Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 23

< 22 January	24 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Downers_Grove,_Illinois#Education This way if a page on the school district is created, useful information is still intact (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 07:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Elementary School (Downers Grove, IL)

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

Completely unnotable Belugaboy535136 ^talk 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Hillcrest Elementary School (Downers Grove, IL) be deleted.

DeleteNot notable at all. Belugaboy535136 ^talk 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Downers Grove, Illinois#Education pending production of a page on the school district per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment How many notable elementary schools are there? If there are any, I don't think that they are notable for being muddy in the past...So, I'm leaning towards delete. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Deor (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and no inherent notability for an elementary school. In answer to the question, there are 427 notable elementary schools, no more and no less. Articles have been written about 303 of them, and we don't know what the other 124 schools will be, but this isn't one of them. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As The Arbiter stated, the school is not notable for being muddy in the past. Should be deleted per above. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per established practice. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:16, 25 January 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 Keep Perfectly valid disambig. page. (non-admin close) CTJF83 chat 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj

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

Entry more properly belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica, if anywhere. BalooUriza (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close A vandalized revision of the page was nominated for Afd, not the disambiguation page. see the differences.--Evergreen 92 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowy close. Perfectly respectable dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Article was nominated for deletion before vandalism was removed. Nominator should have looked at the page history. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:13, 24 January 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 C Sharp Syntax#Keywords. Seems to be agreement that the target article covers this content in a superior way. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keywords in C Sharp

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

Very closely resembles nonsense Supertouch (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not quite nonsense, it's a list of the programming language keywords in the language named C# C Sharp (programming language). Nonetheless, WP is not a programming language manual, and the list of keywords, even if cleaned up, is of no encyclopedic value. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I still think it should be deleted but for different reasons- No context-hence my total misreading of the page, No substance, no explanation of the terms and it appears to have been abandoned. Supertouch (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your reasons as well. :) --Joe Decker (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never asserts notability. Article is of no encyclopedic value. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The nomination closely resembles nonsense. The topic is notable and I have added some content to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A partial (or complete, for that matter) list of keywords in a programming language serves no encyclopedic purpose. The note about contextual vs. reserved keywords can be merged into C Sharp (programming language)#Features if anyone thinks it's significant. Hqb (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not performed by deletion - please see WP:MAD. I have added more cited material in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the original article worth saving; anything you added would have been better put in the main C# article in the first place. You'll note that not a single other programming language has a Wikipedia article dedicated solely to its keywords, and C# certainly isn't unusual enough in that respect to merit one. Hqb (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:CSD#A10) as inferior dup of C Sharp syntax#Keywords. Hqb (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find - well done. You agree that the topic is encyclopedia now? Note that the topic before us contains sources and content not found in that main syntax article. A merge is indicated and I have amended my !vote accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't agree it's notable. The wikipedia notability criteria only apply to articles as a whole. An article must be notable, a part of a notable article need not by itself be notable. A list of keywords might be appropriate in a putatively article on C# syntax if that article is notable even if the keyword list is not itself notable. "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." as per WP:NOTE --Joe Decker (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not demonstrated by internal references within Wikipedia; it is demonstrated by coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. I have added three good sources so far and so the notability of the topic is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. We have now moved on to consideration of merger with the other article which covers the same ground in a less well-sourced way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense and per Hqb. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: as it is apparent that Colonel Warden is an inclusionist why don't we merge the Keyword in C sharp with C Sharp syntax. The reality of this merge will be making the keyword page in a redirect to C Sharp syntax#Keywords with at most a WP:SMERGE with whatever unique information that page has to offer (I compared the the Keyword list with one at Syntax and found the first 10 or so keywords present at both--therefore I don't think it is necessary to move any material. The Keywords page should be renamed prior to the redirect to Keywords in C Sharp. So basically I suggest:

Renaming Keyword in C sharp Keywords in C Sharp

~~Redirecting Keywords in C Sharp to C Sharp syntax#Keywords after blanking the page (or cut-and-pasting what little unique info it has to offer)~~ Supertouch (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 24 hours of no discussion I implemented my suggestion. Supertouch (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the AfD page again--I thought I had read it carefully--and I have realized I was extremely hasty and acted contrary to the established rules here. First of all, I apologize--this is my first time participating here--and secondly, after making a mess of things will leave this to the AfD veterans as opposed to undoing anything. Wow, did I really propose and then execute a double revert? Good thing a Bot fixed it shortly afterwards. Supertouch (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your bold, sensible action and suggest that we leave it at that. All's well that ends well... Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attributed the merged content and restored the article to avoid possible confusion from the redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why not just leave the redirect? The information fits better over there, no one objecting to it, and no information lost. Its a more complete list over there. Dream Focus 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be confusing if someone clicks the article link above and is redirected to a section in another article not nominated for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as was already carried out. I'll note that the only material that was worth merging was that added after the AFD nomination, and without it, this would have been a clear delete for me as there was no material worth merging at the time the article was created. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is possible per WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 29 January 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Light

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

Non-notable violation of wp:coatrack and wp:not#news. Hairhorn (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see how this plays out but for now it's a likely (but not speedy) delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some nutter writing letters isn't news. Probably no need to wait, even.--170.170.59.139 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more relevant to the phenomenon of this pseudonym. It relates to the letter writing campaign not the gaining notability of the name "Ellie Light" This page should not be deleted it represents an article describing somewhat of a notable hoax which is allowedWirelessmc (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is similar to the one for Greg Packer and is getting major media coverage. The Cleveland Plain Dealer and Politico have both run articles on her, including Ms. Light's responses to reporters' questions. So I think it's notable. The question is, is she notable. Under WP:NOTNEWS, a bio on Ms. Light is not warranted. However, there is reason to have a "Ellie Light Controversy" article or some such, if coverage continues. There is no reason to believe that this violates WP:COATRACK. I suggest keeping the article but moving it. Wellspring (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wellspring. A biographical entry probably isn't warranted, if Ellie Light is even a real person's identity. However, the controversy itself is notable, and will likely grow in the near term. (It reminds me of Glenn Greenwald's sockpuppetry, mentions of which mysteriously disappear every time they're added to the two previously linked articles.) Nathanm mn (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some nutter writing letter"??? You think it's really a woman who just happens to have houses all over the country? If it's a White House dirty trick, as seems likely, it's certainly notable. Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that it is notable. Even if it should be renamed so it's not a biographical entry, it should be kept.99.67.181.254 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the rush to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.135.64 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like adequate sourcing and speculation of high-level political shenanigans. Note that the article has now been mentioned in a reliable source. Ronnotel (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple, local addresses and similar language qualify "Ellie Light" as a strongly-suspected hoax. The numerous citations by the press qualify it as notable. The article attempts to describe a hoax, something specifically permitted in wp:del#reason. It should remain. 70.169.167.93 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by significant coverage and citations in mainstream media.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please wikify. Lots of coverage, whether real or hoax 7triton7 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should not be deleted but perhaps should be renamed in light of other similar 'turfings going on. Certainly notability is not an issue -- it's received tremendous reporting in the last several days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.52.165 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Worth Keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.39.104 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - this is getting interesting. May be worth deleting later. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if renamed, the final article should remain accessible by entering "Ellie Light" in the search box, which is how most people will look for this. If later developments indicate that there is no lasting interest or impact, then consider for deletion in a year or so. — LisaSmall ^T/C 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is real news and something many people will be searching for at WP. We are learning more and more about the identify of the writer and the phenomenon of this practice (other similar Obama supporters are doing the same thing -- see Patterico). In a year, revisit and see if deletion is warranted. paul klenk ^talk 08:14, 27 January 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) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCGG (StarCraft Term)

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

WP is not a game guide, there are no pertinent google results to a search for "CCGG starcraft". XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two sources are as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaoLB-s1bQ & http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Ccgg — Preceding unsigned comment added by BisuFanBoy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Screamingly non-notable. -- Sgroupace (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-noteable, doesn't even seem to be widespread in the gaming community judging from the lack of google hits. Random name (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move CCGG is more of an offshoot of GG (good game) which is more widely accepted. This should be a subtopic of GG which does not currently have a page but a short entry when it is searched "Good game, internet slang..." As for non-notable the term was just created January 23rd 2010. I do not know if CCGG will have a large following in the future, but if it does having the original story would be much better than an entry just CCGG stands for command center good game.--Oda9 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did people seriously only start saying this two days ago? I've changed my vote to speedy. Random name (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, as this is seemingly a neologism that was made-up very recently. (See WP:MADEUP). Whilst it may become notable in the future, this is not an argument to keep it now. It can be recreated if and when it is notable. (See WP:SCRABBLE.) --Taelus (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up during your live cast of the MSL finals. For anyone else who's confused, the term was coined by Matt during the pregame entertainment before the MSL finals, as, paraphrased, an injoke amongst the 100 people watching the livestream like an hour before the games got underway. Nifboy (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. Turgan ^Talk 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Did this have a contested PROD? It looks like it was just removed without reasoning. Honestly, this might be notable for some StarCraft wiki, but this clearly is WP:NEO at its best. Useful to StarCraft gamers, and StarCraft gamers only. --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 27 January 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. About half of the people commenting think that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the other half does not. Since that is something about which people will in good faith disagree, this means we don't have a consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Lee (British politician)

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

Appears to be an almost-identical version of an article previously deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician). I have placed a copy of the old article here for anyone who wants to compare. It looks to me like there have not been significant additions (but a couple refs and sentences have been added, so I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedily deleting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I re-created this article, and I must declare an interest since I do know George. The main change (in addition to adding refs from reliable sources, a number of which appeared since the earlier article) is that the earlier article gave no indication of why he might be notable. The fact that he would, if elected, be the first enthnic Chinese UK MP has attracted considerable interest in the media. He meets WP:N because there has been "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". NBeale (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- the first source in the article doesn't seem to be working right, so I can't verify that one. But the other two non-primary sources are enough that this gentleman passes the GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment below is something someone posted late to the old AfD, along with a comment on the article talkpage. It's about the current repost of the article, so I am reproducing it here; as it was posted several weeks before this AfD was started, however, people are free to discount it if it's deemed irrelevant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The article creator] is the man who is maintaining the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas_Beale. He states that he knows George Lee personally somewhere in the history. He’s also, I assume, a Conservative Party member as he’s having input into policy documents, which he didn’t disclose:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mPTiTVOJCg8J:www.conservative-technology.org/docs/Digital%2520Economy.pdf+%22nicholas+beale%22+conservatives&hl=en&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbSsBdVT68rARMr6UAojO_1oLYiyng

He has since added a series of references in an attempt to increase the 'notability' of the article. However, these all refer to a single press push from Conservative Headquarters, and do not as such constitute notability - is the man who wins the lottery today notable because of his momentary press coverage?

I see no grounds to maintain the article, and I consider Nicholas Beale to be operating in the face of an editorial decision as part of a personal interest pursuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinloo (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's stay away from personal attacks and OR and try to judge the notability of the article on its merits. As I say, I know George, so I'll stay away from this page and let others decide. NBeale (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a PPC does not make him notable, even if he is ethnic Chinese. I wonder if his role in the Black police association is good enough. However I am concerned about the tactics of User:NBeale repeatedly recreating articles previously deleted at AfDs. Martin451 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't decide whether the coverage in the national press is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. However, if this article stays it needs a complete rewrite. At the moment, it is little more than a promotional soapbox for the candidate. If no-one fixes it, make it a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. The article reads like an election statement by or on behalf of the candidate. It is full of unsupported spin and propaganda. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. GNUSMAS : TALK 10:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary noteability offered above is potential, not existing. Only one ref is specifically about the subject of the article (others are mentions) and I can't get the two Camden New Journal links to work. I would not say the subject meets noteability at present. Random name (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you read the news article about him in a major newspaper? [1] He gets other news coverage as well. Dream Focus 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the one article (and a few other mentions) enough to constitute noteability? I don't suppose there's any hard and fast guideline. Random name (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Having reviewed the noteability guidelines, I would say that the coverage listed does not constitute significant coverage; I will stick with my delete comment. Random name (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources - a combination of incidental and local coverage and a puff piece in the Telgraph - do not in my view add up to significant coverage. If this guy passes WP:GNG (which only gives a presumption of notability), its very marginal, and I think the clear failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN and unlikelihood that he will win election weigh more strongly towards a delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one significant source (The Daily Telegraph), possibly also The Independent (behind a pay barrier) + local press (the links given don't work, but it's possible to find others) - not enough to meet WP:GNG. It is also worrying that it reads like an election leaflet (with a UK general election pending, I think this is an abuse of Wikipedia) and that the article creator is a personal friend of the subject. If he is elected, then by all means he'll deserve an article, until then it should be deleted. --NSH001 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of it seems to have been lifted almost directly from George Lee's Conservative Party webpage, which is listed once in a footnote, but isn't used as a source for the sentences it almost copies:

Conservative Party: "George Lee was born in a converted pig shed in a poor village in the New Territories of Hong Kong."

