any other author shares this view. Finally, the last section ("UFOs and religious imagination") is not related to the Bible at all, but rather to newer spiritualities that are unrelated to the Bible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you take a look on UFO, Ancient astronauts and other relevant pages, you'll see a number of sobering disclaimers like these:

Such theories have not received support within the scientific community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals.

In his 1979 book Broca's Brain, Sagan suggested that he and Shklovski might have inspired the wave of '70s ancient astronaut books, expressing disapproval of "von Daniken and other uncritical writers" who seemingly built on these ideas not as guarded speculations but as "valid evidence of extraterrestrial contact."

Some scientists have argued that all UFO sightings are misidentifications of natural phenomena and historically, there was debate among some scientists about whether scientific investigation was warranted given available empirical data. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which scientists have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.

This article, however, takes these fringe theories and treats them as if they were almost universally accepted facts. Those who suggested to keep because you felt that the article's views were confirmed by the sources, please note that WP:OR is not the main issue here. WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK and WP:FRINGE are. — Rankiri (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree, but I think the topic is fine but the content needs to be rewritten. Timneu22 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euss[edit]

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

Was deleted as G12 once, PROD'ed once, and is now back after a second PROD (which I declined as it is ineligible). Trivial stub, no RS'ing, no assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in article, and searching produced only a few unreliable and/or non-independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not familiar with .NET stuff much, but a search for Euss plus "object-relational mapper" turned up nothing at all google books and news archive. Pcap ping 22:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hopefully there will be some real follow-through on the various problems with tone and style. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Allen (author)[edit]

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

This reads like a puff piece... is he really notable? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like puff. Only a handfull of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep needs improvement in tone and style, but EU report he is main author on is highly notable, and "leading expert" on topic of Islamophobia looks documented and justified as claim, hence meeting WP:PROF or WP:AUTH (and just plain WP:GNG). LotLE×talk 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe, does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, career is average for a scholar at this stage, article is completely promotional and yet says nothing encyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve if needed. His work on Islam seems important and timely. Msushi (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doing a little forensic analysis, it appears most of the (incredibly badly formatted) content was added in August-September 2008, by to anonymous editors. I assume that this/these anons are associated with the bio subject in some way, but unfamiliar with WP formatting. However, the content itself–which is predominantly bibliographic entries–seems solid and verifiable. The publication list probably does not need to have such microscopic detail in the article, but the fact it is so extensive is an awfully sign of notability, once one reads past the resume tone of the article. Whatever the identity and intention of those anons, the subject itself is very strongly notable. LotLE×talk 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how WP:PROF is met here. Lots of puffery in the article, none of it referenced. Pcap ping 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, the EU report was co-authored with Jørgen S. Nielsen who is far more notable than this guy, but only has a crappy unref'd stub here. Pcap ping 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless RS are found, this is promotional material. MiRroar (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , based on the 192 G Scholkar results in [10]; trim drastically--there are better places for his complete CV. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Holm[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a memorial. No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual for Mr. Holm; only one news article has been found], and no sources were given with the article. tedder (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had trouble finding information, but much of that is probably due to the guy dying long before the advent of the Internet. Here is one more online article I found: [11] —EncMstr (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that looks like the same article. Katr67 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I meant this one, which also looks similar, but was later in time. —EncMstr (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the material found above, I also found this news article. What this shows me is that we have a news article with very little about Holm aside from his involvement with the murder of Michael Francke. The material in this article is highly speculative with no sourcing. The Francke article has the same problems. As such, there is nothing worth merging. As an alternative, I could support a redirect to Michael Francke#Conspiracy theories. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Francke until such time it is proven Holm is notable on his own. Acknowledging the possible FUTON bias, he currently doesn't appear to have any notability except for his association with the Francke case. Because there isn't proof his death is related to the case, his only connection is as a consultant to the Gable defense team and he does not appear to have had a major role in that capacity. There also doesn't appear to be anything to merge--the article is mostly a rehashing to the Francke case and speculation. Katr67 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be fodder for a new Ann Rule book, but has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination was withdrawn with no deletion-supporting opines. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First White Terror[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:RS. Defender of torch (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. From Google Books: [12], [13]^([14]), [15], [16], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources provided by Rankiri. Robofish (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nom. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination was withdrawn with no deletion-supporting opines. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second White Terror[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:RS. Defender of torch (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Google Books immediately shows a number of WP:RS sources filled with nontrivial coverage: [17], [18], [19], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources provided by Rankiri. Robofish (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nom. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clunge[edit]

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

It's a neologism and an obscene one. There are links to where it's appeared, mostly in comedy and men's magazines. It could go to wiktionary.

I hope some commenters in the U.K. can help because it apparently is from there. Cynof Gavuf 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This neologism isn't suitable or notable enough for Wikipedia. Urban Dictionary maybe. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable slang. TJRC (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT Per WP:NEO and WP:DICTIONARY VernoWhitney (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Is Not Your Lawyer[edit]

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

Ok it got press coverage, but it's an unaired TV pilot. Ridernyc (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So what if it's an unaired TV pilot? The references are full of reliable and verifiable sources. Plus, I wasn't aware that being a failed TV pilot was grounds for deletion - perhaps you should take a look at Heat Vision and Jack, or this category? Or this one? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the fact that it has received significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources is the exact reason why it is notable and should be kept. Angryapathy (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- received enough coverage to achieve notability, despite just being a pilot. Its hardly the first time a pilot has achieved notability on its own.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:EPISODE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Worthy[edit]

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

non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in very poor shape, however this is a notable actor. He had a recurring role on a successful TV series (the 2000's Battlestar Galactica) and and appeared in a couple episodes of Heroes. I think this meets WP:BIO's requirement for actors under WP:ENT #1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (Emphasis mine.) Article does need lots and refs and formatting, though. Don't delete based on state of article, but instead on the notability of the subject. Here, the subject is notable, and we should keep. Angryapathy (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah your right, nom withdrawn. Ridernyc (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yogapedia[edit]

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

Contested prod, incoherent rambling fringe essay. Ridernyc (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article content is not about Yogapedia. It appears to be OR about yoga, on which Wikipedia already has a sufficient article. Given that all of the Yogapedia article is OR, there's nothing to merge to Yoga. Delete. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Speedy?) Wow, yeah, this is not an article about a subject but an essay on what someone thinks yoga is. Probably qualifies under one or more of the speedy's. Angryapathy (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:POVFORK (Yoga), WP:NOT#ESSAY. The article's content has nothing to do with its title. A pruned Google Web inquiry returned 111 unique results, none of which appear to be reliable secondary sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay, duplicate of far superior existing article. Hut 8.5 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay not covering the subject of the article. It has context - it's clearly about Yoga - and it has content. It's not overtly vandalism or hoax, and it's not promoting any discernable business or cause. It's not copyvio. Near as I can tell, it doesn't discuss anything for which A7 would work, and it's not an attack page. So none of the speedy criteria fit - which just means it'll likely be a WP:SNOW close rather than a WP:CSD close. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bullshit Defender of torch (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion related to merging can take place on the talk page, as always. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventive Leisure[edit]

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

Doesn't establish notability, and reads like an advertisement. Parrot of Doom 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does it read like an advertisement? It doesn't say things like "Come to our bars for a great night out". Rather it's all pretty mundane stuff about company acquisition and turnover. As I have already commented on your talk page there is plenty of coverage for this, which I will add over the next few days. There might be a justification to merge with Revolution (vodka bar) but we don't need AfD for that. Quantpole (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Although it no longer reads like an advertisement (I have removed unsourced text), it appears to be of minor significance at best. The threshold for inclusion is a combination of reliable third party references and notability - without evidence of these I say delete. --Jza84 | Talk 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [20], [21] and [22] for more. Quantpole (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admire the reworking that has gone into the article this evening. Although I have reservations as to the long-term 'articleness' of the topic, it's now inline with policy and so believe keep is the right option. --Jza84 | Talk 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This is apparently about a chain of vodka bars. Surprisingly, Google News does yield a few relevant results, but looking through them they seem to be either inclusions in "Top 100 Companies" lists or routine coverage of corporate announcements of profit and loss statements and the like. That sort of coverage does not turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Revolution (vodka bar). That article is currently a two sentence stub, but "Revolution" is the name the general public will see first on the shingle. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten and expanded the article so it's hopefully all nicely sourced now. I believe it meets the GNG by being the subject of significant coverage over a number of years. In addition, looking at WP:CORP, it says "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)." when talking about publicly traded companies (which this was). It seems that financial reports and the like should not be excluded from determining notability. It has also got a profile in Hoover's, which is specifically mentioned in the guideline. The coverage available is more than simply announcements of profit and loss, and includes interviews with the founders, lots of details of takeover speculation (which I haven't included in the article but is easily found for those who care to look), analytical business coverage and so on. Quantpole (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, sources establish notability. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis: The Family Bible Game Show[edit]

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

One-off television quiz show that has never been repeated with no evidence of notability. Web and news searches don't indicate significant coverage. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One off quiz show never repeated with no evidence of notability.Malcolma (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cant't find significant coverage for this episode. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afro-Brazilian. Content disputes may not be resolved through forking an article, see WP:CFORK. Please use the article talk page to resolve the content disagreements instead. Sandstein 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Brazilian[edit]

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

Highly opinionated fork of Afro-Brazilian (used to be a redirect). Was brought up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Should be deleted or made a redirect again. Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the opinionated article is African Brazilian, which is a collection of absurds and original research, part of a broad attempt to deny the existence or importance of Portuguese colonisation of Brazil.

In articles about Brazilian demography, systematically, "pardos" are relabeled as Black - even those "pardos" who have absolutely no African ancestry at all - and Brazilian Whites are reclassified as "mixed race", result of an European-Amerindian admixture. Only "actual Whites" - ie, descendants of recent European, especially Italian and German, immigrants - are acknowledged as "White". As a result, the figures for Blacks and "pardos" are conflated, the figures of descendants of immigrants are grossly exaggerated, sources are misinterpreted as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say, etc., etc., etc. This is the logic that drives the African Brazilian article, including its very title: to group together Black Brazilians and "pardos", even though this is, in the context of Brazilian culture, a very problematic move.

Black Brazilian should stay and be improved; perhaps the correct thing to do would be to delete African Brazilian. Ninguém (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Then would you care to explain (as has been pointed out at the NPOV-noticenoard) why Black Brazilian is based on few sources and has a host of {{cn}}-tags, whereas Afro-Brazilian has 51 sources and no {{cn}}-tags? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afro-Brazilian because of what I typed in the NPOV noticeboard. Oh, and I agree with Seb az86556's response. B-Machine (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, for "African Brazilian" above (I mean, as an article title), read "Afro-Brazilian". I have to agree with Ninguém when he says above that it's a mess. As an example, let's consider its very start: Afro-Brazilian, African-Brazilian or Black Brazilian, is the term used to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the official IBGE census. As of 2005, 91 million Brazilians were included in the black and brown category. So term X, term Y, and term Z (all of them English) is (sic) the term (note the singular) used to racially categorize (as opposed to some other categorization?) Brazilian citizens who checked that they were of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors (note the plural) in the official IBGE census -- as opposed, I guess, to all the unofficial IBGE censuses. Wouldn't a Portuguese census -- sorry, an official Portuguese census use a term in Portuguese? Oh, perhaps it does, and this one term is pardo. If it is pardo, then how on earth did this get translated into "Afro-Brazilian, African-Brazilian or Black Brazilian"? (Actually it isn't pardo; it's negro.) And it blunders on after that, mixing up pigmentation, the social construct of race, heredity, and so forth. By which I don't mean to say that it's all bad; rather, that it's a hell of a mess. ¶ By contrast, the introduction of Black Brazilian is clear (though I can't say this for the "History" section). ¶ I'd be inclined to retain (and improve) Black Brazilian for matters of "race", and to retain "Afro-Brazilian" for matters of slavery and emancipation. Or, if they are joined, to make sure that the result is not merely written in accordance with what would normally be taken as "reliable sources" but instead are written in accordance with academic works from mainstream publishers that have appeared as recently as possible. ¶ Compare the article Pardo, which is good; and White Brazilian, which is grotesquely bad. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is (and I only nominated this since it was pointed out to me), which of the two articles is worse. Obviously, they both deal with the same topic, albeit with an English title. Right now, there's a double-entry, and one of them has to go. I think it makes sense to delete the shorter one with less sources, and rework the better one of the two. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-hm. You can have largely "white" ancestry and still appear and be regarded as "black". You can have largely African ancestry and still appear and be regarded as "white". Should one article deal with both kinds of people? If so, why? (Because in north America both could be called African-Americans and Brazilians should be categorized as if north American, perhaps?) And what should the article be titled? -- Hoary (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that African Brazilian has some validity, no, it is not the same thing as Black Brazilian. One thing is to be of African descent; another thing is to be socially perceived as Black. Evidently there is (much) overlapping; but conceptually they are different things. Moreso because this conflation of "preto" and "pardo" includes people who aren't neither Black nor of African descent: caboclos and acculturated Indians.

As Hoary hints, both articles are not good; Black Brazilian is very lacking, almost a stub, and African Brazilian is confuse. And I would say, POVed, trying to push a very specific, and practic, classification (that some, and not all, Brazilian governmental agencies use in regards to affirmative action public policies planning) as scientific truth about a complicated subject (because by this means, all discussion about race in Brazil is slanted; mixed-race people become Black, which allows for White people becoming mixed-race, which allows for only German Brazilians and Italian Brazilians being described as "actually White").

"African-Brazilian" isn't normally used in Brazilian political discourse (where "Negro" is preferred), nor in Brazilian daily practice (where a plethora of very different terms, with very different denotations and conotations - preto, negro, mulato, moreno, crioulo, escuro, and their diminutives and augmentatives, such as negão, mulatinha, crioulinho, etc. - are used. On the other hand, the term that most commonly links to Africa, afro-descendente, which is used in governmental discourse, is ignored in the articles. Ninguém (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and about why Black Brazilian has many fact tags, etc.

Because I included fact tags in Black Brazilian. Fact tags should be a means to help improve the articles, pointing where they need further or more precise sourcing, not a means to imply that the articles are bad.

On the other hand, African Brazilian probably has no fact tags because they were removed, more or less like these: [23], [24].