Wikipedia: "Lee was born to poverty in a converted pig shed in rural Tai Po, in Hong Kong’s New Territories."

Conservative Party: "He was only one when his parents left him and his siblings in the care of a family friend to head to Britain to start a new life. From the age of five, instead of going to school, he was forced to work in a toy factory making plastic flowers and toy soldiers."

Wikipedia: "His parents left Hong Kong when he was one, emigrating to the UK. Lee and his siblings were placed in the care of a neighbour, who put them (Lee from the age of five) to work in a toy factory making plastic flowers and toy soldiers."

Conservative Party: "He rejoined his parents when he was 10, arriving with only one word of English, 'tomorrow'."

Wikipedia: "With only one word of English, "tomorrow", Lee went to school at the local comprehensive ..." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And further clean-up; of help would possibly be some of these sources (not all in English but online translator may help) and three pages more (roughly 15-18) which have links and jpegs. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Challengers in elections are often stated to not be notable, but I would give this man the benefit of the doubt. Improvement of the references (see talk item by me), and efforts toward WP:NPOV should allow this article to be kept. Advocates of deletion may be motivated by political animus. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you're free to feel that way, but statements like "Advocates of deletion may be motivated by political animus." are neither useful nor appropriate for this page. We're providing input into a decision about a wikipedia page, not evaluating the man's character or political worthiness. Random name (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, arguments to keep a page on a politician are just as prone to be politically motivated as deleting it. But accusing someone of either without good reasons to back this up is a complete violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In the run up to a general election, I do not think it is viable to delete articles on candidates from the main parties. The right time for this will be in the days following the election, when we will know which were unsuccessful. Until then, we must be patient. I did a little tidying up, but there are two footnotes (from newspapers) that are not linked to the text, or not adequately. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable purely by virtue of being a PPC. We will inevitably have a lot of articles on PPCs in the next few months, and it is good to be clear what the notability criteria mean - we should certainly not keep just any article on a major party PPC; some are not notable, have little or no independently verifiable information written about them, and stand little to no chance of being elected. Lee is not quite in that category; his candidacy has attracted some publicity, including the quite substantial profile in the Daily Telegraph. However, excluding one interview in a student paper, all the other media presented seems to just include quotes from him or very brief information. The article intro implies he founded the Black Police Association. If true, this would be significant, but the reference for this is down, and an unreferenced sentence later in the article simply states that he was a founder member - very different! If the article does end up being kept, it needs thorough clean up. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They may not meet Politician guideline - I'm not familiar but didn't feel the need to verify - but they do seem to meet GNG -- Banjeboi 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he does pass the GNG; I'm always suspicious of the independence of coverage of political candidates by papers broadly sympathetic to their views, and relying almost entirely on one Telegraph article to demonstrate notability is problematic. But it's clearly better than the coverage of some other PPCs who have had articles nominated recently. Warofdreams talk 11:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to sources already in the article I have linked above to at least two dozen more, in several languages and from a variety of sources. No doubt some are sympathetic but that is for editors to sort out adhering to how to apply sources and what content to include. The sourcing exists and is about him is purpose of this discussion as to whether GNG is even met. I believe it has. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Telegraph is admittedly generally pro-Conservative, though still a WP:RS. But Operation Black Vote is in general highly anti-Conservative, and the fact that there is a large article about George there is evidence IMHO that the coverage is not confined to sympathetic sources. Nor should we dismiss Chinese language coverage NBeale (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN and very borderline WP:GNG. Not enough to justify keeping in my opinion. Potentially move to NBeale's userspace pending an election win?. Turgan ^Talk 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major party parliamentary candidate, plenty of press coverage to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we should regard all major party candidates for national office as notable, because there is, as here, always sufficient coverage. That the papers aligned with one party will give greater coverage to its own candidates is true, but this is the same for all candidates, including the ones who win. averages out. Being one of the top 1292 politicians in the country is notable--and correspondingly for other countries with similar political systems. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is not a two party system. The Liberal Democrats are also a main party, as are Plaid Cymru in Wales, the SNP in Scotland, and the Northern Ireland parties. This can give 3-4 PPC per seat. If we also include the Greens, UKIP, and the BNP, who all have seats in the EU parliament, so could be considered major, then we could easily be looking at 5 people fighting each seat, that is over 3000 people. Martin451 (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Automatically keeping all articles on PPCs is a very bad idea. They should be subject to exactly the same criteria as other articles - we don't want to have to review possibly several thousand articles after the election. --NSH001 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentIs he one of the top 1292 politicians in the country? Or just one of 1292 (or more) potential politicians in the country?Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article, at least for the time being; I would recommend against deleting the articles of any major-party candidates in the run-up to an election, in any case, as their notability will be strongly affected by that event. If he doesn't win, we can reconsider his notability after the election, but if he does there won't be any question about it. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. The evidence shown by SlimVirgin is quite curious as well. JBsupreme (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency). Fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. having an article on every single PPC is silly, and Lee is extremely unlikely to win this seat as it seems to be a safe Labour seat. Martin451 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable thing about him seems to be

A. He has yet to be ellected to parliment (there will be a lot of PPC's), that covers a all PPC's. B. He may (the source does not seem to work, so I will tag it) have set up the BPA (should this indead be the case then I would change my vote to keep, that would make him notalbe).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Operation Black Vote George "was one of the founding members of the Black Police Association" - this is also claimed by The Telegraph. Although it is conceivable that the Telegraph has got it wrong OBV would certainly not have done. NBeale (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not think that being one of the founder members makes him notable, after all how many founding members were there? Unless it can be shown that his input was vital to its setting up.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the first two sources don't work, but seem to be a local paper. Looking at the others, I don't see notability apart from his candidacy, and I do not agree that candidates from major parties should automatically be considered notable. As pointed out above, it is not easy in the UK to define "major party", and on any acceptable definition there would be well over 2,000 candidates included. Many of them are standing in unwinnable seats, to show the flag and gain experience; some may go on to get elected later, but many will drop back into obscurity. In the present case, Lee is undoubtedly from a major party, but one of the sources cited says "The seat is not even on the Conservatives' winnable list". If he does well he may be selected for a winnable seat in five years' time, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 30 January 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 Eureka Seven vol.1: New Wave. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka 7 V.1: New Wave

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

there is already another article about this and the name is more exact and has more information and more refs than this one. Also this has a bit of contradicting info to the other article.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like a better candidate for a merge rather than a deletion. Which is the other article about this game? Are you sure it's exactly the same game, or is it simply similarly-named? --Malkinann (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Eureka 7 V.1: New Wave to Eureka Seven vol.1: New Wave. After seeing both articles even if the two games are diffrent they are similar and Eureka 7 V.1: New Wave remains an unreferenced stub. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I hesitate to recommend 'redirect' because these days, admins seem to interpret that as 'delete and redirect'. --Gwern (contribs) 21:59 23 January 2010 (GMT)

That is because this is an AfD (Articles for deletion), the article gets deleted and the deleted article's name turns into a redirect. It would not make much sense to keep an article and when someone looks up the name have the reader get redirected away from the kept article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought we weren't suppose to delete articles that are just being redirected, that way we keep the history of the redirected articles. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sin is right. Knowledgekid, you may wish to go read how are actually supposed to be done: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page & Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection.

Note the pages clearly assume that deletion & redirection are mutually exclusive; as an admin, when I closed AfDs, it never occurred to me that a consensus to redirect meant delete & redirect. If the content is so bad - libel, copyvio, etc. - that it needs to be expurgated even from the histories, then it could not have been a 'redirect' consensus but a speedy-delete or delete. --Gwern (contribs) 16:17 24 January 2010 (GMT)

Comment - On the note of what shouldn't be done but it is anyway, I'd add deleting content on the basis of "unclarified/unreliable sources" shortly before AfD-ing so that it looks stubified and without references. So yeah, the above happens, and there are worse things than it even. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - These appear to be the same. Although to be honest, Knowledgekid, I've seen more problems with "merge" results than "redirect" results. Too often I see Step #2 of WP:SMERGE ignored and a de facto redirect resulting instead. At least with a "redirect" result you know what result to expect... -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 26 January 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. consensus of regular editors is clear Scott Mac (Doc) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Bucko

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

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

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

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

Contested prod. Non-notable IT person. Complete lack of third party reliable sources to back up his claims of notability. Martin451 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to support a claim of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The articles author has replied about the persons notability on the Talk:Michal_Bucko page 87.105.185.61 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope everything is now OK. Let the quality defend itself. I believe quotations from IEEE, Microsoft, VMware, notable press, founding of notable international companies and other stated is enough to make this article valuable. I've made a huge work to collect most credible sources to prove this is valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I am new to Wiki, but support this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzejwidycki (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Andrzejwidycki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Definitely a "keep". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catelle135 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Catelle135 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep In my opinion, the person described has done extremely much notable and high-hanging fruit things, hence I have no doubt as to vote for keeping this article in Wikipedia. He disclosed over 200 software weaknesses, some of those highly critical (appeared in most important bulletins). He created a company as well as coordinated a variety of technology/engineering projects. He is a fruitful person, with ingenuine capabilities. Although, he is still alive, he has made a notable input to information community. No doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawek Kudla **(talk contribs) 12:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Slawek Kudla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What 200 software weaknesses are you referring too? Could you paste links to at least 20 most notable? Creating a company is not notable, nor is coordinating random projects. What notable project are you referring too? What notable input to the information community are you referring too? 87.105.185.61 (talk)

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

Keep Ok. Lets imply high-quality conferences, press doesn't count. They can, in fact, talk to various people. Lets say founding ground-breaking companies doesnt count. And references from major companies in the world don't count. Still, he has built so huge in so little time. And I'm sure this is happening all the time. Please refer to eleytt or his web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertesku (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Albertesku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What high-quality conferences are you referring too? What ground-breaking companies are you referring too? "references from major companies" - are you referring to the vulnerability credits? As I stated in the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michal_Bucko, the Eleytt company itself is not notable in my opinion. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note To the authors of the four comments about: Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. So, if you are in favour of keeping the article, please state why. For example "I think this is a very good article" does not explain why do you think so, additionally, we do not discuss whether the article is written good or bad - instead, the notability of the person in question is the case here. Additionally, please remember that the moderator has the final decision in this case, and by adding "votes" not introducing anything new to the subject you do not influence the final decision. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertions of notability, no solid reliable sources. The facts that the article is an awful mess full of external links, and that this discussion is laden with s.p.a. edits, are neither of them arguments for deletion; but may indicate the size of our problem here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Dear Orange Mike, The reasoning behind the implementation of external links was to provide much information in the area. I could exchange links into normal text if it helps my article to be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Sources listed appear to be general at best and do not actually provide information on the subject to help establish notability. Turgan ^Talk 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Imho, the sources do not appear general (either direct or links to notable research information from credible sources).Jarek dabr(talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jarek dabr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you explain which of the linked research is notable, and why do you think it is? 87.105.185.61 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think that building international company and extensive 3D application technology is worth mentioning here- it requires years of work, expertise and team management. Software weaknesses mentioned in the Notable Security Input section are all extremely critical (if You need to understand that further, please learn more about those; two of those affected whole IT world, one affected telecoms world). I could talk much more, but will do this if needed. In my opinion, this article is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarek dabr (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, I cannot agree with the 'extremely critical'. As for the telecom world, you are referring to the OpenSER buffer overflow right? In the discussion referenced in on bugtraq (1, 2) it is said that there was no proof of concept code provided, so it has not been proven whether this vulnerability is exploitable in a near-stable manner. Additionally, the OpenSER developer stated it was a 5 byte overflow (of course, I know that even 1 byte overflows can be expliotable), but it is not known whether this one is (the 5 bytes could overwrite critical data, but also the could overwrite a padding, it's an unknown here). Therefore, on what basis do you call it 'extremely critical'?