There were many articles like this, with no fact tags: White Brazilian, Immigration to Brazil, Demographics of Brazil, etc. An accurate readin shows that many of their sources absolutely do not support the articles' text (and sometimes directly contradict it); that some sources make unsupported statements and seem to be written by inexpert people; that some sources are contradictory, stating in one paragraph what they deny in the previous or following one; that some sources are of dubious quality, etc.

Some examples: in White Brazilian, Darcy Ribeiro was extensively quoted to support the idea that there are no "caboclos" in Brazil (while Ribeiro's book has a whole chapter on Caboclos); in German Brazilian, a newspaper article was given as the source for the "information" that speaking German in Brazil during WWII was forbidden under a "torture penalty" (requests for an actual law being rebuffed as a totally unheard of theory about "illegal penalties" was put up); in Immigration to Brazil the source reports about an amnesty for "illegal immigrants", but the law it reports nowhere uses the term "illegal immigrant"; in São Paulo, the article stated that thre are more than 100 ethnicities in the city, and the given source does absolutely not say it, or anything that directly implies it; again in São Paulo, a figure for descendants of Portuguese immigrants is given, together with a source, but the source merely reports a third party stating such figure, and takes no responsibility for it; in the same article, a source is given for the figure of Asian Brazilians, and it happens that the source has, for some strange reason, simply made up the figure.

I am quite certain that having a detailed look on African Brazilian sources will result in the accretion of many fact tags to the article. Ninguém (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afro-Brazilian or delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. This articles is stuffed with unverified sentences and seem to be pushing POV. It is a clear intend to insert personal conclusions and opinion on wikipedia, which is against NOR and NPOV. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with protected redirect. Clear WP:POVFORK. Verbal chat 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While African Brazilian only has objective and scientific material, such as:

From this idea, since the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the Black Brazilian population is treated^{[by whom?]} as the sum of the self-declared Blacks and Browns. This conception is based on the idea that Black Brazilians lie to the census^{[citation needed]} and say they are Browns.

Really unbiased and unPOVed. "Brown" Brazilians are Black Brazilians who lie to the Census that they are Brown. Ninguém (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let's have a look at the 51 sources for Afro-Brazilian. First of them is the 2006 PNAD, which will be difficult to understand for those who don't read Portuguese. It points to a huge PDF, and it doesn't explain how or where you should find the information it supports. So let me explain: in the menu on the left, open "Notas Técnicas" and chose "Características Gerais e de Imigração". Scroll down until you find a blue title "Cor ou Raça". There it explains what races the Brazilian Census researchs:

Consideraram-se cinco categorias para a pessoa se classificar quanto à característica cor ou raça: branca, preta, amarela (compreendendo-se nesta categoria a pessoa que se declarou origem japonesa, chinesa, coreana etc), parda (incluindo-se nesta categoria a pessoa que se declarou mulata, cabocla, cafuza, mameluca ou mestiça de preto com pessoa de outra cor ou raça) e indígena (considerando-se nesta categoria a pessoa que se declarou indígena ou índia).

Basically this explains that there are five different categories concerning colour/race: White, Black, Yellow (comprising those who declared themselves of Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc., origin), "parda" (comprising those who declared themselves "mulato" - ie, a mix of Black and White -, "caboclo" - ie, a mix of White and Amerindian -, "cafuzo" - ie, a mix of Amerindian and Black -, "mameluco" - ie, again a mix of White and Amerindian -, or any mix of Black and other race), and Indigenous (comprising those who self declared Indigenous or Indian). There is no mention of Blacks and "pardos" being the same thing; on the contrary, each one has a different definition.

Then you may close "Notas Técnicas" and open "Tabelas de resultados". Chose "Dados Gerais". In the text, chose "1.2". This will show you the table of results for "cor ou raça", colour/race. If you sum up the figures for "pardos" and "pretos", they will make for 92.69 million people (because it is the 2006 PNAD), instead of 91 million as stated in the text (which is based the 2005 PNAD). Again, the figures for Blacks and Pardos are shown separately, with no indication that they are or should be summed in any level different from the general total including all five categories.

Up to now, we have "pretos" and "pardos" as two different categories - in 2006, in a research conducted by an agency of the Federal Government, the IBGE. Where does the summing up of both into "African Brazilians" or "Afro-Brazilians"? From source number two, which is a paper by the Fundação Sistema de Análise de Dados - SEADE -, an agency of the São Paulo State government. There the two categories are summed up, but no explanation of why it has been done is given. As an aside, the words "Africa", "African", or "Afro-Brazilian" are not mentioned even once in this source, that should support these statements:

Afro-Brazilian, African-Brazilian or Black Brazilian, is the term used^{[by whom?]} to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the official IBGE census.

So now we have a Federal Government agency counting "pretos" and "pardos" separately in 2006 versus a State level Government agency counting them together in 2005. Which should prevail? Or should we consider, for the moment, that the sources are insufficient for actually understanding the categorisation of Black/pardos/Afro-Brazilians?

See what I mean when I say the sources are misused in these articles? Ninguém (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Afro-Brazilian purports to be an article about a population that consists in two subsets: 1. Black Brazilians, and 2. Pardos. The article on Black Brazilians is nominated for deletion. Shouldn't the article on Pardos be nominated for deletion too? If not, why not? Ninguém (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Question. The article on Afro-Brazilians uses the phrase "Afro-Brazilian" 28 times (including the title). It uses the phrase "African Brazilian" 11 times (eight of them as "African-Brazilian"). It uses the word "Black", referring to race, more than 150 times. Is it an article about "Afro-Brazilians" or an article about Blacks? Ninguém (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Perfunctory Research. I have taken a non-intensive (for instance, I haven't checked Casa Grande e Senzala or most of O Povo Brasileiro, or Laurentino Gomes' 1808) look on the sources of Afro-Brazilian. Besides what I have already shown above - that the source that reportedly supports the statement that Afro-Brazilian, African-Brazilian or Black Brazilian, is the term used to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown does not mention, even once, Africa, Africans, or Afro-Brazilians, I have found the following gems:

Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses by David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel is cited as a source for the following statement: The largest concentration of Afro-Brazilians is in the state of Bahia where over 80% of the people are descendants of Africans. The book doesn't mention Bahia.

Uma Gota de Sangue, by Demétrio Magnoli is cited as the source for this absurd statement: From this idea, since the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the Black Brazilian population is treated as the sum of the self-declared Blacks and Browns. This conception is based on the idea that Black Brazilians lie to the census and say they are Browns. But Magnoli is a strong opposer of treating Blacks and "pardos" as the same thing, and defends the right of "pardos" to not classify themselves as Black. And, in fact, he is, a few lines below, cited as a critic of this "binary division".

Simon Schwartzman is cited as supporting the idea that (the official figures) would hide the true size of the black population in Brazil, which if defined in a similar way to what happens in the United States would reach at least 50% of the population; and they would also not measure the true size of the Amerindian population. However, as it has been shown, in detail, in the Talk Page, Schwartzman merely quotes this line of reasoning to better refute it. He is also reported as following the same "thinking" as Darcy Ribeiro, which is utterly false; they have very different positions and lines of reasoning.

Darcy Ribeiro is cited as believing that the prejudice in Brazil, due to be primarily social, can be finished. This will happen when many black Brazilians be out of the condition of misery and take part in the consumer market. What Ribeiro effectively writes is very different: Assimilationism, as we see, creates a fluid atmosphere in interracial relations, but dissuades Blacks of their specific struggle, making them unable to understand that victory is only attenaible by social revolution.

Edward Telles is cited as stating that any person with a significant amount of European ancestry was systematically classified as White. But what Telles effectively writes seems to directly contradict this: Unlike in the United States, race in Brazil refers mostly to skin color or physical appearance rather than to ancestry.

There are other direct contradictions between text and the sources that should support it: an article about Spanish television, which doesn't mention Brazil, is the source for statements about the presence, or lack thereof, of Black actors in Brazilian TV; an article that states that scientists have proven that races have no biological meaning and are social is cited as saying that races don't exist and are "merely" social constructs.

However, I think that an article that actually falsifies the positions of four authors - Magnoli, Ribeiro, Schwartzman, and Telles - stating or implying that they defend ideas that they in fact oppose, cannot be considered NPOV, better than the other article, or even a passable article at all. Ninguém (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Takamura[edit]

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

This actor does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Malkinann (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of notability. -- allen四names 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Searches find a few other roles aside from the ones already listed, but none even close to important, and the recurring role here is as the companion of a recurring secondary character, which is far from significant. Unless she has a singing career that's not evident, that makes delete for not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two roles, no lead one, leaning Delete right now. Nothing from Animax, Animate & Newtype. --KrebMarkt 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much turns up in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Megumi+Takamura%22 although apparently there's a movie coming out in 2010 she'll be in. --Gwern (contribs) 21:39 12 February 2010 (GMT)
- Correction it's an original DVD release and it's out. After looking at that, all i can is Meeuuuuhhhh. Thanks for the search Gwern. --KrebMarkt 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles yet. No prejudice against recreation should the subject become notable in the future. Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has done notable roles in notable series. Not sure exactly how many episodes the character was in, but apparently this was the side kick of a major character and seen often enough. Wikipedia is not paper, there no shortage of space, nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 09:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the companion of a secondary character, not a major one. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable voice actress that fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT - no significant coverage in reliable sources, and unable to meet WP:BLP or have more than a single line and a list of roles = delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only one semi-significant roll, even if recording, it is not enough to comply with WP:ENT. Unless someone can present significant coverage by reliable third party sources, per WP:NOTE, this biography doesn't have a chance. —Farix (t | c) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia[edit]

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

This article, largely written by ArbCom banned User:Haiduc, may seem encyclopedic on a first pass, but in effect is little more than a content fork. Although the article has been edited since then to remove some of the most blatant POV pushing, it still has questionable value. Many of its sections attempt to summarize other articles, with {{main}} or {{see also}} tags. It's unclear to me why this intermediate article is needed when those summaries can be added to the main article on Pederasty, and detailed treatment is done sub-articles. This article also engages in direct interpretation a lot of historical primary sources. The lead also seems to attempt to draw its own conclusions with no clear references. Pcap ping 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tending delete for the reasons outlined above. I can't see why this is separate from the parent article. Alot of it is written like an essay and seems to be drawing alot of extraneous material to give validity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I would agree that this is a POV pushing article. Any valid material bleiongs elswhere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edit a lot of Central Asia-related articles, and saw this nominated on the list of Central Asia-related deletions. I only looked over the Central Asia section, and while it certainly needs work, there is good content there. It covers historical references to the practice and current debate about the practice in the region. If this article is ultimately deleted, I'd like to move the Central Asia section into its own article. The practice was/is common enough in the region, and enough well-documented sources exist to warrant its creation. In fact, even if kept, it might be worthwhile to split the two anyway. Otebig (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, if there's salvageable contents not included in other articles, it should be salvaged. Pederasty in the Renaissance was an article that had some salvageable contents for instance, and I merged it to LGBT history. Pcap ping 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom. Unencyclopedic content-fork, and a coatrack for someone's POV-pushing - Alison ^❤ 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete its more of an essay than an encyclopaedia article. Also per Alison above. Viridae ^Talk 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long POV-fork essay overflowing with original research, speculation and non-verifiable commentary. Also, since it is known that Haiduc routinely misrepresented the content of sources, even the info in this article that has footnotes can't be assumed to be reliably sourced. If the article is not deleted, all the sources would have to be vetted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just another POV. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and as per my other deletes in similar afds of late. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Eyes (band)[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, delete. They sound like they could be a good group, but they gotta get out there. Even Styx had to spend time getting their name out before they made it big. Absolutely no prejudice to recreation when they cross the lines at WP:BAND. Good luck, guys - it's a hard road. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now still fails WP:MUSICBIO VernoWhitney (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Capacity (band)[edit]

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

This looks to be a hoax. The entire album and single discographies contain false information—it appears this band has not charted or have had albums certified anywhere—and I can find nothing to verify the band's presence on any of the labels listed. Further, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for the band, which one would expect to find for "one of the biggest selling acts in all of Canada". The band's MySpace page indicates they "are beginning to Rock the Canadian music scene" and are looking for a label. At this time, they do not meet WP:N or any of the WP:BAND criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating their individual album articles, none of which satisfy WP:N or WP:NALBUMS as there is no significant coverage to be found in reliable sources for these recordings. Edit: there is also a separate discography page, which I've added to the list below.