As for the second one - which one are you referring too? Are your referring to the Charts Control Memory Corruption Vulnerability? In that case, it didn't affect the 'whole IT world', only the Windows and IE users.

As for the 3D application technology, could you state what innovations or notable features do you have in mind?

Thanks in advance for commenting this issues :) 87.105.185.61 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have made several improvements, placed external links outside the article based on the suggestions of the Reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is a little better now, but I still lack a few things:

He was considered savant genius while his studies at Warsaw University of Technology" - the source of this information remains unclear

He has been one of best students in elementary schools, secondary school... - please note that this achievement, even if important for the person in question, is minor in an encyclopaedia scale

given highest scholarship from Warsaw University of Technology - what kind of scholarship was it? source missing here in my opinion; was it a standard university scholarship given to students with good results, or was some kind of other scholarship?

He has coordinated highly innovative projects in teleinformatics. - which projects? are the following projects the only ones he coordinated? more examples needed in my opinion

Together with Marcin Kolodziej, PhD in Electrical Engineering, he coordinated Brain–computer_interface project in Poland - lacking source or link to the published (were they published?) results of the project

He also managed aiella, 3D virtual community. - source missing of aiella's notability; is this project released? how notable is it in the scale of the world?

He was a co-founder of Minds.pl, one of the biggest science-related web sites in Poland - hmmm I think it would be good to add source of the 'one of the biggest' information, but that's not so important in my opinion

Michal is a member of EvilFingers - is EvilFingers notable? lacking source/link describing their notability

Also, please check Lcamtuf and try to modify the vulnerability info to the same form. Also, Slawek Kudla mentioned something about 200 vulnerabilities - maybe it would be possible to provide more notable vulnerabilities here?

87.105.185.61 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am intrigued by someone giving up going to lectures in their second year, and emerging with a Master's Degree. Bucko is indeed thanked by Microsoft (as one of a long list) for drawing their attention to something. The cnet link only reveals a post by 'the hacker' mentioning Bucko. He is credited in the US-CERT link with reporting a vulnerability. OPEN-SER link - can't find a mention. VMware thank him and others. I can't find him in the heise online ref, ~~or in the Gazeta Prawna one~~. All in all, not a lot. The number of single purpose accounts does nothing to help the article - please note that your personal opinions of the subject and his work count for absolutely nothing unless backed up by reliable independent references. In fact, the larger the number of these posts, often the greater the chance of deletion. If you really want to save the article, use your efforts to find better references. Peridon (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is in the Gazeta under correct spelling 'Michał Bućko'. This may make other searches work better (or worse - don't blame me...). Peridon (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paridon, when it comes to CNET I talked not about the "hacker post", but about the whole article; huge part of it is about Bucko's vulnerability. Cheers, Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, Peridon. Thank You very much for advise. I will try to provide more very good references. BTW, in Gazeta Prawna he remains "Michał Bućko" (other pronounciation)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to address most of the issues. Hope this improves the quality of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed most of the external links, placed links such as in Lcamtuf's case (external links), added references, and shortened the article to leave most useful information. I have now also added additional links from press (international). Hope now my article is very good. Sincerely Yours, Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I think the article is better now. I think it would be advisable for the previous voters to take a look at it again. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the vulnerability links have also been described, I think I can say that the article form is good now 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank You. I hope that I menaged to make the article very good by now. Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There fails to be significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Providing quotes for news articles and minor mentions and thanks do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the statement that my article does not support notability. By the way, would original/innovative research be appreciated (direct link)? I cannot agree about not having specified reliable sources. I would like to hear more specific information to make my article even better so that it is not deleted. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative or original research is possibly of note - so long as it is independently documented. If self published only, it would come under WP:OR Peridon (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how about lectures (i.e. http://bede-hardkorem.pl/advcrypt.pdf)? Or very original, still (as for now independently published), research draft from BCI project (http://bede-hardkorem.pl/pp_the_thesis_no1.pdf) ? And how about papers like http://hack.pl/funkcje/pliki/artykuly/118/introduction_automated_malcode_analysis_-_part_1_4.pdf ? (published on assosiated community portal) I want to make final version of this document to be top quality, so please help.Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, i still have to leave my opinion as above (delete). The key here is that independant sources/references are required that actually mention and talk about Michal in a substantial way. Not just a name on a list or a link to something he apparently worked on. I have added many citation tags to the article. Fixing even a few of them will go a long way. Turgan ^Talk 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. As a security researcher, there's nothing out of the ordinary about his work. I don't know about the Physics olympics claim. If he'd won International Physics Olympiad or similar, he'd be notable, but that's unclear from the article. Pcap ping 21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources seem to be a couple listings of subject in acknowledgment lists, which is not sufficient. Perhaps related to this, it is disturbing that a large number of SPAs are voting "keep" on this article. LotLE×talk 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank You, Turgan, for help. This is highly appreciated. I have cleaned up the article. I know that Mr. Bucko is soon introducting two major international projects (within gaming/gambling) and Internet communities as well as given a short lecture speak on finalization of his work. Hence, it'd be great if I made this article enough good already not to make it deleted and then could improve it. BTW. Michal Bucko was running free International Mathematics Olympiad trainings but how could I find references for this? BTW2. He was a finalist of Polish olympiad in physics, but I deleted it as I could not find references. BTW, I dont suport SPA claims, but think that we should build a good article, and note delete my first work. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nearly all (if not all comments) saying "delete" refer to very old version of document. Please, verify if I had improved it significantly (with help from Turgan). I am pleased to hear negative constructive comments; still, the person in question is enough notable and I would like to ask You to help me build this article so that it is good enough. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - adding references are all goof and fine, but on the issue of notability, I fail to see any change that identifies significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to reliable sources, I worked according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please, specify what else I could provide. I'd appreciate that. I found conference information, peer-review article and presentation, links to business products, advisory board of IT security organization, very reliable ackowledgements, multilangual articles about Mr Bucko's work, even found one of his lectures. I can't find things like Physics Olympiad or IMO trainings, so deleted those (however, i know it's true). I want the article to be good enough so that there is no doubt. I will also soon add very credible information about serious business projects in the field of TMT/Internet and gaming. Please, help me edit it if You consider it valuable so that its notability wasn't questioned anymore. Thank You very much for help. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 January 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 as a non-notable neologism, as a prohibited recreation under category G4 (even if the first article was slightly different from this one), as a dictionary defintion, and due to overwhelming support for deletion. If this offensive term by chance at some time in a dystopia in the future, becomes more widely used, it will not be due to Wikipedia's fault. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homofascism

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

Non-notable neologism. An article of this topic has previously been deleted through AfD, but this is different enough that speedy deletion is not an option, in my opinion. LadyofShalott 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable term. CTJF83 chat 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, seems to be almost exclusively used on a few political blogs. MuffledThud (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: LOL. Per MuffledThud Phoenix of9 20:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POV and WP:OR issues stated in the past AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of use of the term in widespread or secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. marginal use of "homofascist" as a pure pejorative, of course only among anti gay hate groups. unfortunately, i can see homofascist becoming more commonly used, thanks to the culture of violent hate we live in. this article, though, is utter nonsense, and is pure neologism. there is no "homofascism" or "fascist acts". what is a fascist act? hmm, producing the first VW, wearing leather, hitting a nonfascist, kissing an avowed fascist, committing genocide, writing a treatise on corporatism, campaigning against smoking, starting ww2, raising german shepherds, attending hitler youth rallies as a child, forging an alliance between a branch of government and a large business, bla bla bla.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as is is completely POV and needs to be scrubbed on that basis alone. Homofascism as a term/concept is notable only in the context of Christian right-wing folks using the term pejoratively. I'm not convinced that it arises to the level of notability but it has been used somewhat in this context. A Wiktionary entry may suffice and frankly it would remain a magnet for more anti-LGBT non-sense per WP:Beans. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIC, at least as the article stands. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Getting close to Snow. The current 2 references are (1) an article where the only reference to this neologism is hyphenated (homo-fascism) in a 3rd party comment, not in the article, and (2) a personal video on google, which doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. This is a 2nd nom of an neologism article that has previously been deleted, and this time the creator got around the warning about re-creating a deleted article by creating it at a mis-spelling then moving it. I'd strongly suggest not only deletion but salting of this article name, the mis-spelt name and the hyphenated spelling. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism that has little hope of being neutral in point of view. Consider salting or otherwise semi-protecting, since this was re-created after AfD. Cnilep (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If a gay person does something wrong we can`t even talk about it? See thought police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycjp (talk • contribs)
Delete. Unsourced and almost certainly unsourceable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clearly a neologism. Whether the term is a perjorative or not, or whether the term is potentially hateful have nothing to do with our inclusion criteria. The term is not discussed in reliable sources. Nothing else matters. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 24 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roderic O'Gorman

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

Non notable political party member of minor party in Ireland. Fails WP:Politician never been elected to any public office. Snappy (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very clear fail of WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate for local office. Gets no more than incidental coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source in the article, mentioning him briefly, certainly not the type of in-depth coverage we'd need for notability to be established. Valenciano (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN: as an unsuccessful candidate in a council election, he wouldn't even pass the threshold if he had won. A more focused GoogleNews.ie search (Mkativerata's one is too broad) shows no sign of any in-depth coverage of him, so he falls way short of meeting WP:GNG. He is still young, and is an active political campaigner, so he may become notable at some stage in future, and there should be no impediment to re-creating the article if and when notability is established in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Too new of a career to have much on offer for reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 25 January 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. JForget 00:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Beckley

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

Non-notable biographical article that has not had any sources added since March 2009 (when it was tagged with unreferencedBLP). Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see any evidence of him passing WP:MUSIC, while he may have contributed to some notable works (eg by Britney Spears and Avril Lavigne), he is not a composer or a lyricist. We have no idea what the extent of his "producer" role was in these productions, it is such a vague credit. If he was notable for these productions, I would expect there to be a lot more coverage than the incidental coverage he gets on gnews. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not there.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:31, 31 January 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, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Paras

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

unsourced BLP +prod/-prod edit war. ~~I'm neutral.~~ Weak delete. Jack Merridew 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (chg to weak del 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've been looking, further; I saw several reviews that mentioned her as performing the role of Kim on certain nights — i.e. she was the understudy. And the video of her in Stuttgart was a lame outdoor clip with a few banners and parasols as props and nothing more. The original version of the article asserted that she was in the Broadway production of Les Miserables (and many moar on teh Great White Way;). There are a great number of less than first tier performers working in the many touring companies that hit all the non-first tier cities. Jack Merridew (who saw the opening nights of both at The Broadway Theatre) 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until I can see the links to the pay walls, which I was unable to find. (I missed the ongoing prod war, sorry) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning delete until I see some coverage of something other than her role in Miss Saigon. Fences&Windows 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The pay wall is really painful here, but lots of RSes seem to have lots of good things to say about her ("Cristina Paras is an exceptionally strong dramatic and vocal performer as Kim" C. Tribune, "...and the strong singing of Cristina Paras..." C. Sun-Times, plus similar comments from the Akron Beacon Journal etc.) I just can't see how in depth the coverage is due to the pay wall. I can't confirm the star search claim, which seems odd. Can anyone source that claim? If it's true, I'd say we've met our inclusion guidelines quite well, otherwise it depends on the depth of the sources behind said pay wall. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but willing to change. So far the article is completely unreferenced and all sources I can see simply mention her briefly, as part of a review of the Miss Siagon show. I can't see any thing so far that talks about her, rather than a single performance - Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, it appears to be a rather long running traveling show rather than a single performance. I realize you probably meant that, but I thought I'd clarify. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did see that in the news articles. I meant a single performance as in one character in one named show. She seems far from those who are well known from, say, The Mousetrap; they are known for the sheer number of performances - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Touring troupes are a different critter than the main productions such as NYC and London. They are scaled-down and fit in a few trucks and they employ different caliber performers. Jack Merridew 01:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering the difficulty in finding sources for this BLP. I am still trying, though. @harej 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After I gutted like half the article, we now have some kind of stub in place. As such, she is reasonably notable and sourcable. @harej 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but willing to change also. I spent some time looking and wasn't able to find anything useful. The source from the Seattle Times does not say she played the role - only that she might... . - Josette (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means she was the understudy on at least a portion of the tour; at most it would be covering half of the performances. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After all's been said or done, I think deletion is best. @harej 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing that's verified lends notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:30, 31 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Five In Public

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

Non-notable neologism. Only "evidence" for its use are a facebook page, and an urban dictionary definition created by the same person. Delete as WP:MADEUP. Majorclanger (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Madeup. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. smithers - talk 00:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTDIC. Definately not worthy of an article. Turgan ^Talk 13:23, 26 January 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) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Kim

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

One more that I tried to save from the current brouhaha, but looks pretty not notable despite my best efforts. You can check this version for what the article looked like before it was gutted. It's a biography of an up-and-coming actor-director-producer who has had bit parts in major films and self-produced two minor films; unfortunately, there are thousands of people like that in Hollywood. Best of luck to him, but we need some more attention paid to him by Wikipedia:reliable sources before we can write an article. GRuban (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actor. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN actor who fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm not sure about this one. His imdb page shows he has appeared in numerous notable films but the web coverage of reliable sources seems pretty low. In english that is. I'd be certain that a google search under the Korean name might surprise us folks. I'll ask PC78... Damn ugly article at the moment... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, still no genuinely useful sources, and these look largely like bit roles on the whole. Risker (talk) 04:30, 30 January 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) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.O.M.B.