Gongshow ^Talk 09:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all as hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all as hoax. Even their myspace site contradicts data in the article; Myspace site mentions that they made an initial demo in 2002. PK T(alk) 03:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - and consider SALT too. Someone did a lot of work on this elaborate invented history... they should have put all that effort into getting a gig. For the record, note that some of the albums are listed as having been released by Immortal Records, which went out of business so it is impossible to verify the existence of those albums on the record company website (which is defunct). They also apparently have releases on Atlantic, Epic, and Island, but the official websites of those noteworthy labels beg to differ. This band is also nowhere to be found at the leading music retailing sites like CD Universe and Amazon, and they have everything. And get a load of the peak chart positions in the Maximum Capacity discography!!! This band with several top ten albums in America somehow is not mentioned in the chart histories at Billboard. Gotta wonder if their music rocks as hard as this hoax. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all Per WP:G3 VernoWhitney (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. M. Clark[edit]

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

Prod contested by someone apparently assuming bad faith. This article seems to be about a non-notable academic. He was the first president of Society for Biblical Studies in India, but this doesn't seem to be a "major academic society" according to Criterion 6 of WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The founding president of an inter-denominational academic society is surely notable. Contrary to the view expressed on another AFD, the Christian community (of 30 million) is only proportionately small, not absolutely. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question~~Delete. I'm not sure why the population comment -- the number of Christians in India is roughly comparable to the number in, say, France, but I'm not sure how that relates to this AfD. And I'm not sure if founding the SBSI is enough to make R. M. Clark notable. I guess it would depend on the significance of the society. Does anyone know how many members it has, or what impact it has had? -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for that matter - there's nothing establishing notability on the Society for Biblical Studies in India page either. Its past President says it "has been active in the Indian Theological arena", but that's not an independent source. Anyway, I tagged the article. So we do need to be careful about seeing Clark as inheriting notability from the SBSI. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete, since I can find no non-Wikipedia mentions of this R. M. Clark. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further on this, the guidelines at WP:PROF are not totally clear, and I've added a note to its talk page to that effect. Criterion 6 talks about holding a major highest-level post at a "major academic society", while Note 13 says this criterion can be satisfied by being "president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." Well, major is not the same as notable, and while the SBSI is notable (apparently) surely no-one could call it "major". Major societies would be the Evangelical Theological Society, the Society of Biblical Literature or the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Maybe an example of "notable but not major" would be the Adventist Theological Society. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Society has been holding regular sessions for more than 40 years; that alone suggests it has some significance. And it has some outside references, such as [25]. Clark was reportedly its first president; however, I can find virtually nothing about Clark except Wikipedia and mirrors. Unless there is significant information out there in some other language, he does not qualify as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2010

I can find a few things, but they are all for different R. M. Clarks (an engineer and a chemist). -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User St. Anselm is on an India-bashing spree. Looks like the user is dictating which society is major or minor, or notable or non-notable. The User has zero knowledge of Biblical Scholarship in India or for that matter in third world countries. User trying to insert Deletion Tags in India-specific Theologians articles. If someone else places tags in articles which the user created (Australia-specific), the user tries to remove Prods.--Pavani (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cardinal Wikipedia rule is Assume good faith. St. Anselm has expressed some notability concerns, with respect to standard Wikipedia policy in WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), and WP:Notability (academics). The purpose of this debate is for people, like yourself, who think the article should be kept, to explain why the subject is notable. Instead, you seem to be attacking St. Anselm personally and (if I understand you correctly) doing some retaliatory tagging. That may not be the best way of handling this issue. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Beale[edit]

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

Fictional character from a short running series with little cultural importance. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason stated above:

Delete or redirect to Journeyman (TV series). Character already adequately covered in main article. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or merge to Journeyman (TV series). --60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong fan-base for the character. In addition, a great many things were revealed about the character during the series; enough for an article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page view stats do not support claim of fan base, which would really require a secondary source. Topic has no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I was not aware that "cultural importance" now somehow supersedes WP:N. Using such an assertion as a reason to delete would seem to encourage rather than discourage an expanded systemic bias. Far better to look at the series and the character's coverage in sources over a 4-year period and then somehow argue that such coverage does not meet guideline. "Cultural importance"? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator withdrawn. SNOW Close - Nonadmin closure. PC World review is enough. Missed it. Cynof Gavuf 16:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullzip PDF Printer[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources for this software. I found a single blog entry in google news, and it's listed on CNET, but otherwise non notable software. Cynof Gavuf 08:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added 2 recent reviews from PC World and an older review from PC Magazine. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides those articles there's also book coverage [26] [27], albeit in German. Pcap ping 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BugUp Tracker[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA. I have been unable to find any coverage. Haakon (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable software, I cant find significant coverage either RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krumme 13[edit]

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

No coverage in academic sources, and the main claim to notability is an incident that earned them only brief mention in the news. There are no reliable sources that profile them in any depth. Except for one article on the incident, the sources cited are all primary sources, and not from reliable independent news organizations. Dominic·t 07:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails WP:ORG--MaxEspinho (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteThis also most looks like an odd kind of seff promotion. Not notable. I also just had a thought, if we visit the web blog are we going to be taged as pedos?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some news coverage exists, e.g. [28] Der Spiegel, [29] Independent Online (South Africa) but too little to overcome WP:NOT#NEWS in my view. Pcap ping 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, fails verifiability. One minor passing incident had a fleeting report in the news. Article has only one source, the other links on the page all connect to self-published pro-pedophile websites. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin McAllister[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. The article tries to claim notability (which is why I'm not tagging for speedy deletion) when it talks about the album & EP release that was "featured in Filter Magazine's Discover the Undiscovered". However, I don't believe that is sufficient. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB Article is not tagged Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it now. Ty 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author had removed the AFD tag. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient secondary coverage to meet wiki requirements. Ty 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grave Depression[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability in that there is no evidence I've been able to find that suggests this term is being used in any significant way to refer to the current fiscal situation. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Neologism that does not show sufficiently widespread coverage or that is widely adopted. WP:V & WP:N--blue520 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm unable to find any sources to provide notability. TheTito ^Discuss 09:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure the current economic situation is covered well in other articles. If a book is written with this title then have an article on the book. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about groupies[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research. Subject of dubious notability, hardly considered anywhere in print, inlike, e.g., songs about Elvis. Wikipedia is not a collection of arbitrary information Xuz (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't say that the criteria for inclusion in this list are clear to me. I'm not familiar with most of the songs on the list, but the ones that I am familiar with don't seem to warrant inclusion. For example, Bobby Brown's "My Prerogative" doesn't seem to have anything to do with groupies per se, and Eminem's "Stan" is about an obsessive fan, but it seems a stretch to call him a groupie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - is there really a significant difference between "obsessive fans" and a "groupie"?Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article has potential to expand. The original editor certainly has a hip-hop orientation so this list is grossly incomplete. I was able to add a couple of Beatles items without working too hard. I am certain there are a few more I can add myself. What is more perturbing is the short sighted determination that an article has no potential and thus should be deleted.Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - thank you for adding new tracks Trackinfo. Yes, i have a hiphop-orientation, but i knew eventually the article will grow into other genres such as the one's you added. The topic even goes into many public interviews with athletes, actors, politicians (ex: Princess Diana) and even many comic books address the topic of groupies.Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to List of Wikipedia lists which never should have been created in the first place. JBsupreme (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear criterion for inclusion; all content seems to be based on OR and individual opinion. TJRC (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This seems to go over the line of just way too much. WP:NOT. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note, in a short period of time, I've been able to add over a dozen entries to this list from completely different genre, with plenty more available. This has got to be a fairly common theme amongst rock stars, writing about what they see before them, a subject that they know and understand better than anybody.Trackinfo (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ - Thank you again for adding to the list.Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody's disputing that there are songs of this theme (some of the ones on the list are questionable though), this issue is whether this is trivia or a notable topic. There are songs about hats and cheese too, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should list them. Without reliable sources, this is pure trivia. There's always the groupie article, in which any notable examples might be mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - if the issue of groupies extends publicly into all genres of musics, athlete interviews, actors, politicians (ex: Princess Diana) and even comic books, surely it as justifyable like topics like List of songs about Alabama or List of songs about school?Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate Trackinfo's efforts to improve this one, there's no sourcing at all. My first thought was that this one was an old article from Wikipedia's "help us reach a million articles" days. In 2005, sourcing was optional. In 2010, it's not a good idea to write an article that way. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - From a quick skim of others in List of songs about a topic, there ain't seem to be many lists that do have sources. What form of sources would you recommend? Lyrics Quotes?Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lyrical 4Shadow has !voted five times to keep; I've stricken all but the first. TJRC (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sorry, didn't think it was a vote. Just makes the page easier to read. "Remember that the debate is not a vote, ..." (as on the main edit page)Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. I don't really think this topic shows up very often in reliable sources. Them From Space 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question might i ask what is a "reliable source" for a list? A sourced paragraph or two about groupies pre-ceding the article? Almost every hiphop publication from TV to magazinse to websights had an article/show on groupies during the peak of Eminem's song "Stan". The same would be said with the whole Brittany Spears thing. Princess Diana, etc.. How would a list like this be sourced? Pretty much common knowledge. Skimming the other lists of songs about a topic, and can't figure out what's ain't right with this listLyrical 4Shadow (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are plenty of sources that one can refer to to back up a list; my personal preference for reliability would be something found on Google books or on the website of a published magazine (such as Rolling Stone). It's possible that it's on something like "The Book of Rock Lists" (don't know if it's there, don't care, just citing an example of a source), or, in the case of an individual song, it's in a discussion of the song (as you've pointed out with Eminem's song Stan, it's been discussed). It's not quite as difficult as it seems. Basically, type in "stan + eminem + groupies" and one would see possible sources, or "'She Came in Through the Bathroom Window' + groupies". In the early days of Wikipedia, the resources we have now for seeing images of books and newspapers weren't there, and Adobe and even high-speed internet weren't that prevalent -- plus, it used to be that Wikipedia's style of sourcing was such a pain in the ass ("retrieved on ____", ISBN No., etc.) that nobody wanted to bother. Technology has changed, and sourcing isn't so difficult anymore. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Thank you, but could you clarify? So individual songs should each have references and footnotes? Eminem's "Stan" would be an easy one, but many are just general songs about groupies. Recently, Wu-Tang Clan's Method Man has been in the news for shooting a groupie with a BB Gun, but it does not apply to any specific songs by him, is that a reliable reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyrical 4Shadow (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, individual entries on a list should have a link to a reference of some sort. A sourced article is less likely to get deleted than an unsourced article-- in fact, in the case of a sourced article, the person who nominates one often ends up looking like a fool and gets booed off the stage. Some might argue that a person could click on the blue link and read the sourcing info, but the information that's there today might be edited away later. Again, it's not as difficult as it might seem. For instance, the article on the Beatles' "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window" has a link to back up the statement on that page that Paul McCartney wrote about a groupie who invaded his home (in the manner described in the title)-- Steve Turner, A Hard Day's Write: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Song (Harper Paperbacks, 2005). It's an easy fix to put that same source into this article. Basically, it goes back to the idea that if you make a statement, someone will ask the question "Who said that?" Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm^(Talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wayda[edit]

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

Delete as notability is not demonstrated within the article. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I usually only check out AFDs when there's another AFD I'm involved with around the same time. When I saw this AFD, I thought, "huh, there's another Stephen Wayda besides the photographer?" I just assumed this couldn't be the photographer; I was surprised to see his bio up for deletion. Wayda is a well-known and notable glamor photographer. It's very hard to find info about him online, because anything about him is going to be drowned out by all the photo credits. I would point out that he's the target of a story in the magazine American Photo ([30]), Sep/Oct 2005, see reference at [31]; and has a published book with his photos of Pamela Anderson, see [32], [33] (the latter noting it's in the French National Library holdings). See also [34]. I'll bet that someone with access to an archive of photography magazines over the last 20 years or so will have a lot more references. Again, finding works online actually about Wayda is going to be a challenge, given that he has so many photo credits; but that's inherent when you have a prolific photographer, and entirely consistent with notability. TJRC (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Substantial coverage about this photographer is exactly what we need in order to qualify this subject for inclusion. I'm not sure the American Photo paragraph rises to the occasion, unless there is more than the excerpt included on the oak.cats.ohiou.edu website. (Is there?) JBsupreme (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, but perhaps I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that there's substantial coverage of the photographer out there, for example in the photo magazines. The problem is that it's more difficult to find than usual because the photographer has so many credits, that, in most computerized searches (whether they be an internet search such as Google/Bing or a commercial service such as Lexis/Nexis)the vast majority of the hits will be for the photo credits. The hits for the photographer himself are going to be lost in the sea of hits on the credits. That doesn't mean the hits won't be there; but in a case like this, there will be a lot of chaff to get through to get to the wheat. That is, when searching for hits on a photographer like this, there will be a disproportionate amount of irrelevant hits. The challenge is to find the relevant ones among the irrelevant ones. Finding the hits, in this circumstance, is going to be a challenge. I have no doubt the hits will be there, but it will take someone with better Google-fu than I possess to find them among all the irrelevant hits. That's why I suggest someone with an archive of photo magazines will probably have the most pertinent material. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand, needle in the haystack thing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure that a number of people live within reach of a library that keeps old runs of magazines. That's easy. The problems include finding stuff about this fellow (if there is any) within the magazines. I'd be dismayed by the lack of information on his own website. That he doesn't list features in magazines, etc, doesn't mean that there are very few, but it does raise that possibility. ¶ It's books and exhibitions that tend to attract what might be grandly called critical commentary. You can find further book titles, if there are any, via worldcat.org. Quick googling provides no evidence of any exhibition. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement. I suspect that TJRC's instincts about offline sources are right. I did find this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whpq's find is enough for somebody interested to work with. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Japanese respected by the world[edit]

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

Delete. Inherently problematic list. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These lists may be copyright violations. Furthermore, they are not properly cited to the magazine they were taken from. Finally, there is no indication that the list is notable, which could be shown if other media (beyond the original publisher) have discussed the list. I have found no Google News hits for this subject, although admittedly the news coverage could be in Japanese and not accessible to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i earlier removed improper refs, and tagged as unreferenced, hoping someone would provide them. no one has found references. if anyone values this list, i suppose it can be transwikied to the japanese wikipedia, where presumably it can be properly referenced. as such, no indication of notability is given here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the list were notable, then there would be reliable sources that talk about it, even in Japanese. I see no evidence of that. Further, have a look at the similar Time 100, published by Time Magazine. There, they discuss the list and offer examples of the individuals listed on it. They link to versions of the list as a reference. But they don't include the entire list, nor should they - it would indeed be copyvio, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, lists cannot be copyrighted. A choosing is not, per standard interpretations of U.S. copyright law anyway, creative work -- is not copytext that can protected. That says nothing on whether to keep it, but it's a fallacious deletion argument. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My main argument is that the list is non-notable - no reliable sources that discuss the list itself are offered, nor can I even find a link to the list itself. Whether the list can or cannot be copyrighted, the source (Newsweek Japan) may claim copyright - though Newsweek Japan does not so indicate in a way I can discern. I don't think there is encyclopedic value in reprinting the entire list. Whether it's copyvio or not is a secondary question. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as this list has a verifiable source to identify it as being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and a weak but verfiable defintion to demonstrate that this is, in some way, a culturally significant categorization. Although list fails the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, the fact that it features in a respected magazine suggests some notability for its subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly enough, there was an overwhelming vote to keep back a year and a half ago; I note that one user cited some sources to show notability (the argument was "This is not a randomly assembled list. It is a list much like the Time 100, assembled by Newsweek Japan. Google Translated page [35] Some Japanese news articles about the list [36], [37]." I can't understand why those sources weren't added in at that time Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't read Japanese, but in doing a search for English language references, it's plain that being on the list is something that is mentioned as part of biographical information [38]. As examples, [39], [40], and [41] are three different people whose bio refers to the Newsweek list. Only a weak keep, because of no sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Bwilkins. Non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Basketball Report[edit]

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

This is a bulletin board "used by bloggers to discuss Maine High School basketball"

There's no indication of notability. Cynof Gavuf 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 web per nom. Tagged as such. Pcap ping 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Elias Ramos[edit]

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

This user has clearly created a fantasy article. Just by reading the article you can tell the infor,ation is not real. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I love how he's already scored 15 goals in the 2016 season. Blatant hoax, G3 speedy. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{db-hoax}}. Anna Lincoln 08:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE put this one out of its misery. JBsupreme (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NOTNEWS concerns were raised offwiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Mothers[edit]

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

Seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Prod removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mourning Mothers are a well-known group that have been repeatedly and frequently mentioned in reliable secondary sources since their formation last July. This group is clearly notable per WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, school, 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."CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cordelia. The Mourning Mothers are a significant and notable contribution to Iranian political activism. --AFriedman (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cordelia as satisfying the applicable notability guideline. When dictatorships murder protesting youths, mothers assemble, and get press coverage, whether in South America or Iran. It is a notable part of politics, social change and history. Edison (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough reliable sources in the article to show notability. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having looked through the discussion, I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus to be found here. However, I believe that this is a relection of the fact that we haven't really decided to what extent terrorist attacks should be covered on Wikipedia – are the vast majority of them "not news" or are they historically significant? I would recommend that a wider community discussion be opened on this. NW (Talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010 Khyber bombing[edit]

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

WP:NOT#NEWS. If this becomes something more than it is, we can have an article; until then, it's just another tragic but (in the long term) unimportant event. Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a politically significant event which is likely to be referred to subsequently. Utterly pointless to destroy the preparatory work already done on the subject. Wikipedia sometimes gives the impression that events are insignificant when it's non-Westerners who are involved. Opbeith (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "likely to be referred to subsequently"; see WP:CRYSTAL, and for the article generally, WP:NOT#NEWS. "We've already done work and it might be notable in the future so why destroy it?" is invalid. And you think nationality played a part in this at all? Please. It's non notable because it's just a news story. If somebody had shot up a house in the US, until proven otherwise, I'd assume it's just a news story. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And an additional point; this isn't an "event". It's several, unconnected events. On the same day, there were several unconnected and unrelated attacks of various degrees of success. They have never been discussed together, and there have been no links drawn between them. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, Opbeith, when you said "which is likely to be referred to subsequently" and "preparatory work" you just set yourself up for a standard-issue deletionist rebuttal. Fortunately, it's easy to evade that sort of thing, especially in this case; you just have to make your argument based on the existing importance of the subject and the existing plethora of sources. Also, remember that anytime someone cites WP:NOTNEWS without further explanation, it means they don't have an argument. Everyking (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done there Everything; personal comments and inferences. There is no plethora of sources, and WP:NOT#NEWS is self-explanatory. "disagreeing with rampant inclusionism" does not translate to "deletionist". Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment This also appears to be about two unrelated incidents, the bombing and a later ambush unrealted to that. Also the artciel for deltion tag has been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now restored it but would ask that it is not removed untill the Afd is compleated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event. just because it happened in Pakistan does not mean it is not notable. if this had happened in New York or London would anybody have thought about deletion???? the article of course needs to be improved and expanded.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the article creator. Read WP:NOT#NEWS, please. Did I ever say it was non-notable because it happened in pakistan? Did I ever assert race or nationality or location played any role in my decision to AfD the article, or give any hint that that was my rationale? No. Please do not put words in my mouth, particularly such vile ones. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - did I ever accuse you ????? its your guilt that seems to be speaking here. and on the scale of 1-10 what would be the chances that you would have asked for deletion if this was in New York. can you give me ANY examples where you have done this in the past ( ie proposed for deletion an article covering an event where more than 10 people died). this was covered extensively by media across the continents. how about we propose deletion of Columbine High School massacre instead. I do not see any lasting effects there either.;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, let me disassemble your statement here. "I have never said nationality was a factor, please provide evidence that nationality is not a factor". Does that make sense to you, or does it sound as much like arse-covering as it does to me? And no, how about we don't delete an article on the CHS massacre. Your use of that article as an example highlights exactly what you're failing to grasp here; there is no evidence of this event having long-term impact. If you think the same is true about Columbine you haven't read the article. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose that in the future any current event that has been the subject of world news coverage in The New York Times be speedy kept. These nominations are just silly. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS now, does it? Please point me towards that particularly eyebrow-raising guideline. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you notice that I used the word "propose"? Everyking (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point. Can you now explain how the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS? Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It confounds me that people use NOTNEWS so frequently to argue against subjects that are definitively notable. It clearly says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Do you understand why this event is in a class entirely separate from those examples? Everyking (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So examples are now the be-all and end-all of what constitutes a guideline or policy? Perhaps you could quote the rest of the policy? "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Luckily, we now have WP:EVENT. Going through: there is no evidence of lasting effects, or a long duration of coverage. There is little geographical scope. There is no "depth" of coverage; they have been routine news reports. Are you satisfied that that goes into more detail than just "WP:NOT#NEWS"? Ironholds (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This admin seems to be referring to Wikipedia:Speedy keep. closing admin please note. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual warfare in NW Pakistan. Anyway, February, which day??--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- really. the date was Feb 10. you really think that this bombing is very different than 2009 Nazran bombing ?? BTW that was a nice article you started Wikireader41 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now I think the event itself is significant, its just happened recently though. But, what is the lasting impact on this event?., Does it have some historical signifigance down the road? Will it stay in the media and continue to be covered? It seems too early to tell based on the structure of the article and state, as such I find the article falling under WP:Not News /event. However Its basically just happened, more context can be developed. However providing enduring coverage and analysis develops later I beleive the article can certaintly be re-created. As an alternative is there not a place this information can be merged into, until such time? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that this article includes an infobox that links numerous other articles that are very similar. Are we going to delete every article on a terrorist attack in Pakistan? It has become standard practice to create articles on terrorist attacks that attract press coverage around the world, and I think if we are excluding world events that The New York Times sees fit to report, we're doing something seriously wrong. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said. I think it would be fair to assume that as an experienced admin you have a better than average understanding of wikipedia policies. and in the article List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001#January - March 2010 there are plenty of redlinks for articles which wikipedians want written on similar incidents. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect EveryKings opinion first of all and what I am saying here is not against him as an editor (or anyone for that matter) but for others who may wish to participate in this discussion of this AFD and may interprete the above as that they shouldnt. I (and others) am allowed as editors of wikipedia just like him, to disagree or agree with another editor. Wether some one is an admin or not does not determine that their contribution to an AFD to understand policy is more or less accurate than the other. At the end of the day it is the closing admins job to assess consensus based on the merits of (everyones) discussion and not the standing of the editor themselves (as an admin or regular editor). WP is a project that anyone can edit, and as such anyone can particpate in AFD.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment also believe that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) more closely applies to this article than WP:EVENT. this is a clear cut criminal act not just another 'event'. it meets the 2 main criteria

A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.
While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The examples given under the guideline indicate it is intended for use on more "routine" criminal acts; murders, shootings and kidnappings, for example. The article also makes it clear that a plethora of interest is required. The coverage you have found is hardly massive, and is divided over three events; this isn't an attack, this is several attacks lumped together because they happened in the same month in the same province. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, btw. Ironholds (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - the article is about a single specific bombing. another editor had introduced some additional stuff which I had removed before you posted this comment. The guideline nowhere says it is about 'routine' criminal acts. if you pay attention to the guideline --- 'Criminal act includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority' Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Information that you have re-inserted [[42]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - yes. according to NY times the rescue team (with the brigadier) which went in after this attack to the scene was ambushed. hence I have mentioned it in the aftermath section. the article still is about the single suicide blast which killed 19 people.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And accordng to all the other sources they were sent to rescue the helecopter crew, in an unrelated incident.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant investigation or impact for this one, the death toll is also low. Qajar (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001#January - March 2010 where the event is covered, and consider possibilities for a separate article when it can be written as an encyclopedia article rather than a news report. Comparing this to similar bombings in western cities is a good point, but when they happen as often as they do now, separate articles for each and every event gets out of hand. I really do understand the people who want to keep this, and it is a very tragic state of affairs that a bombing killing 19 innocents becomes such a common event. The events merit coverage, but it is better to bundle them together into a single article so that the context becomes clearer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this redirect as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately it is because of this very reason ( that these are relatively common events) that we need a separate article. One article which covers all suicide bombings in that region will either be too superficial in the coverage or become too long and unwieldy. also though the events are tragically common they somehow have sustained global interest as evidenced by coverage across the continents by reliable sources like new york times, BBC , financial times etc. though the details in English language sources are sketchy at this time I am sure with time we will have more info Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think wikireader has it right. To say we don't want to cover it separately because there are too many of them misses the significance. If there are a large number of notable atrocities, it makes them even more notable than if they were rare, and much more likely to be of historic importance. The reliable news sources we use understand this, and they devote whatever resources are necessary. WP is NOT PAPER, and as long as we haver people to write the articles, we can handle the material on a subject no matter how much of it there is. We are not an abridged encyclopedia--there are no such limits imposed by the medium we work in. . DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanx. that precisely is the reason why WP is so popular around the globe. we are not constrained by size and can cater to a global audience. for those of us who believe all humans are created equal 19 dead people are as notable in pakistan as anywhere else.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting back-handed allegations of racism into your comments, plz. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netural, I think I'm on both sides, just bcz it happened in Pakistan, doesn't make it "just another event". On the other hand causality count is too low, to be listed on Wikipedia.--yousaf465 08:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that equates to a "delete", then? Nobody (well, almost nobody) has said the location is a factor; it's the coverage the event has got and the depth of that coverage which is important. Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yousuf you might want to take a look at 2010 Pune bombing which has a lower number of casualties then. It appeared 'In the News' on the main page. Ironholds I am sorry neutral does not equal delete. especially since the policy at AfD is to keep unless there is clear consensus to delete.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really, Wikireader? Y'see, I've only been here for four years and had no idea that was policy! I meant his comments, since his argument for keeping is an inference that it's the location that we're arguing to delete on. And again, Wikireader; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's really the best thing you can come up with? Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Ironholds i always knew you had no idea about wikipedia policies. please see WP:NotEarly which contains guidance for admins closing AfD debates. It states ' If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept.' WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay not an official policy. we cant be applying different set of criteria to different articles. all I was trying to point out to Yousaf was that casualty count itself is not a criteria to delete. may I take the liberty to state that this article will never be deleted. just give it a few days and everybody will know. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "this article will never be deleted"; and if consensus says otherwise? And you're misunderstanding; I was commenting on the text of Yosuf's comment, not the idea of a "neutral" vote generally. On a related note, could you please either a) provide evidence that I am a racist/nationalist who has nominated this article for deletion on bigoted grounds or b) apologise, and stop suggesting it? Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Chill ironholds. I have never accused you as a person of being racial so question of apology does not arise. what I did accuse you is of not knowing wiki policies and you have yourself confessed in very clear words that you were unaware of WP:NotEarly. my prediction is that article will not be deleted as there will likely be no consensus. lets wait and see what happens. maybe I will be proven wrong like I said above in a few days we should know. cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Very clear words? Err, see sarcasm. You have repeatedly suggested that the article was nominated and is being considered for deletion because it happened in Pakistan. How is that not an underhanded accusation? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        because I do not make underhanded accusations. When I had an accusation to make I made it directly. See above. Also many believe that for various reasons coverage of certain geographic areas is better on WP than others. not necessarily because WP editors are racially motivated. it might just be that WP editors are not evenly distributed across the globe. so notable events/criminal acts from some areas don't always get a WP article. As someone who regularly works on articles involving Pakistan I can tell you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan has not developed as well as it should have ( they list < 100 members). We have very few editors interested/working on Articles involving Pakistan. Considering Pakistan is 6th largest country in the world and has considerable level of notable activity going on, the coverage on WP is woeful. So chill. there are other useful things that you and I could be doing on WP instead of endlessly debating this. we have 2 admins who have voted here who do not support deletion ( 1 supports a keep and another a redirect). For whatever an admins word is worth on WP I recommend you think about that. I suggest you consider withdrawing this nomination and we move on to something else little more useful. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought you were the Omnissiah of Wikipedia Policy! Surely you know, oh great oracle, that once a delete vote is cast a nom cannot be withdrawn, and also, oh most holy one, that admins votes and comments count for diddly squat more than any other user's. If you can spare me a moment of your gracious time, sire, I would urge you to consider this; that stating "just because it is in Pakistan doesn't mean it's unimportant" does not imply that there is poor coverage on Wikipedia, it implies that you are asserting that there is an active effort being undertaken to deem Pakistani events "less important" because of the nation they happen in. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        then surely you can put a comment in bold letters here that you would like to withdraw your nomination and are not doing so for technical reasons. it will make the closing admins job a little easier. even though you say that admins votes and comments count for a diddly squat more than other editors I strongly disagree. admins are proven editors who have won the trust of the community and it is not unreasonable to expect them to have better knowledge of policy and procedure.use common sense and invoke WP:IAR. we are here to improve WP and not to waste time needlessly debating dead issues. take care. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Making a comment like that does not cancel the nomination, and in any case I still feel the article should be deleted. It doesn't matter what you feel; guidelines, policies and community convention states that in content discussions, the opinions of admins are of no higher value than those of other editors. Please explain how being trusted with the "delete" button makes someone a more valuable content contributor than others? Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When this AFD mentions that an Admin's say is more valuable to the decision making process, non- admin users such as myself (and others) feel discouraged/intimidated in participating. This prevents consensus form being determined through the community as people will stay on the sidelines and not participate. That is not what AFDS are suppose to be about. AFDs are to determine consensus of the community on the article through this discussion, and as such the community (all, admin and non admin) should be encouraged to participate and have their say judged in the same manor as any other editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it carries more weight. It is just that admins are editors whio are expected to have better knowledge of policy and procedure and usually do. the threshold of knowledge required to be an editor and an admin is very different. usually only seasoned editors who have demonstrated good grasp of WP policy and procedure can become admins. it is not foolproof but generally the system we have to select admins works well. ofcourse admins can be recalled if they are not doing a good job. my comments were in no way to discourage your partcipation in Afd. I myself am not an admin and certainly voted here ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spoken like somebody who has never participated in the admin selection process. Admins are expected to have better knowledge of policy and procedure, yes. If you are saying this does not carry more weight, comments above like "consider you have two admins voting keep" don't make sense. The idea that "admins can be recalled if they are not doing a good job" is also lol-inducing. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the one hand we have the argument that a delete vote represents systemic bias, because of course if there were a comparable terrorist attack in a western country an AfD would be laughable—in fact, there would probably be several articles detailing different aspects of the attack. On the other hand, we have the argument that this just hasn't received enough coverage to merit an article—that a comparable attack in a western country would receive far more coverage and would therefore be more worthy of an article. It seems to me the latter argument is flawed in two respects: first, it dismisses the importance of reports that have already been cited in western newspapers like The New York Times. Secondly, and even more importantly, it applies no critical thought to the nature of press coverage between countries—of course western media would pay more attention to a terrorist attack in a western country. But what about the Pakistani media? When assessing notability in the Pakistani context, shouldn't we consider how the Pakistani media is treating the subject? And while I haven't looked into it, I would certainly imagine that this attack received far more attention in the Pakistani press than it did in the western press (and remember, the attention from the western press was actually fairly significant). Everyking (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this was extensively covered in the Pakistani national news media ( English Language). also would like to point out the national language of Pakistan is Urdu and not English. The job of editors working on articles in Non english speaking parts of the world is that much harder. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - also on a related note I feel we would possibly benefit from having more clarity in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) to address coverage of such violent criminal attacks resulting in multiple casualties. In real world they are called 'terrorist attacks' but on WP we do not like using that term I guess because of concerns about neutrality. after this AfD may be we can work on Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and hopefully come up with some clear statement of what the threshold of inclusion for these unfortunate but common incidents should be on WP( after appropriate discussion ofcourse).Wikireader41 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would welcome any discussion on this on the policy's talk page. I think someone in the past though brought (something simmilar) up (but i dont believe it was followed through)Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Political_violence.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LifeStyles Condoms. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snugger Fit Condoms[edit]