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

Delete. Non-notable pub crawl, "Bars of Madison...Bitches" Baron Larf 17:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this meets any notability guidelines and is worthy of inclusion. Turgan ^Talk 13:26, 26 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hicks (basketball player)

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

This was prodded as part of the unsourced BLP campaign. I deprodded but I am bringing the article here for an assessment of notability. I'm no fan of basketball, but this player has received more than a little press coverage as a college player,[2] so he might pass WP:ATHLETE. Two incidents not currently in the article including him being shot in the knee,[3] and also facing an assault charge.[4] Since playing in the US he's played in Poland,[5] Russia,[6] Belgium[7][8][9] and is now trying out for a French team.[10] Fences&Windows 17:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:ATHLETE, not because of any press coverage as a college player (which makes no difference in inherent notbailty), but because he played pro basketball in the highest level leagues in Russia and Taiwan, qualifying under "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Mandsford (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per passing WP:ATHLETE. This source confirms he played pro in Russia. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've stubbed the article and sourced everything to Eurobasket. (But many other sources are available, as demonstrated above. Others are welcome to add them.) Hicks was a good college player and is a borderline NBA talent with a decent European career. I think his accomplishments are good enough. If BLP vandalism is a concern, just semi-protect the article. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in fully pro European leagues, passes WP:ATHLETE. matt91486 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Zhowandai

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

Procedural nomination. I declined a PROD-BLP, found a source. There is some discussion about whether the source was circular (i.e. coming back to Wikipedia itself). I also have some concern that this may not pass WP:BIO, myself. Bringing it here for further discussion. Ray^Talk 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Tan | 39 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs more refernces.Rirunmot 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless actually referenced. The ICON group is a semi-legitimate print copy of Wikipedia, with minimum acknowledgement of our license. we really should see about putting it on the filter list, so people do not make the error of entering references to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. I checked the Icon group reference and confirmed that it indeed is credited back to Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 28 January 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 in the absence of an available merge target. The consensus seems to be that the available reviews do not rise to the level required by Wikipedia:Notability (books). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 Minutes (novel)

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

Non-notable novel. No significant coverage whatsoever. Does not satisfy WP:BK. Note that the few news sources that reference the book are in editorials written by Steve Young—and the novel is only mentioned in the "about the author" text. ^Bongo_matic 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, thanks. I'm dropping some notification templates on the pages of editors who have worked on this. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real reviews are this and this (I've already cut the latter, since it served no other purpose than to verify plot), both of which are not reliable sources as far as WP is concerned. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BK exclusionary criteria. It doesn't have an entry in the Library of Congress.PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I am entirely removing my vote and going neutral. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Library of Congress entry. Obviously this doesn't make the book notable, but it does have the entry, and [11], [12] give it the required 2 reviews. according to [13] it was a 2008 International Reading Association's "Young Adult's Choice." Whether this qualifies as notable according to WP:BK is up to the community, but these are the facts. Joshua Scott (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I searched it and I'm not sure how I missed that. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Young Adult's Choice award might be something, but I'd like to see evidence of it. This page here does not list the book. The reviews you bring up are not in authoritative or reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Young Adult's Choice is not an award—it is a list of 30 books. The bookmark referenced above refers to this article. The coverage is one paragraph. This is a list of books inclusion on which does not demonstrate notability. It's not obvious to me if this author is notable. Of course, if he is, mention of his works in an article on him would seem appropriate. ^Bongo_matic 05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into an article on the author. The best first place to look is WorldCat, which shows it in 475 libraries. This is quite respectable though not spectacular for a children's novel.The author also has written "Winchell Mink : the misadventure begins" , in 375 libraries. We could certainly justify an article on the author, and, according to our rules, this book at least and probably the other are notable also, but given there is no content yet but a plot summary, I think they would do better as sections of the author article. The important thing is the content, and there is no real need to multiply small articles. OK either way. The only real objection I have to merged articles is the possibility of losing content. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, your proposal is attractive, but I'm not even convinced that the author is notable (that is, I have not seen any evidence of it). 475 is a decent enough number, I guess, for an academic author, but for a HarperCollins children's book it doesn't strike me as very high. The other thing is, I don't see any real content here that can be lost, besides a plot summary. Or am I just being pedantic? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Library of Congress entry. The author also has written "Winchell Mink : the misadventure begins" , in 375 libraries. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every publication has an LOC entry. What exactly is the basis for your inference of notability? ^Bongo_matic 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No persuasive evidence that this book meets the general notability guideline. Ucucha 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book was reviewed in Kirkus Reviews, 6/1/2006, Instructor, 9/2006, School Library Journal, 9/2006, and Teacher Librarian, 10/2008. The Instructor and Teacher Librarian reviews are lumped in with other titles. The Kirkus Reviews and School Library Journal reviews were about a quarter-page each in print form, and are mainly plot summaries. Solid sources, but not in-depth enough coverage to satisfy WP:BK, in my opinion. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ucucha. So this has a LOC entry. So what? JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the argument. The argument is the wide availability in libraries, which reflects reader interest, which is notability. It's high, but not spectacular. But the really decisive argument is the reviews. Reviews of books are the secondary sources which show their notability. I'd like someone to explain why they think it would not be the case? Essentially, the book meets the GNG because of the reviews. For better or worse, the existence of RSs is either a determinant of notability according to many people's views, or at least a very major factor. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A tiny handful of minor "reviews" that do no more than indicate that the book exists and has a summarizable plot do not add up to notability under WP:PERSISTENCE. A LOC mention is necessary, but far from sufficient, for notability for an English-language book. THF (talk) 15:53, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracksplit car racing

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

This article is about a new style of auto race course layout that has not received coverage in reliable sources. The article itself appears to be a loose paraphrase of the official site, and is structured in a similar manner. A search for sources about tracksplit racing turns up none. Considering the popularity of motorsport worldwide, this would indicate that this is not a notable concept. There are no current tracks configured in this fashion with one being planned to be available in 2010. Perhaps when actual races have been run there may be some coverage to establish notability then. But as of right now, I can find no sourcing. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I came across this AFD that I had tried to submit back in Nov 2009. It looks like a Twinkle failure that I missed. I've made a renewed effort to find sources including coverage about the track that is supposed to be ready in 2010. The above rationale still holds. --Whpq (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article created by user WHH-Joosten. Google search for Tracksplit Racing brings up a linkedin company profile for Tracksplit (indicating te company has 1 employee). Page two of google results brings up Wil Joosten's linkedin profile, listing him as Director at "Tracksplit Car Racing." Googling Tracksplit Wil Joosten brings up a couple of Dutch-language posts on racing blogs, again written by Joosten. No independent sources found. I'd say this one fails WP:NOTAD, among other things. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. No refs to show this is notable, as it's not used in any racing series I'm familiar with. The series listed under "See Also" do not use this type of track. EeepEeep (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references to verify this information. It may be true, but who knows? It can be recreated. I disagree that it is eligible for speedy. Royal broil 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertsing, essay, unreferenced. --Falcadore (talk) 06:36, 30 January 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. No indication of notability. Most sources provided here are old, not reliable, and/or merely indicate that the product exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draco.NET

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

Unreferenced article which doesn't assert notability. PROD declined, but problem has persisted. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tagged for notability for two years now. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News finds only listings in product comparison charts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [14] and [15]. —Korath (Talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is way too short, making it a stub. It also only has 1 reference, so I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAustinMan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per numerous independent sources: [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; etc. LotLE×talk 10:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current?

The sources given above seem to give a hint why the article hasn't been expanded. They're all over 2 years old. Last activity on the project's Sourceforge repo [21] was over three years ago. Was it more popular back then, and has since declined in importance? Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:57, 29 January 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, mostly per WP:NOTDIR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of web based file managers

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

A list of external links; "references" are to either sales pages or (for the free entries) download pages. Per WP:LSC, list entries should either have articles or a reasonable expectation of an article; of the two entries that have or have had articles, one has been G11'd and prodded, and the other was created by the software's author and is mostly a feature list, so I doubt very much any such articles are forthcoming. —Korath (Talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sales catalog, literally. I support comparisons and lists of products we don't have separate articles about as long as they are sourced to appropriate secondary sources, like round-up reviews. We have none of that here. All references are primary or catalog entries (sourceforge etc.) My view is actually supported by WP:LSC, which is not as restrictive as Korath desribed it: "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles", and "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." But even that lower standard isn't met here. Pcap ping 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No deception was intended; I just didn't think it relevant. This is the sort of list where entries should have articles (which round-up reviews of any length at all would support). "Not warranting independent articles" is usually invoked for lists of subitems of a concrete article—we have plenty of lists of episodes that don't have individual articles, for example, but don't put articleless entries on List of television programs by name. An example in the software domain is List of Microsoft codenames (the bluelinks there are essentially all to [[Springboard]], not [[Windows Springboard]]). "List definitions should be based on reliable sources" is about the membership criteria themselves, not whether individual entries meet them—see Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 2#Removal of long-standing formulation. —Korath (Talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I removed the prices, which indeed reads like sales catalog. Other than that flaw (now fixed), it is a useful comparison of a category of tools. The list may not be complete, and it may be useful to add some additional annotations of exact capabilities of each tool. But it's a bunch of tools, some of which individually warrant an article, and comparing them in one place is encyclopedic. LotLE×talk 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:EL, WP:N and attracts spam because it's all external links.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : cloud computing and such tools are raising. Keep. Yug (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a (free) software user I often come on wikipedia to compare products and check the state of the art in a domain. And that this kind of page I'm looking for. Of course, more data would be welcome, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhana8 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the categorisation of "web based file managers" is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first revision of this list was identical to the last of Comparison of web based file managers (afd) except for the omission of maintenance tags, and was posted by the latter article's only significant editor within hours of its deletion. If I'd tagged it as a G4 instead of bringing it here, it would have been speedy-deleted. At minimum, I'm going to inform the participants in the previous afd. —Korath (Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTDIR item sadly. Not a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Pcap and Korath. The entries in this list do not have their own Wikipedia articles, except for KFM. Regrettably, even that article has no external sources and it looks like it won't survive long. The topic of web-based file managers is not without interest but we can't cover this area with no reliable sources. Otherwise it's just a catalog of the developers' own claims. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 28 January 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 Keep. No remaining argument for deletion and no support for deletion. NAC. Swarm^Talk 00:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Wars