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

Prod removed. Non-notable product, a type of LifeStyles condoms. (LifeStyles has no article on WP or I would have redirected there.) Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) So can anyone explain how i can make this article better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowhow89 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm creating the LifeStyle's condom page and will merge into it. CynofGavuf 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine with me. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a formal dab page for Lifestyle will be in order, too. The number of hatnotes on Lifestyle is getting a to be a bit much.--otherl left 04:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- for the people who keep claiming i created this article, i did not. Please review the articles reversion history. Thanks,--Written by GeneralCheese 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said you created the article. A bot notified you because you had made a majority of the edits to the page. Killiondude (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow Keep. Clear consensus after DustFormsWords edited the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr paul harrington[edit]

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

Non-sourced, non-notable individual. mhking (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The doctor was the creator of harrington rods and first allpied 1944 his name is not in wiki only harrinton implant i think he should have a wiki page - (unsigned comment that accidentally deleted the discussion, rescued and merged by User:DustFormsWords)

Snow Keep - I have substantially expanded and improved the article. The fellow is clearly notable for his massive contribution to scoliosis treatment and his ongoing historical influence on the field, plus his discussion in numerous publications including Time Magazine. Please have another look at the (improved) article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved the page to Paul Randall Harrington to reflect both his correct name and correct capitalisation; commentors should be aware we're discussing that article and not the redirect I've left behind. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , rather clearly. Another evidence that when there does not seem evidence for notability it is useful to look for sources BEFORE nominating for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, the unintended consequence of Mhking nominating it for deletion was that my attention was drawn to the page and I improved it, so in this case it's turned out to be a win. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give DustFormsWords a barnstar. This person is quite notable (as indicated by the sources that have been added), and he deserves credit for doing the work to salvage this article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank DustFormsWords for helping with the expansion and sourcing.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to DustFormsWords' hard work (WP:PROF criteria 1) and the subject's mint bowtie (WP:NICEONEDAVE). Someone another 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 100% notable. Absolutely no reason to delete. However, the article should be re-titled Dr. Paul Harrington (capitalization and proper use of period) rather than "Dr paul harrington". Stonemason89 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Article has been renamed to Paul Randall Harrington, and WP:STYLE suggests both "Dr" and "Dr." are acceptable providing they're consistent. As an Australian I'm exercising my prerogative to go without the period. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's looking quite good as it stands. Notability has been established by inclusion of reliable, independent third-party sources. Agree with others that DustFormsWords has done a great job here! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early closure as keep, which I'd do myself but non-admin closures don't stretch to snow keeps or massive improvement cases. DustFormsWords has done a brilliant job in rescuing this article. I left a barnstar to this effect - this is really one of those articles that Wikipedia can hold up as an it-was-nothing-when-it-started, got-nommed-for-speedy-and-AfDed, look-at-it-now efforts. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable now that it's been expanded ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The information cannot be verified, quite possibly a hoax – either that, or an individual who clearly lacks notability. Jamie S93^❤ 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Coquia[edit]

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

Very little content, not referenced, notability is questionable. i B e n 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - insufficient context to meaningfully identify subject of article. Plus the edit note next to the article creation suggests it's a test article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 08:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax article as searches do not even give enough to WP:V her existence, much less her work. The only possible Darna television series as referred to in the aritcle appears to be a Philipine series... and this individual is NOT found listed among the cast. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie S93^❤ 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airashii hana[edit]

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

Has vandalism components, needs copyedit and re-organization badly, may not be notable. i B e n 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Appears to be about someone's unpublished manga. Also fundamentally unencyclopedic, and may lack sufficient clarity and context to identify the subject of the article and allow other editors to meaningfully expand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources found. Anna Lincoln 08:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of mangas started of with strong amateur work by unknown artists, so it's possible that this'll take off someday. And if it does, and enough reliable sources notice that it does, then an article might be appropriate. Right now, though, not so much. It's clear what the subject is (moreso after a quick wikiformatting spree), but do Manga fall under CSD A7? The article doesn't appear to assert notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the verifiability issue is solved that is still a "home-brew" manga which fail the applicable guideline WP:BK. --KrebMarkt 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contents cannot be verified through reliable sources. A Filipino comic using a Japanese title about a Japanese protagonists in a Japanese setting is a red flag that this may be a hoax. —Farix (t | c) 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unpublished? Not a chance. --Gwern (contribs) 21:37 12 February 2010 (GMT)
Delete as per WP:MADEUP. Ought to be snowballed to put it out of its misery. --DAJF (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote the work you hope to write someday. Edward321 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Content Management[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence given that this concept is indeed "emerging," given that there are no third party sources given other than a partial list of clients. Delete with no prejudice against recreation should there be evidence that "emerging" would have to be replaced with "established." Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject that inspires texts like

Designed to leverage the seamless content delivery of the web, CCM is characterized by trackable sharing with flexible workflow and an open platform approach to integrating with other web-based services

would appear to be doomed never to become an encyclopedia subject. This is patent nonsense and likely coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Fully-integrated, usage-driven search" and "organic discovery of relevant content", huh? At this juncture, I'm afraid the value-add of this kind of out-of-the-box paradigm-shifting solution is not entirely synergistic with Wikipedia's tactical game plan. In my somewhat subjective view, the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's a lot of buzz about this term on the net, but not in mainstream sources that I could find. (Even when I went "aha, there's a reference in Business Week!" it turned out to be a BW-based blog.) LOL at Rankiri's inspired parody. I wonder if the writer of the article would even get it? --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, it's WP:COATRACK WP:SPAM. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cut and paste copyvio of http://www.sports-college.com/?lang=dk&cat=298 Nancy ^talk 12:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birkerød Sports College[edit]

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

Contested prod, rationale was Soccer program at a Danish high school. Notability not asserted. Web search produces self-published stuff; news search yields nothing. In Danish. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the title is misleading, this is not a college, its a football program at a high school--Jac16888 ^Talk 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an extracurricular activity at some school. It escaped CSD only because someone was misled by the title. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Anna Lincoln 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can only agree with the above reasons. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. The text is copied verbatim from a subpage to the home page of the scool ("Sportsligt indhold"); either a clear copy vio, or a self advertisement. JoergenB (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme delete per JoergenB, who has a very nice name. JBsupreme (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete (I won't join the adverb competition, tempting though it might be) per JoergenB. It's really quite blatant. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stec[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Has a number of GHits and some GNEWS, but they only mention him in passing or are about his bid for office. Article lacks references to support notability in either WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As near as I can tell from the article on Town supervisor, it's not the equivalent (or superior) of a Mayor and thus cannot automatically meet WP:POLITICIAN; I don't see any significant coverage in widespread sources that would meet WP:GNG. I note that WP:POLITICIAN says that this should possibly become a redirect to the election in which he's running -- except he doesn't seem to have thrown his hat in the Senatorial ring yet. No bar to recreation should the situation/coverage change; I mean by this that he wins the seat, not merely decides to run for it. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom and Accounting4Taste already summarize well - unnotable, local politition with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources outside of his local area -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable beyond the suburbs of Glens Falls, New York. He may be up-and-coming, but he is not yet there. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen learning[edit]

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

This was marked for speedy deletion.

However, the following argument, which is somewhat persuasive, has been made on the talk page:

The Acumen Learning page is intended for encyclopedic purposes and not as an advertisement or promotion of Acumen Learning. If there are steps I can take to make this more clear please educate me.

The reason for my argument are as follows:

As I've been researching business acumen it became clear that more references on the subject were needed to help others gain a clearer understanding of the term. For example Wikipedia has an undocumented criticism of the term for being a new buzzword. That statement, without any further points of view, could lead readers to a narrowed conclusion. Articles like my published Acumen Learning article help to broaden and deepen a researchers perspective on the subject. For example, my reference to GE goes a long way in helping a researcher decide based on factual references whether business acumen is a new buzzword or if it's establishing itself as an important business term. Likewise, my reference to Google's trends of the term further help a researcher draw their own conclusions. For me, the fact that there are businesses teaching business acumen gives credibility to the term, and yet Google's trends seem to suggest that maybe it is a buzzword since it has become increasingly popular in the media.

Further, as I researched other company articles on Wikipedia I don't see much difference between this article and others and I dare say mine is better documented and researched.

For example, BTS Group AB gives no references, makes undocumented claims, and is an orphan. I'm not calling for it to be deleted, simply making a comparison and the point that the Acumen Learning article ties business acumen to Franklin Covey, to Ram Charan, to GE, etc. You'd have to share my opinion that my article is attempting something other than just the promotion of a company.

Or take Pilot Travel Centers a very similar article but states, "Currently, Pilot Travel Centers is the largest purveyor of over-the-road diesel fuel in the United States." without any type of reference. In fact, there isn't a single reference in the business profile section of this article. Near as I can tell this Article disseminates company information with a few references to acquisitions. If Acumen Learning had acquisitions or other information to share I would be sure to reference them.

Please take my points into consideration and allow this page to be published. If there are ongoing concerns about this article please help me understand how I can be more compliant and a credible contributor to Wikipedia. Idutms (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this to AFD for further discussion. Certainly the article is not referenced very well, but that may be fixable. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable soruces covering the company to establish notability. I can find none in my search, and the references in the article either are self-published, or do not mention the company.-- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to establish notability I referenced conferences that the Founder Kevin Cope has been invited to speak at. ASTD and SHRM are the largest conferences in the training industry and Mr. Cope has been invited multiple times to speak at these engagements. I also looked up speaking engagements and press releases for Mr. Covey and Mr. Charan, the other two partners. While it appears that they have far more notable speaking engagements and press in general, none of it is related to business acumen while Mr. Copes are. Again, one of my primary purposes of submitting this article is to give further insight into business acumen.

I'm open to further ideas on how to establish notability. Maybe someone can point out why the articles BTS Group AB and Pilot Travel Centers are notable.Idutms (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. As for other articles, they are not under consideration here, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Notability article and I can see why the Acumen Leanring article may not meet this requirement. I tried to establish it with links to notable conferences that Mr. Cope has spoken at, but I'll let the community decide whether that's notable. My other case for notability would be the notable individuals involved in Acumen Learning, particularly Charan and Covey. I'm a little torn, but would like to see the Acumen Learning article stay with the hope that notability increase with community efforts. The Acumen Learning article helps establish the notability of other articles, in particular the Business Acumen and Ram Charan articles. And I'd like to see someone write an article on Stephen M.R. Covey, and certainly a reference to the Acumen Learning article would increase that article's notability. Which begs the question, "Are less than ideally notable articles of value to the Wikipedia community if they help to establish the notability of other Wikipedia articles?" Because I can agree that the Acumen Learning article is not ideally notable, but it's certainly not a fabricated article or written solely as an advertisement.

I also read this in the Notability article, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." This struck me as a possible solution since my original purpose was to provide context to the business acumen and Ram Charan articles. I could see a new section in the business acumen article that elaborates on businesses, books, training, etc. that have marketed business acumen based products. But, then it strikes me that in the Ram Charan article you could reference companies that he's associated with and the Acumen Learning reference would link to an article on Business Acumen and not to an article on Acumen Learning, probably not what the researcher was expecting. The question is whether Acumen Learning should stand on it's own or be referenced within multiple articles, and do references from other notable Wikipedia articles make an article notable. For example, let's say that Wilder Farms in Idaho is not at all notable, but someone starts observing that many Wikipedia articles reference Wilder Farms to give context. Could the argument be made that the references to Wilder Farms meets the criteria for being notable and an article on Wilder Farms would be useful? (Wilder Farms is fictional). Just some thoughts, I'd love to get feedback.Idutms (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Notability is not inherited. Association with notable people does not make for notability. Being mentioned in other articles on wikipedia does not establish notability. And in your example, Wilder Farms would not be a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Generally it's not that difficult to establish notability when something is notable. The guidelines of WP:ORG are pretty clear. In plain English, other people (in no way related to your organisation) need to be talking about you. And talking a lot. Further, Wikipedia is not a business directory and linking a business name to articles wn't work unless thereis an "encyclopedic" reason to do so. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (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) 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability on the face of it. I am particularly concerned with the final reference, a google news search on the phrase "business acumen"--and the use of that very general term as providing evidence that their product "Building Business Acumen" has some notability. Had I encountered this article, I would have deleted it as entirely promotional. Some of the other articles mentioned need some attention, true. They'll get it. Promotional articles act as a sort of template for other promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising for a business providing services to other businesses: ...formed ... to model their training after principles found in his book, "What the CEO Wants You To Know". A two day training course was developed to teach business acumen, a term Ram Charan helped to define and champion. Google News finds only routine investment related reports, so it also fails the business notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no doubt that the article fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which states that an organisation is notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It goes on to say that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The references provided are primary (generated by the organisation itself) or trivial (don't actually relate to the organisation). This is actually a candidate for speedy delete, as it could easily be classified as advertising. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell Professional Network[edit]

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

Not notable or encyclopedic; article was prodded but that was contested ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. There is no significant coverage from independent sources. Most web hits are self-generated, network sites or Bucknell University documents. The article's [Talk:Bucknell Professional Network|talk page] mentions the article as a useful resource, but this is not a basis for a Wikipedia article (see [WP:USEFUL]). The BPN can use other means to get their message out to people who want to find out what the organization can offer. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alumni network, no particular notability. HGighly inappropriate promotional writing as well. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews. [43]. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Rikat (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Anna Lincoln 08:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bucknell University (no merge), which includes a small mention of the BPN. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Cody-Rice[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer, being an inhouse counsel is not notable and Who's who doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously PRODDED then reverted as article had only just been restored from previous deletion (per page logs). Article still fails to establish notability. Can not find indepth sources, small coverage in Who's Who doesn't do it for me per NOT#DIRECTORY, notable husband, but notability is not inherited.--ClubOranje^T 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if she's in Canadian Who's Who and considered sufficient of an authority to appear before Canadian Parliamentary Committees on a regular basis, what's the point of deleting? Opbeith (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Response): Entry in Who's Who is not evidence of notability. The WP essay on agruments to avoid in deletion discussions advises against what's the point-type arguments against deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability guidelines of WP;BIO in that "she has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". There are a maybe 15 news articles archived over the last two decades and a number of passing references in other publications. This falls far short of the "significant coverage" requirement. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abscess (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, not seeing unique contributions they made, awards, chart toppers, etc. Also only sourced to self-refs. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The band has released several albums. I don't know whether the labels that released the albums are considered notable, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough Alan - talk 21:50, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With Eastmain's additions, this group meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Also, with at least two releases on Relapse Records, this satisfies criterion 5. Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Added Allmusic bio reference, helping to meet criterion 1 of WP:BAND.Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This band has been around for a long time. I recognized the name scanning the AfD site and thought it was weird this discussion would be happening. It would be nice if there was a little more content, but notability is not an issues. I'm sure there are more references out there, but the current references establish sufficient notability criteria. noodle 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faux modern[edit]

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

Can not find any info on this "ideology". Would not even know where to start since the article to me reads od meaningless buzz words. "Faux-Modern Philosophy is an ideology that is projected to gain prominence towards the end of the post-modern era, generating a new worldview regarding personhood, ethics, art, literature, science, and culture." The entire article really says nothing. Searching for the one reference "Faux-Modern: The Next Epoch" shows the only hit is this article. Ridernyc (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When we're citing Webster's as a reference, that's a bad sign. If the term becomes widely used, it might merit an article - but there is no notability at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:32, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that explain this term (including not being able to find Assist News Article listed in the article). Every mentioning of this term that I have come across has been solely in relation to architecture, and even then it is said in passing. TheTito ^Discuss 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Despite a week's relisting, no one suggested keeping this article, so the consensus is clearly to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Sonic Edukators[edit]

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

Band, seems like their only claim to fame is that 4 years ago they were in Rolling Stone Magazine as one of the top 25 myspace bands (and we know how notable they are), or at least the article says so, reference is broken. No mention of any recent activity. Google doesn't help much beyond proving they exist, first links are myspace (go figure), looks like the rest of the links are other social network sites or places to listen to them Jac16888 ^Talk 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While they clearly exist and there are some recent sources, they appear to fail WP:BAND for notability as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus, the author alone dissenting, that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. The author's lengthy defence argues mainly (a) that products the company has produced and distributed are notable, and (b) that similar companies have articles; but (a) notability of the products is not inherited by the producer/distributor, and (b) What about article x? is not a valid defence - each case is considered on its own merits. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MondayMEDIA[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Unable to find any significant coverage of the company in reliable third-party sources. ^Bongo_matic 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a credible organization, with unique and notable CD and DVD products of notable authors and leading figures in their fields, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The article could use more references and expansion, but not deletion. Last month this article was brought up for speedy deletion, was examined, and the request for speedy deletion was removed by Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC), with the suggestions of adding references and keeping neutral point of view. Ellis408 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC) — Ellis408 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Long defense (and responses) of article based on notability of the products and clients of the company

COMMENT: If someone is not familiar with the subject material, they are probably not qualified to judge the notability of this article. To include in the article why the company and each of the products are notable, it would take on the character of non-neutral POV and promotional problems. Here are some of the issues brought up last month, which were resolved by adding more references and in-line notations:

mondayMEDIA, and its affiliated label, GemsTone, produce and distribute notable products on CD and DVD which are distributed worldwide through bookstores, record stores, and online catalogs. The subjects of the CDs and DVDs are notable authors - leaders in their fields, such as Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Charles Bukowski, and Chalmers Johnson.

While an article about any company that produces and sells commercial products could be claimed to be "promotional", I can find no distinction between this article and other record labels and production companies - see Rounder Records, Fantasy Records, Alligator Records, or hundreds of other independent record labels and production companies who have long-standing articles on Wikipedia.

mondayMEDIA's products are unique and are thought to be very valuable to people who know of the subject material. Here are some reference links to just one of the products, The Last Straw by Charles Bukowski:

A listing and review on Amazon
An independent review of The Last Straw on WordPress
The listing on Allmovie.com - a respected industry source for data on movies and DVDs
The listing for the product on Barnes and Noble's website

The title is distributed to hundreds of book and record stores, libraries, and online catalogs - it is a significant title of a significant author, and is unique. It was the very last public reading Bukowski gave (he hated doing them), as he only did them for the money, but when his book royalties and movie rights advances made him a living, he stopped doing them, even though he lived and wrote for another 14 years.

A major documentary of Bukowski's life was released in 2003 with major stars paying tribute to the poet including Bono, Sean Penn, Tom Waits, Harry Dean Stanton and more and included footage from mondayMEDIA's other Bukowski DVD.

This kind of detail could be written about each of the products in the mondayMEDIA and GemsTone credit listing - showing its notable worth.

Further response regarding who should judge notability, let's use the example of the small blues record label Yazoo Records, which has had a Wikipedia article since 2004. If you're unfamiliar with with the artists on the label, you may question why they have an article, but if you recognize names like Charlie Patton, Bo Carter, and Ma Rainey, whose recordings were extremely rare until Yazoo re-issued them, you'd be very interested in the label - and would like to know what other recordings the company had to offer.

It seems to me that questions of notability should only be judged by editors who are at least somewhat familiar with the subject at hand. I'll give another example:

Music of Tibet - released by GemsTone - a subsidiary label of mondayMEDIA

This was the very first recording of the Gyuto Tibetan monks using what has since become known as "multi-phonic" chanting (the ability of each monk to produce three tones simultaneously). It was recorded in 1967 in Tibet by Huston Smith, who was an MIT professor at the time. It was originally issued on a vinyl LP - but through a license with Huston Smith, mondayMEDIA digitized and re-mastered it for release on CD. Now here's what makes this notable:

The order of monks that did the chanting is where the Dalai Lama comes from, and in fact, it was through Huston Smith that the Dalai Lama was introduced to the West.

This recording was just featured on NPR last March, see NPR story on Music of Tibet

The monks have toured extensively around the world; in the US under the support of members of the Grateful Dead - particularly Mickey Hart.

In the last month there has been a wave of articles and reviews about Huston Smith, as he is one of the title subjects of a new book, The Harvard Psychedelic Club: How Timothy Leary, Ram Dass, Huston Smith, and Andrew Weil Killed the Fifties and Ushered in a New Age for America. Huston Smith is considered a leading figure in the study of the world's religions and wrote the best selling book on the subject, selling over 2 million copies. Also see another mondayMEDIA title featuring Huston Smith (released on the GemsTone label) titled Roots of Fundamentalism.

If you Google "music of tibet huston smith" you will find hundreds (if not thousands) of articles about the recording, its history, and significance.

A similar summary on each of the mondayMEDIA titles. Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Swami Prabhavananda, Charles Bukowski, and Huston Smith are all authors of historic significance, and the mondayMEDIA CD and DVD releases of their works are of great interest to those scholars, students, and fans seeking these rare recordings. Ellis408 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contention of this screed boils down to:

This company is notable because it has produced and/or distributed notable recordings by notable artists.

Unfortunately, this argument is contradicted by the guidelines in WP:N, WP:CORP (the most relevant), or WP:MUSIC.

WP:N and the WP:GNG require (a) significant coverage in (b) independent (c) reliable sources about the topic of the article. As stated in the nomination, I have been unable to find any such coverage.
WP:CORP points out (at No inherited notability that notability is not inherited. While the example given there is with respect to a different sort of connection, the logic is the same. Producing notable recordings is evidence of notability only if it is noted in significant third-party coverage.
WP:MUSIC does not suggest any standards for music publishers different from other corporations. Note that this is consistent with other topic-specific guidelines. For example, while people who might otherwise fail WP:N can qualify for inclusion under WP:BIO, book publishers, film production houses, etc. do not qualify because of (non-noted) association with notable books or films.

The suggestion that an editor needs to be a subject-matter expert to evaluate notability goes against the grain of all the notability guidelines, which all point out in various ways that notability is not inherent, and is based on verifiable standards. ^Bongo_matic 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I am not that experienced with Wikipedia, and should have provided more references and citations for each of the products - which do exist. I will go through and collect the references, and add them to the article, which probably I should have done earlier. For instance, The Music of Tibet title should have the following listed - as it has considerable coverage, independent sources, and it has been the subject of many reviews, articles, and scholarly research. With just a few minutes work, I found these entries:

Story about the recording on NRP
Article describes that The Journal of Ethnomusicology lauded his (Huston Smith's) discovery of Tibetan multiphonic chanting, Music of Tibet, as “an important landmark in the study of music."
A Wikipedia article about Brian Cutillo, which references the review in the Journal of Ethnomusicology in 1972 of The Tantric Rituals by Huston Smith, Peter Crossley-Holland, Kenneth H. Stevens, Brian Cutillo, Nga Wang Lek Den Review author[s]: Mireille Helffer Ethnomusicology, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 152-154
Citation referring to article about Music of Tibet in the Journal of Acoustical Society of America
Video clip of Huston Smith talking about the Music of Tibet recording and its historic significance
Reprint of lengthy article about the recording from the Boston Globe, January 26th 1969 Ellis408 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. None of the above seem to be coverage of mondayMEDIA. Rather, they appear to be about recordings published by or artists whose recordings are published by mondayMEDIA. This does not satisfy any notability criteria with respect to the company. ^Bongo_matic 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Let me ask a question. I will build a substantial list articles, citations, and references for each of the company's products, which have been been released on the mondayMEDIA label and its subsiderary label GemsTone (the difference being secular material is released on mondayMEDIA and religious material is released on GemsTone). Once complete, it should show the notability (fullfilling all the requrements of WP:N) of each of the products - which I believe then demonstrates the notability of the overall company - not through inheritance, but due to the fact that the company created the product. In other words, the notable products would not exist without mondayMEDIA/GemsTone creating, producing, and distributing them.

Let me request a two week delay in deletion, so that I can integrate the information into the main article - and then it can be judged for notability. OK? Thanks Ellis408 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. No, that's not how the guidelines work here. However, you may well have done sufficient research to write articles that meed the guidelines on the individual recordings. You will see there are tons of articles on recordings in the encyclopedia. This is how it should be, as the item that is notable is presumably what readers of the encyclopedia will be likely to search for. See WP:SOAP. ^Bongo_matic 23:59, 5 February 2010 (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) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:CORP, and the present article is mostly a catalog / item list anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find evidence of significant third party coverage. [44]. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT In looking through the list of independent movie production companies on Wikipedia, I can find dozens of credible, minor and main stream entries who have long-standing Wikipedia articles, with far fewer references or citations than mondayMEDIA. A production company's notability is the sum of the parts it creates. In other words, when a film is released, the publicity and reviews are about the film, not about the production company behind it (although it is often mentioned and credited - as are mondayMEDIA's productions). See the following examples:

C2 Pictures - this article dates back to 2007 and lists four films they produced, with only one reference (an IMDB link) and two external links (one of which is also IMDB and the other is to the founder's website).

Media 8 Entertainment - the article dates back to 2007 and lists more than a dozen films it produced or distributes, and its only link or citation is its own website.

My point is that production company entries are valid, and their notability is established by the products they produce and the publicity about those products. This is not the equivalent of inherited notability, as it is the production company that creates and is responsible for the notability of the films. Without the production company, there would be no film.

Since this AfD discussion started I have added many links, citations, and references - and will continue to add them as I have time, but if all other record labels and film production companies were held to the same standards as are being argued for the deletion of the mondayMEDIA article, I think it would be a great loss to Wikipedia and its goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellis408 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Starblind. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I have added many references and links to independent and official pages - as well as expanded notes, so as not to just be a listing (see Starblind comment). I have tried to kept neutral POV. Ellis408 (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being highly repetitious, but here is an evaluation of the references as of this revision by number:

Company website. Not independent.
KLSD website. Not reliable source, not significant coverage of the company.
NYT article. No mention of company (or GemsTone) at all.
Company website. Not independent.
Website of individual whose works are published by company. No mention of company, link to GemsTone for ordering (without further comment about GemsTone). Not independent, no significant coverage.
NPR article on monk chants. No reference to subject, link to GemsTone for ordering (without further comment about GemsTone). No significant coverage.
Company website. Not independent.
YouTube clip published by subject. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Company website. Not independent.
Website of individual whose works are published by company. No mention of company, link to GemsTone for ordering (without further comment about GemsTone). Not independent, no significant coverage.
Company website. Not independent.
Allmovie.com. No mention of subject or GemsTone.
Website of individual whose works are published by company. No mention of company or GemsTone.
Allmovie.com. No mention of subject or GemsTone (but passing mention of company's founder). Not significant coverage.
Website of individual whose works are published by company. No mention of company or GemsTone.
Company website. Not independent.
Bill Moyers Book Picks at PBS. No mention of subject or GemsTone.
Allmusic.com. No mention of subject or GemsTone.

Again, I hate to bludgeon the process, but the editor defending the article has erroneously suggested that additions to the article have somehow moved it closer to meeting inclusion guidelines. As can be seen from the above, there is no basis for that assertion. ^Bongo_matic 09:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as references have not satisfied any of the notability guidelines mentioned. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT No one has responded to the point about record labels and film production companies are rarely mentioned in reviews of the records and films they produce. For instance, in the example I gave of C2 Pictures, which lists only four films has only one reference (and that points to the bio of its founder, Mario Kassar). There are plenty of reviews that could be found for the films produced by C2, but the reviews of those films almost never mention C2. I think we all would agree that the company is nevertheless notable, having produced I Spy, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Basic Instinct 2, and the TV series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. C2 has had a Wikipedia article since 2007.