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

Does all Facebook games derserve an article Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not every Facebook game is notable, but this one certainly is - it won a Webby Award, and has attracted significant coverage from reliable sources, as evidenced by the references already in the article, or by e.g. this or this. Scog (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage from reliable independent sources, as pointed above.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator doesn't really advance any rationale for deletion. The references already in the article at the time of nomination establish notabiulity. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that the majority of online games aren't notable, Mafia Wars certainly is. Besides winning a Webby (for those who care about that), it's gotten significant coverage: [22][23], among others. TJ Spyke 17:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like an I don't like it nom. The overwhelming popularity of the game and sources go beyond any personal feelings about the game, the notability is secured. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 24 January 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. JForget 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blindlight

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

No significant coverage of this company. It is mentioned in only a couple of the references provided, and then only in passing. A thorough news search will find only coverage of this nature—the company is usually only mentioned after a quote from Chapelsky, describing who he is (note that in the coverage I have reviewed outside of the references provided, Chapelsky—while quoted—is not covered in any detail whatsoever). ^Bongo_matic 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been looking at game articles up for deletion and this one intrigued me. It didn't take me long to compile 20+ articles on this company, even if some of them just have quotes from their general manager on the particular article topic. Although they aren't a traditional game company, the services they provide to game developers is interesting and from their IMDB page and articles, seems like they've contributed alot to the game industry in the last 10 or so years. With that, I feel the article should not be deleted but corrected. Commidus23 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is cause for concern that the creator is affiliated with the company and could show bias in the article, as long as additional editors remove that bias this article is a valid addition. This company is obviously seen as a valid source by the mainstream press (e.g. USA Today, Reuters, Variety, etc) as it has been quoted in numerous articles in the past seven years. In addition, two articles (only one of which is a reference in the wiki entry) by major videogame news outlets, Game Daily[24] and Edge Magazine[25] are entirely about the company and its founders. I see no reason for this entry to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.118.70 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the above as it has been quoted in numerous articles in the past seven years. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:37, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Coakley

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

Lack of notabilty, WP:BLP1E. Event is also not notable. News reports end in Aug-Sep 2006; indicating false advertising suit was dismissed. KeptSouth (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS, as nominator says. If she had won her case, that would be something else. Ray^Talk 20:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argument above. Blip in the news for dismissed suit with no lasting impact whatsoever does not equal notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERSISTENCE. Normally the issue for a BLP1E is to simply rename it into the event for which they're notable, but the event isn't notable. The complaint was never even served on the defendant according to the NY County docket. [26] THF (talk) 01:34, 24 January 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. Speedy G1 (nonsense) applies, as well, though it also triggers WP:SNOW. Consensus on this one seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the luas

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

A single campus catchphrase with no real life notability. Per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Warrah (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is everything but notable. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete more appropriate for urban dictionary than wikipedia.KeptSouth (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of phrases people make up but forget to define. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just follow the speedydelete-speedydelete-speedydelete LUAS train by saying that nobody's given a reason for a speedy delete. Being a parody of a phrase that isn't notable ("stop the lights")(?) doesn't count very much toward notability. Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This phrase is non-notable, but actually, the original "Stop the lights" phrase did enter common useage in Ireland; the Wiktionary definition as "an interjection expressing exasperation or incredulity. or to illustrate the humour in a situation" is spot on. I probably wouldn't be the only one round these parts to occasionally use it to this day when waxing nostalgic. It came from a show called Quicksilver which ran in the 70s (and into the early 80s, if I recall correctly) on RTÉ and which, maybe, one day may get an article. I'm a bit surprised, but amused, that students have picked up on a phrase which dates from two decades ago, but the etymology makes sense, as Luas is the Irish for light. However, all that said.... FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Luas is the Irish for speed not light.

I think it's more of a play on words, with "Stop the L____" being the common denominator, but not very clever or memorable. Mandsford (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr. yes, I think I had what is sometimes known as a Brain fart; las rather than luas is what was probably bouncing around my brain as a word for light. Sorry about that, although I'll stick with the origins of this being based on the usage of the "Stop the lights" on "Quicksilver". Anyhoo, this is remarkably non-notable and still a classic case of WP:MADEUP, if anyone feels that is enough to hasten proceedings. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- My reason for speedy deletion is that the article doesn't make any sense. I still don't understand what "stop the luas" is supposed to mean. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This phrase doesn't meet notabilty by a couple of Luas stops. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - total rubbish. Snappy (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable neglogism, but it doesn't actually meet any of the CSD criteria. Hut 8.5 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a wholly non-notable neglogism (there isn't a single reference in the article). I'm not 100% sure that it is the patent nonsense which you would qualify it as a speedy per WP:CSD#G1, but while I wouldn't speedy-delete it myself on those grounds I'd have no objection to anyone else doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 24 January 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) 20:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Edmonds (baseball)

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

Article claimed that the subject was a player, since 2009, for the yankees. I have searched and cannot find anything to back this up. Mistake, Mispelling, hoax or something is the issue here. Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a player named "Jim Edmonds" but this article is fully deletable. Collect (talk) 16:25, 23 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Walker (chess player)

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

Not notable for his chess achievements. SyG (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his achievements are not international, but we also have a lot of articles about football- or basketball-players who play in lower leagues. And the article's sources appear to be neutral and reliable. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.[reply]

Comment - those 'football- or basketball-players who play in lower leagues' would be fulll time professionals, even if not the best, thus they can meet wiki notability for a sports person. Does Bobby Walker meet WP:ATH in anyway? SunCreator (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SyG your being biased towards an individual who has NATIONAL RANKINGS, where do we draw the line? I mean not everyone can be Bobby Fischer, and honestly I am sure there are a good amount of people who do not know who he is...But how can we know if every individual who is a valid potential candidate for WIKI is become subject to this scrutiny of a few...this is a sight FOR THE PEOPLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)

Well, as you say, not everyone can be Bobby Fischer, and not everyone can be on Wikipedia. This person does not have particularly notable achievements. I do not understand what you mean by "having national rankings", anyone who pays his fee will subscribe to the national chess federation and hence will have a "national ranking". Once he becomes a grandmaster, that's something else. SyG (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That my friend is your opinion, but I do believe Wikipedia does not specify NOTORIETY to a GRANDMASTER...if that were so we would not see alot of chess players on here...the simple fact is Bobby Walker passes the General Wikipedia:Notability Guidelines

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." "Wikipedia:Notability ." Wikipedia (2008): 1. Web. 23 Jan 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)

And SyG a reasonable person could not deny that on the grounds of general notability established by this site that Mr. Walker's achievements how every minuscule they might seem to you do fit the criteria. So I ask that you let the page stand as is. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)

Comment The article says that he was 5th in the eastern divisoon of the 2004 U.S. Chess Championship. I don't think the US Championship has such divisions, so it must be a junior or high school event. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It was neither of those but it was NOT the US Championship (see the article talk page). Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the USCF, he hasn't reached a master rating - see external links in the article and its talk page. The article as at least one more factual inaccuracy. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bubba73 theres a reason that people put up sources at the bottom of the page....do some leg work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)

Reply: I did the leg work and found three major factual errors in the first three things I checked. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficiently notable, sources do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The state championships are generally open tournaments and not among the most prestigious events. While they feature some strong players, they are generally below the Grandmaster and even International Master level where a player can start being considered a professional. Mr Walker's peak rating is also some 200-300 points short of this level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. An Elo rating of 2200 (the minimum for National Master in the U.S.) would not, without more, be notable. Over 100,000 players in the world have such a rating. It is not clear that Walker has achieved even that: as Bubba73 shows on the article's Talk page, Walker apparently has not reached a 2200 rating (he is currently in the low 2100s) and he is only the 17th highest-rated player in Kentucky, a state not known as a chess powerhouse. Krakatoa (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. His rating (combined with his age) is not notable enough; there was some debate over whether the Kayden Troff article should be kept. Kayden was about the same strength as this guy back then, and is still much younger. As mentioned already, there are also quite a few factual errors on the page itself. I see no good reason to keep this article. Grand Mattster 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in general a chess player requires either IM status or to be a prominent chess author, arbiter, or teacher for notability and he's not there yet. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication he is a notable chess player. Merely having a ranking is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 28 January 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 deleted per WP:G11 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Vinod Kumar

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

Delete. Notability not established, no independent references, fails WP:ACADEMIC, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is a recreation of Vinod Kumar deleted in 2008 and Prof. Vinod kumar created in 2009. It still fails WP:N. I don't have access to the deleted version but I believe it was promoting the same svtuition.org back then, so this appears to be deliberate spamming (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/svtuition.blogspot.com for further analysis). Examining the page history, I particularly enjoy the rationale for PROD removal was to reference his own blog entry; a special treat was his recommendation that this was the best education system (you thought this was about accounting, right?) because you learn Sanskrit and hear from "the true voice of God". Speedy. Now. Ash (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertizing and salt for repeated recreation of spam.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:28, 23 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar K. Puri

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

Non-notable academic. Sure, he has done lots of stuff, but all of an academic nature, and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry Bazonka (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unless the professor has established renowned accomplishment or any reference that may establish notability, I will vote for keep. Right now, it's a delete. JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor with connection to Virginia Tech shootings with New York Times mentions at [27], [28], [29] especially since he chaired the department affected by the shootings. Chairs of departments are usually considered "notable" and here we have a news event reinforcing notablity with mentions in a major newspaper. Collect (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A department chair may be notable with in the academic community, but that doesn't mean that he/she is notable enough for an encylopedic article, even if they are mentioned in a newspaper article. Besides which, Puri wasn't involved in the shootings in any way - he just worked at the location and knew some of the victims. I was at university with someone who was injured in the Omagh bombing - does that make me notable? Bazonka (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the NYT interviewed you and mentioned you in multiple articles, noting that you were in charge of the people who were killed, and citing your comments about hiring new faculty, etc., referring to the memorial service and you. Yes. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. The shootings are certainly notable, as is the gunman. But most of the victims aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. And Puri wasn't even there when the shootings took place! I fail to see how being interviewed by a paper about an event to which he was only marginally connected gives somone enough notability to warrant an encyclopedic article. And in any case, none of this is even mentioned in Puri's article! Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being department chair and having some vague peripheral association with the VaTech shootings don't count for much, but the ASME and AAAS fellows give him a pass of WP:PROF #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I looked at this article long and hard with an eye toward deletion, but the fellowships seem to pass WP:PROF. The connection with the VaTech shootings isn't anything really notable. I think the article may be a bit too detailed, but let's give it a pass. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites give h index about 16 so reasonable chance of passing Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Fellow ASME is an indication of notability. Using Scopus, which is much more accurate that GS for the sciences, I see 148 papers listed, which is a very large number, most of them in the leading journals in the field , and with citation counts for the highest at 64, 50, 47 , 41, 32 - a very good record for a field where citation counts are not the very high values found in the biomedical sciences . Sufficient to show him an authority. h factor is in my opinion meaningless, because h=18 (the Scopus result) can mean 18 papers with 18 or 19 cites each, or 17 with 50 cites, and one with 18. It makes a difference. The first would not be notable; the second one would. There is a good deal of work in scientometrics to try to find one single number to characterise research quality, but no agreement on what it might be-- . the only agreement is that it is not the h factor, certainly not when unadjusted for subject field. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 28 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Ness

AfDs for this article:

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

Placing 207th in one tournament is a laughable reason to suggest someone is notable. Clear delete. DegenFarang (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable. The article needs to be expanded, and reliable sources need to be included, but deletion is uncalled for. Rray (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable how? DegenFarang (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see 96 results in a Google News search and 36,000+ results in a general Google search. It's hard to imagine that none of those are reliable sources that could be used to expand the article. Rray (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Poorya Nazari has 68 Google News results and 48,000 Google results. Many of them reliable sources. His fame however derives from one single event, and such people are not notable enough for an article. Erin Ness is similarly famous from just one event - one that she didn't even come close to winning. She is thus, not notable. See WP:BLP1E DegenFarang (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POKER has been notified of this discussion