Even the Wikipedia article for the biggest film production company in the world, James Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment has a very sparse listing, with just three references. My point being that it is rare that the record label or film production company is mentioned in reviews, but that does not mean that the company is not notable.

I could list hundreds of record labels and film production companies that have long-standing Wikipedia articles, who list fewer references than this article, but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they are not notable. Their films and records are notable.

And finally, I added the text and links to many of the products, while keeping a neutral point of view, to answer the complaint from Andrew Lenahan - Starblind that "the present article is mostly a catalog / item list..."

I strongly urge that editors refer to the lists of Independent Movie Production Companies and Record Labels to see if this article is being singled out for deletion. Ellis408 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scene queen[edit]

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

Neologism lacking supporting article references, GHITS and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, so I saw that previous attempts to start this article were deleted due to nonsense being posted. Then "scene (fashion)" was removed due to the same neologism claim.

I think this is a subculture that should be documented. It has been around as long as emo and punk and yet it gets no attention, even though the online community sees this as a meaningful documentation of social trends. I would suggest that, as emo is hard to define and, even in Wikipedia, is only referenced by one non-expert source on the matter, it should be deleted right along with references to scene. But what we are discussing is "scene queen".

So let's brainstorm on how to instead redirect this in a different way. I can't find a way to add it to emo without the emo crowd deleting it. I think the best way to add this is in the "internet modeling" article, which needs work anyway. Where would you suggest "scene queen" goes if not in its own article?

Some ideas I had as a place to include this stuff:

Alternative model

Internet modeling

Youth Subculture

Please also note that "scene" is not at contest here. It is "scene queen", which has been used by all these models and new ones entering the genre. --Joe Ryder, eBusiness coach and web visionary (Vancouver, WA) (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The easiest way to avoid deletion is to provide verifiable reliable references that support the assertion that "Scene Queen" is not a neologism, but an existing subculture. I suggest you refer to the articles Beatnik and Hippie for guidance. ttonyb (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (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) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that reliable references to Scene are hard to come by. As mentioned above, Scene (fashion) has already been deleted, and Scene (subculture) currently redirects to 2000–2009 in fashion, where the subject is only addressed in a very unreferenced section at the bottom of the page that will surely be reverted by the time I'm done typing this. Ultimately, Scene queen should be merged into the main article concerning Scene, but none seems to exist at the moment. 209.196.230.72 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A database search for "scene queen" brings up the following results (disregarding accidental juxtapositions of the two words): Title of Paramore's 3rd LP - Emo Scene Queen (Rolling Stone 10/29/2009. In a review of Cat Power: a Good Woman in Kirkus Reviews 4/7/2009, "Marshall's rise to indie-rock scene-queen was sparked by an anti-performance ethos that seduced alt-rock power-brokers like Sonic Youth's Thurston Moore and Gerard Cosloy of Matador Records." In the article "Boundaries of Desire: Becoming Sexual Through the Spaces of Sydney's 2002 Gay Games" (Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Dec. 2006) "Colloquially often dubbed the ‘‘Scene Queen,’’ a sexual preference for white, masculine, muscled men and the consumption of branded dance music, drugs, clothes, and cosmetics is central to the identity of the global gay." In "Remaking the masculine self and coping in the liminal world of the gay 'scene'." (Culture, Health, & Sexuality, Nov. 2006), "There was the perceived danger here of becoming ‘over exposed’, and even being identified as a ‘scene queen’. Additionally, the risk of exclusion and addiction were prominent in the narratives." "Brief Mentions" (Lambda Book Report, Jun. 1999) reviewing My Years with Ayn Rand:" "Even if Rand weren't something of a gay icon, this book promises enough dish about Rand and Braden for even the most seasoned scene queen." I found nothing indicating the meaning in the WP article, and no in-depth discussions of the term or concept. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nintendo DS accessories#Official accessories. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ensata[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software in Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that this is about an official Nintendo DS emulator provided to developers in NDS development kits that's apparently also appeared on warez sites. In other words, purely internal software of interest to Nintendo developers, unlikely to appear in reliable non-Nintendo sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nintendo DS accessories#Official accessories. This item is highly analogous to other developer tools that have been of interest to gamers like the Wide-Boy 64. Per WP:SELFPUB, there's no specific requirement that RSes can't originate from Nintendo. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2010 (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) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Thibbs. Pcap ping 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no reason why valuable information should be deleted. Merge that shit. --Calvin (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ayer[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, another self-released musician. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A winner of John Lennon Songwriting Contest (Pegasus News). You can find more about him in Bend Bulletin, Roanoke Times etc. etc. This is easily verifiable using reliable sources; this article could be interesting for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That particular contest, while nominally open to everyone including pros, tends to be won by unknown amateur musicians pretty much exclusively. For example, of the 12 winners from 2009, we have an article on just one of them. In other words, it doesn't confer instant notability the way a Grammy would. The link you posted where he's scheduled to play at a local coffee shop (!) kind of underscores that he's not exactly on a blazing rocket to fame or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see and understand your point. However, the US media noted his activities. I'm not his fan, but someone could be, and we have several independent and reliable sources describing his career. I'm just providing material for consideration. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2010 (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) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A winner of John Lennon Songwriting Contest and notable per Google search. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a winner of the John Lennon Songwriting Contest and therefore a case of WP:BLP1E. Otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think being the winner of an internationally prestigious music award demonstrates grounds for inclusion. WP:BLP1E is designed for the privacy protection of "low profile" individuals who inadvertently found themselves in the news through no fault of their own. Not the case with this person.--Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability standards of WP:COMPOSER. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Modern Family episodes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family (season 1)[edit]

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

Just a copy-paste from Modern Family and List of Modern Family episodes (e.g. see infobox explicitly listing two seasons.) There may be copyright issues at play. Article would be a completely legitimate topic if there was original content rather than complete redundancy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page shoudn't be deleted it's to expandedTheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a good redirect at the least, and will probably be valid stand alone article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2010 (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) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The episodes section is a big fat copyvio. I suggest redirecting the article to List of Modern Family episodes, which was cleaned from copyright violations last week. The leftorium 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Modern Family episodes per User:Theleftorium. Until there is a season 2, there is really no difference between Modern Family and season 1. Once season 2 is announced, this article (with the copyvios cleaned up) can be restored. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The season has been fixed for copyvio and there is a lot difference from the episode list and the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.250.247 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio hasn't been fixed at all. Only one summary was edited. The leftorium 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executive (Lebanese magazine)[edit]

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

Not notable. The magazine is not notable. It is not widely cited or quoted. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lonely article. ~~Non~~weakly-notable magazine, I've found nothing that can expand the article beyond stub. Mattg82 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Just to add that after further searching, I've found some sources from other publications that use quotes from the mag but I still cannot find anything about the mag itself. Mattg82 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where is the magazine quoted? I haven't been able to find any such quotes. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: one quote here + there are a couple of other examples but I've forgotten where they are, but it's nothing that makes the magazine very notable. Mattg82 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this is a notable magazine as it is on sale in all the major shops in UK. just because you cannot find anything on the internet does not mean it is not read widely and it does not mean it does not have influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: With respect, that is not really a valid argument to keep the article. Firstly, it's not sourced (you will need to provide independently verifiable circulation figures or something like that) and, moreover, the primary criterion to keep the article is notability. Notability is not established by circulation, although common sense would imply that it is an indicating factor. But circulation alone isn't a deciding factor. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2010 (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) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N - no demonstrable significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hesitate at deleting this article because is the type of publication that may well be notable, but because it deals with lebanon (where the official language is arabic), as opposed to say, South Wales, its difficult to find sources that reference it (beyond quotes and passing references which verify its existence). Having circulation information would be useful. I feel like Wikipedia:MAGAZINES#Notability could be met but I can't prove it.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be an English language magazine. See their website (here). The Lebanese Telecommunications Regulatory Authority estimates the circulation of the magazine to be abround 12,000 (see statistic here). The fact that an English-language magazine has so few sources leads me to believe that it is not notable. There is some self-promotion online (for example a blurb about the magazine on a communications conference/convention website), but I can't find anything where the magazine as a whole or an article from the magazine is quoted by a third party. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ah, the circulation information is useful. 12,000 is not bad, considering I've seen many articles on small newspapers that have lower circulations (though likely never subjected to an AfD). I converted the name "Michael Karam" into arabic earlier and did a search on that, and found some articles in arabic which discuss his wine writings, but searching for "Executive" in arabic isn't very fruitful. I haven't !voted in this AfD because I can't substantiate my leanings.--Milowent (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation really doesn't help with notability (note that it is not a criteria). There are many weekly local papers circulated to 120,000 people - they still aren't notable. If there may be offline sources, and someone is willing to really work on finding them and expanding the article, then I'd suggest having the article userfied if its deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeks (Multimedia Artist)[edit]

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

Contested prod - possible autobiography/advertising page for a performer of questionable notability. As the previous attempt at PRODing the article stated, ror all of the information here, this person fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC. Subject claims to have graduated from Second City, but the alumni list he provides does not include him. Article is loaded with references, but nearly all of them appear to be blogs, YouTube links, Twitter posts, or primary references to sites associated with the artist. The only link even approaching a reliable source (the New York Times article) doesn't even mention Cheeks by name in the article.TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My original prod concern "For all of the information here, this person fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC. For all of the sources here only one, the New York Times article, is a reliable source and Cheeks is not even mentioned by name in the article." This article also suffers from Cheeks in a conflict of interest having written the entire article about himself. Aspects (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The efforts to improve this entry to make it as accurate and reliable as possible by TheRealFennShysa are well intentioned.

In reference to comments made by TheRealFennShysa above:

WP:ENTERTAINER

The editor apparently misunderstands the difference between a "graduate" of Second City and an "alumni". While the artist did complete training and perform in a graduate show at the Second City Conservatory Training Center Los Angeles according to the reference links in the article, the article does not make the claim that he is an alumnus. Alumni of Second City are qualified as such after performing on a Second City Main Stage, which exist in Chicago, New York, and Toronto. The alumni sources were attached to the names of alumni who had performed on these stages and not to the artist in this article.

The editor states that "the only link even approaching a reliable source is the New York Times." This appears to be a generalization, considering the Artist's IMDb listing http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2328077/ including credits as performer in both movies and television, as well as credits in production. These entries include Side Effect (2008) (multiple award winning short from the American Film Institute) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1215917/fullcredits Lushes (2009) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1391605/ Dreamkiller (2010)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818098/ and the MTV series "Why Can't I Be You" (2006) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0832831/.

In reference to comments made by Aspects on Talk:Cheeks (Multimedia Artist):

For WP:ENTERTAINER, there are no reliable sources to show he has a significant cult following. His MTV role fails because the show is not a notable television show. Aspects (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeks likeness and participation on "Why Can't I Be You" is verifiable directly from MTV here http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/96318/quickie.jhtml#id=1535624.

It would seem a show that aired 4 years ago and yet still maintains a presence on MTV is certainly noteworthy.

For WP:MUSIC, Amazon and iTunes are not national music charts, see WP:BADCHARTS. I would think Side Effect is a non-notable film and nothing in the sources says it is the theme, just an original song. Aspects (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist’s second EP debuted at #7 and climbed to #3 on iTunes Electronic charts http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7918/picture2kjn.png on its first day of release, September 1, 2009. iTunes charts are considered reliable sources by all music industry reporting resources including Billboard. If iTunes is not considered to be a usable reference on Wikipedia due to unreliability, it should not be listed on its own page within Wikipedia. The inclusion of iTunes within Wikipedia appears to be in direct contrast to the argument. Amazon is not listed on WP:BADCHARTS and is also included in the article as a secondary with a reference via screen capture at http://www.cheektopia.com/forum/topics/glambition-on-the-charts. Due to the ephemeral nature of the internet, these listings may be captured and reassigned to an external link for later reference, but have no less validity as fact.

It is curious that you think a film released through the American Film Institute's prestigious Directing Workshop for Women (whose alum includes Maya Angelou and Anne Bancroft) that has won multiple international awards is not a notable film. For starters, here is the schedule from the 2009 ComicCon Film Festival Official Website. http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_iff_thu.shtml. ComicCon is one of the largest and most recognized genre festivals in the world. Side Effect was also the Grand Prize Winner of the Oldenburg Film Festival. http://www.screendaily.com/side-effect-takes-best-short-film-award-at-oldenburg/4040949.article This information can also be corroborated on the Wikipedia page for Filmfest Oldenburg.

The title of the movie is Side Effect. The title of the song is Side Effect. There are no other original songs credited on the film. It would stand to reason, it is the theme. If you'd like to play semantics, perhaps it should be referenced as the "title track"?

For the five reliable sources, IMDb is not a reliable source since anyone can add information to it. iTunes is not a reliable source. Rolling Stone and MTV are not used as reliable sources in the article so I do not know why they are listed here. I have already mentioned that New York Times is a reliable source, but Cheeks is not mentioned by name in the article. Aspects (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can add information to it" This is the exact same model as Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia then, not a reliable source in its own eyes? Of course not. Information is cross referenced, verified, and fact checked. A clear list of guidelines and procedures that challenge the legitimacy of projects before their addition to the database (much like Wikipedia) can be found here http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titletopfaq. Secondly, if it is not a reliable source, why is IMDb used as a reference on the IMDb Wikipedia page? Certainly IMDb is much higher profile article than Cheeks and would have received more scrutiny were this truly an issue.

It is public, verifiable knowledge that Cheeks was "the man" in the photographs that surrounded the Adam Lambert scandal. His image also appeared on the Bill O'Reilly episode mentioned in the New York Times article. To suggest the pictures the article mentions are not of Lambert and Cheeks is a faulty attempt to diminish fact.

In conclusion, while it is true that many of the article’s listed sources are blogs and websites, it is also true that the internet is currently the artist's primary medium. Perhaps the most compelling evidence here is the undeniable volume of traffic, interactions and activity by fans and followers on the various websites associated with the artist. Collectively, this volume illustrates the point that a sizable following exists indicating the artist is noteworthy for inclusion within Wikipedia.

The artist's YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/GoCheeksGo (the primary point of dissemination for his work) has received over 370,000 hits. The artist also has 5,200 followers on his Twitter http://twitter.com/GoCheeksGo as of February 11, 2010.