Delete unless somebody wants to salvage this article and show why she is notable. While WP:BLP1E is, IMHO, a questionable criterion when dealing with some subects (such as poker players where people may be looking them up to see what else they've done) in this case I think it is a valid criteria. Unless otherwise demonstrated, her apparent claim to notability is that she was the 3rd to last woman standing at the main even finishing in 207th place?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, the nominator removed references from the article before nomination. They are back in now. 2005 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator removed references before nomination. I restored the Sporting News and NorthJersey/Record references and made them inline, as well as adding Cardplayer. 2005 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (unless WP:HOTTIE is a policy now). Her cash in the WSOP means she got her entry fee back, and her lifetime winnings of 20K are laughably small. ~~She's a WP:BLP1E photogenic flash in the pan.~~ Weak keep. She's apparently had a Maxim article and is a character in one of the World Championship Poker video games. That plus the other stuff changes my vote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peacock terms in the nomination + a review of the article history = cannot support deletion. Current version provides foundation for an article meeting WP's requirements. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what's with all these nuisance poker nominations Degen? It's really poor form (and a total waste of peoples time) to delete references from an article and then nominate it for deletion based on it failing notability... Hazir (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find these people to be notable. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion about people who are not notable. All this person has achieved is placing 207th in one poker tournament, and the fame that came along with that. Being a woman she got more coverage in RS's and PokerStars picked her up, she was invited to be on TV etc - but all she did was place 207th in a poker tournament. To me, that is not notable. If she is notable then we should include all 206 people who finished ahead of her in the tournament. The fact that most of them were men and thus got less press coverage does not factor into their notability in my view. They are more notable than her because they all achieved more. Not including indirectly because they are men is sexist. DegenFarang (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. You wouldn't know it from the article, but she appears to be notable. Not for her ability or success at poker, but more the fact that she is being used for marketing and so on. The article needs a lot of work... Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:52, 31 January 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. no one aside from the nominator suggested deletion JForget 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley_Rosario

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shirley Rosario

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

Subject is not notable. Tournament player with minor success, owner of a website used as spam across Wikipedia, former prop player of Bicycle Casino and article is plagued by original research and peacock statements.DegenFarang (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Plenty of very references that plainly meet WP:N. Assertion about spamming the wikipedia is false and nonsensical and part of nominators WP:POINT campaign as it has been added by numerous good faith administrators and other editors over a period of years. 2005 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion reason given. Subject is notable, and the article includes multiple references to assert notability. Being a former prop player at the Bicycle Casino has no bearing on a subject's inclusion in the Wikipedia. Original research and/or peacock statements are not reasons for deletion either. Rray (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from a few minor tournament cashes her work at the Bicycle is the only thing she has done. Women in poker tend to get more press coverage than men - that doesn't mean she is a more notable poker player. $170,000 in career earnings is pitiful. There are thousands of people with a higher number. DegenFarang (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Press coverage *is* the defining factor for notability. Her career earnings, her job at the Bicycle, and the "thousands" of people with a higher number are all irrelevant to a deletion discussion. You can view a list of valid deletion reasons here: Deleting_an_article.
Strong delete Subject is not notable and the article exists as self promotion and promotion of her website. DegenFarang (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nominated the article for deletion, your opinion is already on record. It's not necessary (or common) to vote in the AFD yourself. i.e. Your nomination for deletion indicates your delete vote. Rray (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT considered important enough for an extended quote in an article, which seems sufficient here. Puff is best dealt with on the article, not by AfD. Collect (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So everybody ever quoted by the New York Times is notable enough to have their own article? DegenFarang (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Straw argument, that. The NYT does not generally choose "people off the street" to be cited in featured articles. As a general rule, the edit standards of the NYT are to use "people known in the field." Collect (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:poker has been notified of this discussion---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with DF that PokerBabes.com is a questionable website for sourcing articles, the website is a reputable poker blog with a reasonable following. Shirley is also notable enough as a female poker player to be sought out for interviews and comments---in part due to her website.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No genuine reason given for deletion. This AfD is motivated by the nominator's pokerbabes campaign. Hazir (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the first four words: Subject is not notable. This is another prime example of poker notability sexism. There are hundreds of men who have achieved more in their poker and business careers than Rosario that would not be considered notable - but because she is a woman and gets more attention by the poker press because of that fact, she gets in. Very sexist. Just like the WSOP playback. They give no credit to the quiet online superstars but the loud idiots who have no idea what they are doing - and women - get all the TV time. Wikipedia should not follow that lead. DegenFarang (talk) 10:58, 27 January 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. Though personally I would recommend considering a merge with Dollar hegemony and Dollar diplomacy into an umbrella article on such topics. Sandstein 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrodollar warfare

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable term taken from one book. No sources that don't specifically reference the book. Fails WP:FRINGE. Swarm^Talk 10:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not essays and does not contain original research. The hypothesis is definitely these two things, it goes into great lengths to prove that the hypothesis is feasible which Wikipedia should not be doing. Taking that into consideration there isn't any verifiable sources. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question - If a book [30] has been written on the topic in 2005, how is WP creating Original Research by explaining the hypotheses? It cannot even be considered a 'Synthesis of published material that advances a position' as it does note both viewpoints from its list of Pro and Con section. Admittedly, the Prose of the Article could reflect this better, but we have no deadline, and an Expert should be the one to properly balance the correct views. AFD is for Topic WP:Notability, not just current state. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But should Wikipedia have sources that backup the hypothesis or even rebut it? Shouldn't it have sources that show that the Petrodollar warfare hypothesis is what it says it is in the article?

For example Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD) is backed up with a source in the article but that source (broken by the way) verifies what the hypothesis says is actually occurring, not what the hypothesis is. I would have thought that Wikipedia isn't concerned if the theory is correct and actually occurring but is concerned that the theory/term/hypothesis is stated correctly and verified as such with sources. --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should have a balanced viewpoint, with as many cites as both views can find. As well, if possible, it should mention opposing theories and any major differences to them. To state & cite only 1 viewpoint would give the entire hypothesis undue weight. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But more importantly there should be verifiable sources of the hypothesis existing which this article is missing, because without these verifiable sources an article is really really close to synthesis piece. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm isn't the book the source of the hypothesis ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 11:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are abundant sources testifying to the notability of this well-known concept. See this book for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term never appears in the reference you just posted except when referencing the book. Swarm^Talk 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So - what of it? The book seems to have a substantial reputation and so is naturally cited as a reference in further discussion of the topic. This is to be expected. The essential point here is that the topic is discussed by multiple substantial and independent sources and so it is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Full-text searches in Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest yielded seven unique results, all related to the Clark book. Three are mentions; four are references. I only had time to look quickly at google books results, but what I saw appeared to be the same. Clark's hyposthesis gets discussed, yes, but apparently only in larger contexts, and the phrase "petrodollar warfare" seems to be his alone. It doesn't appear to have gained currency elsewhere. It would therefore seem to me that the only valid way to construct a WP article on "Petrodollar Warfare" would be to make it about the book, but I don't personally feel like it's really cited often enough, or mentions of it are in-depth enough to satisfy notability under WP:BK. Others may disagree. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so our topic is not the phrase "petrodollar warfare" but the general concept which it represents. This concept - that force is being used to prop up the oil/dollar system - may be discussed using many forms of words. Here, for example, Ron Paul discusses it in the House. He doesn't use the exact phrase but the same concept appears in other words. So, when searching for sources, we should cast our net wide to include sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point about concept vs. term, and which this article really is, but it strikes me as flirting with danger as far as coatracking is concerned that the title of the article is a term that is so specific to a single person that it is virtually never used unless in reference to him, yet the article is not similarly specific. I don't know what the answer is. Renaming the article The Hypothesis That Force Is Used to Prop Up the Oil/Dollar System probably isn't the way to go. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough Cites to prove the term exists. Needs a cleanup by an Expert. I have requested User talk:Unclebob take a look at it as he mentioned He may during the last AFD, but which does not seem to have happened (after browsing the History). I think the arguments put forth for deletion have more to do with the specific name of this article (whis is the same as a book) than with the actual hypothesis. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unreferenced, original research on a neologistic term with no 3rd party coverage separate from the book. EeepEeep (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references and so it is not unreferenced. The references support the article's content and so it is not OR. The words of the title appear in the OED so it is not a neologism. There is reliable 3rd party coverage separate from the book and so not one of your reasons to speedy delete is true. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for this being in the OED? EeepEeep (talk) 18:04, 30 January 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. JForget 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani

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

No reliable sources to support notability other than web site associated with the article creator. Article creator contested a speedy deletion and this was refused as a claim has been made that the subject is a Sufi saint. Google comes up with no RS entries for the subject (Ali Shah Jilani or Gilani). To be fair, the titles Hazrat and Qalandar do imply notability, though there is no indication of who bestowed the honorifics.

I don't think that the editor, who is new to Wikipedia, understands English well, nor what a reliable source is. Esowteric+Talk 09:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was a copypaste of this web page which the article creator claims is the official web site. I flagged the possible copyvio and reworded the lede, and the possible copyvio was removed by the admin who refused the speedy deletion. Esowteric+Talk 10:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Bump] Any more input from editors, please?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Esowteric+Talk 12:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for Qalandar Ilm Ali pulls up no information other than the one solitary link mentioned above (a religious web site which contains a fawning biography). Someone who is a notable Sufi -- even if he is not a Saint -- would surely at least be mentioned on other Sufi sites. With no evidence of notability or sainthood, the article should probably be deleted. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage in published sources. These sorts of names are headaches,

because of potential differences in transliteration,
because of the frequent addition, omission or transposition of honorifics, and
because many individuals use the exact same titles and names.

Looking for the parts of the name where English spelling does not vary, i.e.

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

I cannot find any (English-language) sources that are about this individual born in 1930 in Oman. --JN 466 13:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HEY unless sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 23 January 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 Short Stack. JForget 00:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradie Webb

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

No notability outside of the band he is currently in. Ridernyc (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. Wine Guy Talk 02:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. andrewrox424 ^Bleep 12:17, 30 January 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 Short Stack. JForget 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Diviney

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

No notability outside of the band he is currently in. Ridernyc (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. Wine Guy Talk 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. andrewrox424 ^Bleep 12:18, 30 January 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 Short Stack. JForget 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Clemmensen

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

No notability outside of the band he is currently in. I tried redirecting to the band article but that was reverted. Ridernyc (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would say Ridernyc made the right choice, but since it seems at least one person doesn't think that a redirect is warranted (which is fine by me) I won't be bold and redirect myself. --123.243.102.177 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack per WP:BAND. This one's easy. Wine Guy Talk 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Stack. andrewrox424 ^Bleep 12:16, 30 January 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. Whether Mr. Cornish actually invented anything or not is essentially a red herring. The standards of both the general notability guideline and WP:CREATIVE seem to have been met. And I'd like to add this:

Plip!

for those users who made this such in incredibly long winded AfD with their repetitive circular arguments. (you know who you are) Beeblebrox (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Cornish