The multiple references and clarity of language in this article indicate that proponents of artist's validity take Wikipedia seriously and wish to make the artist's entry as accurate as possible. Holababy (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Holababy— Holababy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources providing significant coverage about this person. And I'm going to emphasize reliable, as in falling within WP:RS. The sourcing in the article are either self-published, or blogs, and whatnot. And as to the question "Is Wikipedia then, not a reliable source in its own eyes?", the answer is "No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as the material can be added by anybody". -- Whpq (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ENTERTAINER directs us to WP:MUSICBIO which he fails. The title song to Side Effect would only make him notable if Side Effect itself was notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Confidence trick. Consensus is that this topic does not merit a separate article; a point has been made (and accepted by another participant) that this could be a legitimate search term for Confidence trick and therefore this title is being redirected —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker-trap[edit]

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

Nominating this for an IP, reason given was:

Prod contested by an editor who is removing prods from articles I've edited. Prod reason - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused !

Who is proposing what?
What is an IP (mentioned above by user:Tim_Song)?
Have everybody read my protest towards the first PROD ?
Which I gave in Talk:Sucker-trap#It_is_more_than_a_dictionary_article!_(And_should_not_be_deleted!)
And if so, then where is the explanation of why my argument is deemed insufficient?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Keep" at the top of this enty. Because my real argumentation comes with its own "Keep!" further down this page (And User:Pablo_X made it clear that one of them is quite enough. I agree :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- An IP in this context is a Wikipedia user who has not registered an account or is not logged in, such as User:76.102.12.35, who wrote the comment quoted by Tim Song above. They are known by the numerical IP address associated with their computer. Tim submitted the nomination instead of User:76.102.12.35 because a user must have an account and be logged in to complete an AfD nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be confused about what it is about. If it is about the expression "sucker trap", then "WP is not a dictionary." If it is about sucker traps themselves then the material probably should be covered in another article with another title. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not clear that this article describes a clearly defined concept that is not already covered under some other name. Looking at how the term is used in web and news sources, it appears to be used in various meanings which do not necessarily refer to what is described in this article. The only example given in this article is the Monty Hall problem, which the article claims may be a scam to waste the time of people who don't understand probability. That appears to be an exaggeration at best; the problem is really just an example of recreational mathematics and not a "sucker trap" at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That an article is far from finished, should not be any reason for deleting it! (Should it?)
  To me it seems that the concept itself: "sucker-trap", is clearly defined in the article! If not, then please point out the weaknesses at the article talk page.
  Whether or not it might have yet another obscure name, is not an argument for deleting the article! (If eventually found then the two will be merged!).
  Hmm. This term, the way the article defines it, may not be in widespread use but this is not a neologism! It has ben published in The Space Merchants. The fact that the sucker-trap-term may have polysemes and or homonymes is not an argument against the use of the one defined and used here in the sucker-trap article!
  The sucker-trap article does not intend to claim that the Monty Hall problem is in itself a scam to waste the time of people who don't understand probability! (And the Monty Hall problem certainly may be used as a delightful piece of recreational mathematics!).
  But it is claimed that (and the sucker-trap article aspires to show how) these listed articles (or their topic) may easily be used as time consuming sucker-traps.
  Unfortunately it is quite a tall order to give a concise explanation, understandable for everyone (i.e. including those 'not in the know'), of how and why something might constitute a succer-trap. So please do not demand as a condition for not deleting the sucker-trap-article, that this list, or any of its item annotations, must be anywhere near completed! (For a long time to come!)
  Being prepared for what the trolls might throw at you (i.e. the sucker-traps), is a good thing! This article will hopefully help the novice knowledege-treasure-hunters, adventurers and explorers get prepared! Both in 'The land of Wikipedia' and in other places.
  One of the main topics and, for now, maybe the major part of the sucker-trap-article may well be the annotated list of potential sucker-traps of the time-stealing type, but I do not think the scope of the article sould be limited to only this.
  P.S.
  If there were to occur wikipedia articles intended to be sucker-traps then it might be better to keep them out of this sucker-trap article, and leave it to the Wikipedia Trollslayer Taskforce to deal with that problem elsewhere.
  --Seren-dipper (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a reliable source? It's the fact that there's no sourced there that's a concern (which is pretty important). You seem to be making lots of statements that it should be kept because you know what it means (or as the article puts, those "in the know" know what it means) but that's not going to fly. The fact that it could be useful isn't enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes! Thank you! I have now created a References section and repeated the source there.
And I have clarified the part of the sucker-trap article using: "those 'in the know' ", by adding: "(i.e. the user(s) of the ploy and the people who sees through the ploy)".
The "those 'in the know' " which appears in the article, is thus not refering to those who understand the concept of the expression: "sucker-trap"! Rather, it refers to those who are not fooled by some particular potential sucker-trap. (For instance the Monty Hall problem ).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the sci-fi novel The Space Merchants is cited as a source. However there is no evidence given that this is the first published use of the expression. It is likely that the authors used an already common slang expression in their novel. It would probably be better to publish this essay on a blog or other website than in an encyclopedia (since encyclopedias are intended to be guides to already published and established information, not original thought). Steve Dufour (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the main point here, that I did not just coin the term myself?
As long as it is documented that the term has been used in a published book, then lacking source should no longer be an argument for deleting the sucker-trap article!
Of course it will be nice to eventually find the original occurence of the term, but it is not any sort of minimum requirement for not deleting this article, now! Is it?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed the claim from the article that this usage of the term originated in 1953, as this search finds plenty of earlier uses (ignore the results about fishing). Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article improved. I have now written a completely new introduction in the article Sucker-trap.
I have also added the following invisible comment, in the section Sucker-trap#Definition_of_the_term:
I know, I know! "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".
But sometimes it is necessary to include a definition of a term to properly define the topic!
I quote from Wikipedia:NOTDIC:
"Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles."
I hope that this will put an end to the PROD discussion.
Does it?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity, this article has not been in a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD) situation for a few days now. User:Smappy did previously submit the article for PROD, but User:Seb az86556 removed the PROD tag, which they had a right to do (anyone can remove a PROD tag if they believe the article should not be deleted). This meant that if anyone wanted the article deleted, they would have to use the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion procedure, which User:Tim Song put into effect (see above). The standard length of an AfD discussion is one week, so this discussion is expected to run until 18 February. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I do not quite get it yet. How can one say that the article is not proposed for deletion anymore, while the AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sucker-trap#Sucker-trap) is still going on? (Which as you said, it will do until February 18.). Besides to me it seems that the two delete votes, above, have not been retracted. Have they?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the type of procedure being used. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (PROD) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) are two different procedures for seeking deletion of an article. The procedure under which Sucker-trap is being considered for deletion is the AfD procedure, not PROD. The article is still at risk of deletion, depending on the results of this AfD discussion. It is true that the delete recommendations above have not been retracted. The administrator who closes this AfD discussion (probably on February 18) will take into account all the comments, determine whether there is a consensus consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and either delete or keep the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be being used by a single editor as a vehicle for his or her own Original Research. The introduction (which I've just removed, again) reads like the introduction to an essay, not the introduction to an encyclopedia article.86.169.74.185 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.I may have wrongfully presumed that most people would instantly recognise the theme of this article, from their own experience.
Anyway: Subjectively, It feels as if my idea, for a potentially good wikipedia article, is beeing "shot down" even before I have had any chance to get it up in the air, flying on its own. Obviously it was not a good idea, of mine, to try to include an implicit plea, in the lead section to the article. The plea was directed towards those that I (subjectively) feel might be a bit to trigger happy deleters. In situations like this, it seems to me that the Wikipedia project as a whole, would greatly benefit from extensive leniencyand guidance instead of plain, brutal deletion and removal of unqualified content.
When you say: "[It] reads like the introduction to an essay, not the introduction to an encyclopedia article.". Then how would you word the introduction? (If I eventually could come up with some hard references to prove that this theme is far from being any original research of mine (Which seems likely, judging by the looks of the search-link given by User:Phil Bridger, above))).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like advice on the wording of an introduction, read through WP:MOS and the various links it contains. If you wish to expand on your hopes, opinions, justifications and rationale for an article, please feel free to add your thoughts to the talk page, not the introduction of an article itself. You may also find it useful to read through other Wikipedia articles to get a feel for how article introductions are written, or to browse through other encyclopedias to get a feel for the style of writing use in an encyclopedia. Hope this helps, and hope it encourages you to continue editing here! 86.169.74.185 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per Phil Bridger below. As written: delete per WP:NOTDIC. If the article is supposed to be about sucker-traps then it needs to explain how it's any different than a Confidence trick, which it tries but fails as "Confidence tricks exploit typical human qualities such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity and naïveté", not just greed and dishonesty as mentioned in the current article VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to confidence trick as an unintentional fork. Encyclopedia articles are about topics, rather than words or phrases, and the concept is already covered in the confidence trick article, so I would urge the main author of this article to concentrate on editing that article rather than creating a duplicate. For the avoidance of doubt I would add that my linking of a Google Books search above was in no way intended to support the existence of this as a separate article, but simply to refute the assertion that this phrase originated in SF geekdom rather than in normal life. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any merging or renaming discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binocular Dysphoria[edit]

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

Subject may not be valid, no real content, discussion in article space, only reference is a abc.net.au blog akaDruid (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looks like it was probably created as part of a discussion on Reddit[45] akaDruid (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything mentioning binocular dysphoria after a quick search so I don't think it's real. Even if there is, this article is beyond repair. Ratattuta (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Repair and perhaps rename article. Not sure why the user who did the "quick search" above "[didn't] see anything". Binocular dysphoria is mentioned by name in Heads-up Intraoperative Endoscopic Imaging: A Prospective Evaluation of Techniques and Limitations (Congress of Neurological Surgeons), and in Competing opposing stimulus simulator sickness reduction technique (US Patent 5829446 and European Patent EP0847027). A key problem here is although numerous researchers have commented upon the phenomenon, there is no agreed-upon term that they all use. Therefore a search looking strictly for the words "binocular dysphoria" will not turn up all references. Unfortunately there is no single set of words that will turn up all references. A complete search will extend to things like "dissociation of accommodation and convergence" and "binocular stress" in published research dealing with virtual reality and simulator technology. A key paper here is "Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a head-mounted display" by Mon-Williams, Wann, and Rushton. Summary: Binocular dysphoria is a real phenomenon that has been well documented. A simple google search will not turn up all references due to inconsistent nomenclature between researchers. (And I type all this despite knowing I'll probably be ignored as a new user). - Throco (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User left this comment on the page, and this comment was moved to the talk page: NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left by Throco (talk · contribs) on the article space page, moved to talk

Comment:
You Are Looking in the wrong places
You are looking in the wrong places. Realize that binocular dysphoria only occurs when subjects are immersed in artificial 3d environments. Therefore pretty much the only place you are going to see this referenced is in research related to VR or simulators.

See things like:

The frequency of occurrence and severity of side-effects of immersion virtual reality - Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. Vol 65(6)
Some side-effects of immersion virtual reality - Army Personnel Research Establishment
Effects of participating in virtual environmentsa review of current knowledge - Safety Science Volume 23, Issue 1
Some evidence of adaptation to immersion in virtual reality - Displays Volume 16, Issue 3
Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a head-mounted display - Opthalmic and Physiological Optics
Side Effects and Aftereffects of Immersion in Virtual Environments - Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings

A problem you are going to run into: research here is so sparse that researchers haven't even developed a common language. A researcher can describe the phenomenon of binocular dysphoria without ever calling it that - see dissociation of accommodation and convergence

ALSO: "Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a headmounted display" - Mon-Williams, Warn, Rushton: Subjects were examined before and after exposure to the HMD and there were clear signs of induced binocular stress for a number of the subjects.

ALSO: Visual Discomfort in Stereoscopic Displays: A Review - some researchers advise against stereoscopic viewing for children, stating that even though little evidence exist that viewing stereoscopic content causes permanent damage to the vision system, there is also no evidence that contradicts this argument". For some research this is cause for careful study for their

undeveloped visual system as longterm effects of viewing stereoscopic content are yet unknown.

Delete: until researchers can agree on the name of this phenomenon at least. It's too early to get its own article, but could find its place until then as a note in 3-D film or something. --bd_ (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources establish that it meets notability standards as either a medical (cognitive / perceptual / psychological) brain phenomenon, and/or a theory about the same. The Pesce article on the subject is a reliable source, as an expert-written blog. Mark Pesce is an authority on virtual reality and early 3D CG, although it is clear from the tone of the article that this is emerging science barely at the hypothesis stage, and not universally known or accepted. As such, the article might best be recast and perhaps renamed so that it is about the theory, not about the phenomenon, which may or may not be a distinct medical condition. It's not a good merge candidate because it is not specific to a single device, medium, product, etc. If true it would apply to film, TV, VR headsets, 3D books, holograms, stereoscopes, etc. The only viable merge I can see would be with an article about similar vision perception conditions. If you trick out your eyes in any way, like looking at things upside down, they have trouble returning to normal. I'll go out hunting for some sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sources. So far they all stand for the proposition that Pesce is advancing this theory. However, a piece by Pesce on the subject appears in a 1994 Wired Magazine article, which makes it a reliable source. Pesce claims the existence of various studies on the subject so we just need to find those studies. It seems likely that we'll have some more mainstream coverage on this over time. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Mark Pesce based on recent edits. akaDruid (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an unreasonable outcome, as he seems to be the only person advancing this notion. Still, it would be interesting to suss out the studies he claims. If those studies are real then it might be a wider issue than that. Thanks for a sensible proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction; Pesce is not the only person "advancing this notion". The phenomenon is widely mentioned in VR resource. Pesce is one of the few referring the the phenomenon by the name "Binocular Dysphoria", but even that phrase has cited usage other then by him. I don't think merging into his article makes any sense. That is a biography of a single iving person, this is about an actual phenomenon observed by multiple researchers. - Throco (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, based on the current references, there is not enough verifiable content to justify an article. All we can say from the current references is that one person is advancing this theory. This can best be covered in the article about that person, until such time as we have suitable sources to write an article about the subject. Throco, if you can source suitable references (perhaps by identifying, with references, the different terms which are equivalent) then I can't see any reason why an article couldn't be written. But at present, there is nothing in the content to justify an article, and the Mark Pesce article is the best place for it. akaDruid (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename/expand I note one article citing the phrase as if it has industry currency. It makes no sense to merge a (possibly quite significant) scientific topic into a bio. The article could be renamed to "Health effects of virtual reality" and expanded to include other health issues. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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