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

article may be mroe of an advertisement thatn a bio, since there is nothing bio-worthy in it, and the 'official site' is an online store-like website for the equiptment he makes. Alan - talk 04:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of self promotion. A google search indicated that Pete Cornish appears to be on every social network site in the world. WP isn't a social network site. He's not notable and basically advertising his guitars. Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~NB: this was changed to a Keep further down. I haven't struck anything out per WP:TALKO Holly25 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. According to this magazine article he invented the guitar pedalboard, this blog post reproduces a magazine article that says he's noted for producing custom equipment for a raft of top-tier artists, and other links talk at length of his close working relationship with the likes of Brian May and Dave Gilmour. These links might not count as reliable sources, but they're presumably based on them, and if that's the case then he seems very notable. The fact that he's a member of social networking sites has zero relevance. Holly25 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~No those links aren't reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source which says he invented the pedal board I will change my vote. Otherwise he's just a salesman.~~ Changed to keep. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pedalboard claim comes from a Guitar Player article, a magazine which has been published since 1967 and is presumably a reliable source as far as guitar-related facts are concerned. The blog post reproduces an article from Guitarist (magazine) which presumably exists in the print edition from 1995. Holly25 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, he didn't invent anything, he customizes pedals for specific needs. In many cases, people are credited for creating when they simply modified. an example would be the Eddie Van Halen Signature Guitars, He modifies his guitars for his own needs, and was given a line of them sold at major guitar centers, with the claim created by Eddie Van Halen. Perhaps these customized pedals are note-worthy, but I can't find anything to back that up as there are hundreds of engineers who do this same thing (and nowadays, pedals are programmable, the musician does it himself via computer) Alan - talk 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The customized pedals are a separate thing; the "invention" claim relates to the guitar pedalboard, which is a number of separate pedals disassembled and rehoused in a single custom unit. By all indications he was the first person to do this and hence the inventor. Holly25 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was wanting alternate proof that he invented the pedal board. However having looked into the magazine further it seems a worthwhile authority. So i'll change my vote to keep. Szzuk (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That is kind of my point. I only find bits and peices here and there, and no where can I find that he invented anything, but merely modeified and customized what others created. I can take a two devices others invented, mix them together into something new, doesn't mean I invented it, means I modified/customized them. Musicians do this with guitar pedals on their own all the time. Definatly a tough article to source properly Alan - talk 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Yes its an awkward one. I think we need new authors in this afd to help shed some light. Szzuk (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link calls him "the inventor of the pedalboard", in the fourth paragraph (when I view it, the text is obscured by an ad which disappears after a few seconds). From Google Books, this book describes his custom systems as part of a transitional movement that would lead to modern multi-effects systems. This book mentions him as one of only two people producing these custom systems for big rock stars before MIDI and multi-effects systems made it affordable for amateurs. And this book, published by Guitar World, says "I can't feel complete in writing about pedalboards without a nod to Pete Cornish, a London-based pedalboard designer who, since the '70s, has worked for such rock royalty as Jimmy Page, David Gilmour, and Brian May. It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field." They all agree that he is an important figure in the development of this technology. Holly25 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This links appear to be more like blogs than reliable articles. I'm looking for pure documented facts that he actually invented something, not peoples opinions on the matter. I'm not saying the links aren't valid, but if it's all true, there should be better sources to use Alan - talk 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a magazine article, reproduced on the magazine's website. The other links I've just provided are excerpts from printed books, found from a Google Books search. Click on them and you'll see they have nothing to do with blogs. Holly25 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Another reason for the AFD is simply how the article is written. looks very much like promotion, not biographical at all. (the external links alone.. nuff said) Alan - talk 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality issues aren't relevant to deletion debates. In the worst case, an article can be reduced to a short stub. You don't need to delete the whole article to fix such problems. Holly25 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peddleboard designer or creator IMO there is sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, particularly this mention and multiple mentions of him in the various other reliable references from the article to establish his general notability on both sides of the atlantic. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles notability claim is that Cornish "invented" (or designed if you prefer) the Guitar pedalboard. Now the Pedalboard article was created by a WP:SPA "randombee". The entire GP article is unsourced and reads like a hoax. A GP unit (per the article) is nothing but a "plate" or "wooden board" on which "multiple pedal units" are mounted and connected, often with a combined power supply to eliminate ground loop problems (ie. audio hum). BIG F***ing deal, delete GP too Annette46 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources here are three books and a magazine article, the quality of the Guitar pedalboard article isn't relevant. Holly25 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 3 books do not establish he invented the Guitar Pedalboard. The magazine article is usual trade rag hype. The article's specific claim to notability is for his elaborate and fully custom guitar pedalboard systems. This smacks of advertising to me. The 2nd book reference speaks of Bob Bradshaw doing the same thing on the other side of the Atlantic (many hits for Bradshaw in WP, but no article as yet) as does also the 3rd one. The last ref merely calls Cornish a leader in the field. Is WP going to be a directory for every Blacksmith or Cobbler ? Annette46 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The three books establish his notability in his field, and the magazine is an established guitar magazine published since 1967, not a "trade rag". The claim in the article is irrelevant because it can be rewritten; the claim to notability in this discussion is backed by reliable sources. The fact that Bob Bradshaw has no article simply means that no-one has written one yet. If a blacksmith or cobbler is cited in the literature as a leader of their field and works closely with famous artists, then yes, they'd probably meet the criteria. It doesn't mean WP becomes a "directory" for all of them. Holly25 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I am unsure what his claim to notability is. These guys (Cornish, Bradshaw, David Friedman etc) are "guitar rig" builders for rock bands. A guitar rig is a multi-channel multi-effect audio effects processor, including racks, pedals (not made by them BTW) and pedal racks (virtually obsolete nowadays). Yes all of them have rigged for leading rock stars/groups but thats a techicians job and not evidence of being notable. The concerned notability guideline is WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how he meets it with these 3 and a half sources. Annette46 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The relevant points at WP:CREATIVE would be, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". Until Cornish in the 70s, only single effects were available; nowadays, the major manufacturers produce elaborate multieffects systems. Cornish is seen as an important figure because he was developing that technology for major guitarists when it wasn't otherwise commercially available. So he's "regarded as an important figure" for "originating a significant new concept". One of the books is an authorized history of Boss Corporation, the world's biggest manufacturer of such equipment (and a competitor of Cornish, you could say); another is by Matt Bruck, the longtime guitar technician for Eddie van Halen (see [31]), so you couldn't really ask for better sources on his importance within that field. Holly25 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Not valid. None of the 3 book sources categorically states Pete Cornish originated and/or invented any new "concept" or "theory" or "technique". I note the weasel phrase commercially available in your comment. It is common knowledge that innovations used by "major" artistes very often originate from minor unknowns. In any case Bob Bradshaw, David Friedman are the verifiably significant rivals / peers of Cornish, we haven't got them acknowledging him (yet) as an important figure. The BOSS Corp reference merely states that Cornish's rigs were separable from the case (a great new concept <rol>). The Bruck reference in effect simply describes him as being a leading pedalboard designer from the '70s <--> semantically quite different from "an important figure". Annette46 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" (Bruck) is a clear-cut statement of importance. I can't see how it could be argued otherwise. We can't expect the sources to use the exact same wording as the WP:CREATIVE guidelines, or they'd never apply. The "invention" claim is clearly stated in the magazine article; if you want to contest it, then you'll need to show an equally reliable source saying otherwise. As for the Boss book, you're quoting one sentence out of context; it goes on to say, "This trend was a transitional movement that led into the full-scale use of multiple effects grouped in a rack-mounted system", after giving Cornish as a single example of someone already producing similar technology. Holly25 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" = opinion, not fact. Using that statement to base a fact on is against wikipedia by itself. If used in an article, it would be nothing more than a quote from someone expressing their opinion. Alan - talk 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never represented this as a fact. It's a quote used to back up the relative part of WP:MUSICBIO, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." It is an example of how this person is regarded by people who write books about guitar technology, in this case Eddie van Halen's longtime guitar technician. We're talking about the notability guidelines here, the content of the article isn't what's under discussion. Holly25 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more solid sources:
- Brian May's official website: "Mr. Cornish, as many people would know, is a well-known and respected specialist music electronics maker who produced many pieces of equipment for Brian May and Queen during the 1970s and 1980s.", and "This is perfectly understandable due to the fact that Pete Cornish at the time was the leading specialist in UK music electronics, and would have been heavily in demand by many music acts."[32]
- Lou Reed interviewed for Sound on Sound: "Those are some things built by an English genius named Pete Cornish"[33] and mentioned again in a Pitchfork interview[34]
- Described as a "stompbox legend" in a Premier Guitar article[35] and a "pedal pioneer" in Make (magazine): [36]
- A book which turned up in a Google Books search but without a preview[37] talks of "exclusive interviews (with) eight top pedal makers", and by using Amazon's preview of the same book[38] it turns out to have a 3-page interview with Cornish plus a number of other references elsewhere in the text. Holly25 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, nothing factual stating he invented anything, he builds pedals, he modifies pedals, he was one of the earlier people to do so, but no proof anywhere he invented anything or was the first to do so. Your arguements on the article are making me think you have a conflict of interest and are trying to promote him (another wikipedia guidelines nono, but i'm not accusing you of it.. just pointing out that your arguements may be reflecting that) Alan - talk 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources weren't presented as support for the "invention" claim, that's found in the magazine article linked earlier. This is secondary coverage in reliable sources, all attesting to his importance within his field. I'll ignore the COI claim because all I'm doing is presenting a large number of secondary sources and using those to argue his notability under the guidelines. Holly25 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) He did not invent the guitar pedalboard (which in any event is merely a plank on which Pedals "effect processors" are mounted / strapped and wired up - ie. integration). 2) He did not invent guitar effect processors (pedals) or pedalboards - there are earlier claims such as Electro-Harmonix for Hendrix in the 60's. Cornish's so-called importance in his field is that he has rigged for some well known groups since the 1970's and is quite savvy in promoting himself. Secondary coverage of this nature is OK for GNG, not for WP:CREATIVE. He would be important if it can be reliably shown that he created something notable. Most of the fresh sources cited above are clear that he was specialist in the UK making this yet another example of the Anglo-centred bias of WP. Annette46 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've just said he passes GNG so i'm not sure why you're bothered about WP:Creative. This'll be no consensus. Szzuk (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I actually said these secondary sources are OK for GNG, but not for WP:CREATIVE. As a person Cornish must pass CREATIVE (applicable for him), if not then he may still be notable under GNG guidelines but that will depend on the context of his notability (which is still unclear/vague).Annette46 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have a source to back up the claim that he didn't invent that? I've provided a reliable magazine article to say that he did, so unless you can show a reliable source saying that he didn't, or that someone else invented it, that assertion still stands. Your claim about Electro-Harmonix is flat out wrong: they've only ever produced single effects. Perhaps you've been misled by the image at the Electro-Harmonix article: only a few of the single effects in that image are by E-H, they've never produced any kind of multi-effects system. You're also using a strange definition of "pedalboard" which is probably based on its description in the Guitar pedalboard article: amateurs often put together single effects on a board in emulation of the professional pedalboards produced by Cornish et al., which are housed inside a single unit and have custom switching circuitry.

There's also a misunderstanding of WP:CREATIVE: the "invention" claim meets the second bullet point there and hasn't been refuted with a contrary reliable source. The other sources are evidence for the first bullet point there: that the person "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors".

Let's take a look at some of the language used to describe Cornish in these sources: "well-known... respected... the leading specialist... heavily in demand" (Brian May's site); "genius" (Lou Reed); "legend" (Premier Guitar); "pioneer" (Make Magazine); "It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" (van Halen's guitar technician). This meets the first point at WP:CREATIVE, we have another source which meets the second point (invention). Note that a person only has to meet one of those points: I've produced reliable sources to show that he meets two of them. On top of this, the references already provided, plus the 17 relevant results at a GBooks search ([39]) are evidence for general notability. At this point, any further arguments that he doesn't meet the notability requirements need to address why the provided sources are unreliable (I've pointedly avoided the thousands of hits not regarded as WP:RS), rather than your opinion of what a pedalboard is, whether he invented it, and whether it's important to have done so. Because the relevant sources from his field do make excessive statements of his importance, and simple assertions that he's not contrary to reliable sources are not guideline-based arguments. Holly25 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nno one needs sources to prove he DIDN'T invent, you need sources proving he DID invent. in short, if he is notable for building and modifying guitar pedals, so are thousands of others who do the same work. And adding the sources to this discussion doesn't help the apge. If you feel it's a notible page, add context and cite the sources on the article. If this guy is that notible, the article can be expanded quite a bit to meet WP:BIO Alan - talk 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article gets kept, then these sources could certainly be used to expand and better source it. But the decision to keep/delete gets made on the basis of this discussion, not the current state of the article; there's no point putting all that effort into improving the article when all that work might end up deleted within a couple of days. The article can be improved if kept, so its current quality isn't a deletion issue (see WP:RUBBISH). Per the deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". I've focused on presenting sources here because that's what decides whether the article stays or goes.

As for the invention matter, I've provided a source for that. If you disagree with that then the only way forward is to either (1) show why that source isn't reliable or (2) find other sources that contradict it so we can compare them. Saying, "I don't accept it, find more sources" doesn't get us anywhere.

And besides the invention claim, what of the other sources? I've put them forward claiming they show he's "regarded as an important figure" in his field, and that all of the sources taken together (including the other books he's referenced in) show that he's generally notable in that he gets repeated, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if we ignore the invention claim for a minute, how do you refute the evidence provided by these sources? Holly25 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just read WP:Creative. He passes. Point 1 says The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The sources provided are multiple, non trivial and amply demonstrate this. For simplicity I'll strikethrough my earlier delete comments. Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix was using multiple effects since at least 1967. These multi-effects consisted of at least a "sustain" and "fuzz" and often a "wah-wah" (variable comb filter) combined in the same housing. Fuzz boxes (with wah-wah) have been around since at least the early 1960's using germanium transistors / UJTs (when silicon wasn't available) - Robin Trower was using them before/same time as Hendrix - 1967 (album:"A whiter shade of pale"). The Uni-Vibe pedal has been around since 1964 incorporating flanging, chorus and vibrator effects. So this would conclusively rule out Cornish as an inventor or creator of single/multi-effect guitar effect processing units (his claim to fame). The 1 (trade) magazine source for Cornish's claim to inventing the pedal is of course suspect/dubious - and gets little support elsewhere - so failing Claim No.2 for Creative. Now addressing the other claim, No evidence has been provided of his peers widely citing him (in fact he is hardly cited by them at all). No evidence has been provided that his peers or successors regard him as an important figure. None of the citations provided are from his "peers" or "successors", they are in fact in the nature of testimonials from his clients or from trade publications (in which he advertises and hence are not independent sources), Furthermore, I am not from the UK, and dont have an Anglo bias for him. Annette46 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key points of your post are categorically false. I'll try to be brief.

Hendrix wasn't using "multi-effects" in 1967 or any other year, because they weren't invented before his death in 1970. His setup is detailed at [40], based on the testimony of his "electronics guru" Roger Mayer. The single effects used: Dallas Arbiter Fuzz Face, a Vox Wah-wah, and Mayer's own Octavia (famously used in the solo of Purple Haze). These are all single effects units. From 1969, he also used a Univibe which was again a single phase-shifter device: the words "chorus" and "vibrato" are variations of the same basic effect (see [41] for a detailed description, or [42] for a schematic of the Univibe, proving that it's a single circuit and has nothing to do with the integration of separate effects units); I don't know where you got the word "flanger" from because that effect was only invented in 1966 (see Flanging, the Beatles first used it on Revolver) and wasn't available as a separate effects unit until the 1970s. In this last post, you've basically invented a new meaning for "multi-effects" to describe units which everyone else calls single effects units. All secondary sources will regard these as single effects units; none will call them "multi-effects". If you insist I'm wrong, there's a huge fat target for you to attack with reliable sources.

The magazine source is not "suspect/dubious" at all; it's a reliable source unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary rather than just asserting that it's not. It's not a "trade magazine" unless any publication specifically about music production is to be classed as a "trade publication"; in that case, you're dismissing all reliable sources in this field. The use of "trade" in the derogatory sense has a much narrower meaning, see Trade journal.

As for "no evidence of his peers citing him/regard him as an important figure": I've provided these sources in previous posts and I won't waste anyone's time by repeating them. When a famous musician calls him a "genius" or a "leading figure", you dismiss it as a "customer testimonial". When a music magazine describes him as "legendary" or a "pioneer", you dismiss it by stating "he advertises in that magazine", without any proof. When 17 books cite him, you start making up bizarre and unsourced claims about Jimi Hendrix which are quickly refuted by pointing to sourced facts. Holly25 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly a peer is commonly understood to be "someone who is an equal in a group". So lets first settle who Cornish's peers are. Famous musicians (especially his customers) and magazine writers cannot be his peers. Hendrix essentially recorded between 1967-1970. The Hendrix article here claims "Hendrix was a catalyst in the development of modern guitar effects pedals" - so this is obviously well before Cornish whose own first claim (his website) for any guitar effect is 1972. It further states "As Hendrix's recording career progressed he made greater use of customized effects units" - Excuse me, but I thought that Cornish's claim to notability were *his* "customised effect units" (so again not the creator of anything)? The Gibson article refers only to the early Hendrix rigs. Many of the sources you cite imply that he hardly used Mayer's gizmos after the early album. The Gibson article also states that Hendrix's "line-up" (synonym for "sequential integration")) consisted of at least a Fuzzbox (tuned low) followed by a Wah-Wah and a Univibe (germanium transistor as I said) (phaser/comb filter) with additional selectable vibrato OR chorus effects (in the same Univibe unit). This lineup when coupled to his fave guitar(s) form the "rig". If you carefully examine the schematic of the Univibe.gif you will note the multiple CD-S photo sensors triggered from an "incandescent" bulb whose "warmup time" provides the "delay" (I conjecture the CD-S would be inside a long tube painted black on the inside). So in effect the Univibe is not only a phaser but also a sustain (to generate the chorus). The wiki "flanging" article claims that Electro-Harmonics made flange pedals since the 1970s (when did Cornish make his?). User generated reviews from his "not so famous" customers [43] claim that he is "2 person only operation", "pedal making god", "..will improve the sound of your other pedals as it has line driver built in". So what are we talking about here ? As I had stated (and the pedalboard wiki article too claims) the original pedalboards were simply a plank/board on which the individual pedals were mounted and wired up - a mere time saving device for the techs which ensured better consistency for the artiste (Big F***ing deal) - Cornish himself doesn't claim to have invented a pedalboard. He only claims (see his website) "Pete Cornish, the creator of integrated guitar effects and amp routing systems for the worlds best known performers". Jimi wouldn't be a peer in that group to disagree!!!

My Final Comment Lets be very blunt - Peter Cornish [44] is known for robust packaging of effect units manufactured by large companies with 1000's of employees. His famous musician clients (whose coke snorting lifestyles depend on it) regard him as a "genius" because he makes special casings which house these devices to work reliably in the field. This is because "Cornish actually began in the British Military by designing electronics capable of being dropped out of an airplane and still working right." Enough said!!! I've got better non-Anglo subjects to waste my wiki time on.Annette46 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His "peers" in this case would include the musicians and companies and magazines involved in the field of music technology, from which I've provided numerous sourced statements of this guy's importance in that field. Rather than challenging these sources or providing contrary sources, you've simply asserted (at great length) that you don't think he's important. (WP:CREATIVE #1)

I've also provided a source to show he invented the pedalboard and other sources showing he was a key figure in the development of multi-effects in general. You've dismissed these sources by asserting that such technology already existed (provably wrong), without providing any sources to back up this assertion, because no such sources exist. (WP:CREATIVE #2)

I've also provided 17 book references as evidence of general notability. If you think this is a waste of your time, then there was no point in needlessly extending the discussion in the first place by constantly bringing up new unfounded claims, none of which have addressed the sourced evidence I've provided. It just looks like arguing for argument's sake. Holly25 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had not intended to participate again in this discussion, but in view of the 2nd relist I will just summarise/fleshout out my concerns - hoping that this leads to consensus. The only consensus thus far is that Cornish must satisfy one of 2 criteria for WP:CREATIVE to be retained.

CREATIVE-#1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
CREATIVE-#2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

My comments are:-

CREATIVE #1 is to be interpreted as the persons peers ("equals in a group") regard him/her as either an "important figure" or cite him widely. It is my case that the citations thus far do not originate from his "peers", but are instead from non-independent sources such as his clients. Itis also my case that the citations put forward by USe;Holly25 do not refer to any specific achievements of his, but are in the nature of passing mentions and/or testimonials decribing him as a "leading personality", "genius" etc. No serious effort has been made in these citations to examine why Cornish is this supposedly leading personality / genius etc. or to critically compare/contrast him with his peers. In the circumstances, I say that CREATIVE #2 is actually the proper test for someone like Cornish.

User:Holly25 relies on this "Guitar Player article [45] which mentions him (in passing) as the inventor of the "pedalboard". However, if one cares to read a little further into that article, we find out exactly what the writer considers to be a "pedalboard" - commercially its "laminated board"and for DIYers its a "piece of plywood you get from a hardware store"(!). Onto this board you attach various single effect units or "pedals" (fuzz boxes, wah-wahs, vibraors, flangers, phasers, vibrato ...) with "nylon ties", "bungee cords", "Ductape" or "velcro". Also see Guitar pedalboard. No other source, including Pete Cornish himself claims Cornish invented/created the pedal board. His own website [46] says that in 1972 he built their first guitar effects board for Yes guitarist Peter Banks. Its alleged USP "specially designed preamps, buffers, and line drivers which replicate the characteristics of tube amp inputs thus eliminating the tone and volume losses associated with multiple pedal set ups by completely isolating each pedal from it’s neighbor.". So all this does is replace a "series" wiring rig by a parallel rig. This is hardly novel enough to justify his notability and in fact the "linear power boosters" from Electro-Harmonix were doing something similar in 1968-69 [47]. As any engineer can tell you all this is nothing but a practical application of active Impedance matching which was known since the 1920's.

Holly25's other source [48] says "Even pedal pioneers Roger Mayer and Pete Cornish started by modding existing equipment to find new sounds"

Cornish's own claim (and as the existing article states) is that he is "the creator of integrated guitar effects and amp routing systems for the worlds best known performers." A careful reading shows that the emphasis is on his famous clients (in other words a bespoke cobbler of guitar rigs). His website reproduces another specialist trade mag article exclusively on him "Originally printed in Musicians Only October 6, 1979 by Paul Colbert". This article clearly states "He doesn’t design effects units, though he has the knowledge. Wisely, he leaves that to the big firms geared up to turn out economically thousands of the gadgets. What he does, is to put them all under one roof, connect them all to one power point and make sure that they don’t fall apart under a roadie’s gentle touch." and "All the boards are one-offs."

In another specialist article on him, reproduced on his website "The Craftsmen—Pete Cornish - Originally published in Music UK Issue #6 1982 by Tony Bacon" we find him described as "Pete Cornish, electrical handyman to the big names of rock". The article describes his first pedal board "The first pedalboard was made for Robert Fripp in September 1973, although Pete mentions a ‘practice run’ for Pete Banks, then with Flash. Fripp’s board was part of a set for King Crimson (fellow Cornished Crimsoners being John Wetton and David Cross) and comprised of a Guild Foxy Lady, Guilds version of the Big Muff Fuzz, a Cry Baby wah-wah, a Farfisa wooden-bodied volume pedal (‘The best volume pedal I’ve ever come across.” Says Pete, “very expressive”), plus an echo send and return, and a bypass switch for the echo and effects (but not the volume). It was all powered by one big battery in a compartment underneath.". We may note that this setup includes a clone of Electro-Harmonix's Big Muff Fuzz.

Cornish is undoubtedly a first class electrical handyman, excellent at combining standalone units made by others and packaging them reliably - thus earning him praise from his clients and trade magazines/publications - but this does not enable to meet CREATIVE-#2 (or #1). Annette46 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These all boil down to "the source describes him as a genius/legend/pioneer, but if you read on you'll find some small fact that means I personally don't find him important" (e.g. the fact that he doesn't design the individual effects that are integrated into his units -- something which I've been clear about since the beginning). These sources are from experts in the relevant field, so the fact that they judge him important takes precedence over your personal opinions on that. I'll stop there since this is already much, much too long. Holly25 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People praise me for the websites i've designedf for them, and media editting i've done for them, combining techiniques in my own style.. yet, i'm not notable enough for a wikipedia article either.. what I do is no differant than what Cornish does, he takes what's already there, and makes it work in his own way, his clients love how he does it and praise him, just as mine do with me. Now the person who took various effects, and created a single pedal to contain them all, controlled by a micro computer, is notable for actually creating something new, Cornish, is not. Again, this article is more of a promotion then a notable biography. Alan - talk 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were mentioned in 17 books, had articles written about you, had magazines refer to you as a "legend" and "pioneer" and had key figures in your field testify to your importance -- then of course you'd warrant an article -- there would be no doubt. Show me the sources and I'll write it for you.

The "clients" issue which keeps cropping up is a red herring because that only covers two of the sources: Brian May and Lou Reed. The rest are books and magazines.

In the end, you're stating your opinion that what he does is not important. The books and magazine articles say that he is important. And because everything here is ultimately based on reliable sources, their opinions must take precedence. Holly25 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There have been 5 editors in this afd, 3 keep and 2 delete. I hope it isn't relisted again, the conversation just goes around in circles!!! Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, 2 "keeps" (you incl) changed their "votes" presuming that Cornish invented the "pedalboard" (on a single source claim) and there were 3 Googlebook refs on him for notability. The invention claim on analysis does/did not stand up. Even Holly25 probably conceding that he does not fulfill CREATIVE-#2 (not having created anything new) now focuses on it "boils down to" CREATIVE-#1 - ie. sources which describe him as a leader/pioneer/genius. Let me take those 3 Googlebook refs one by one. 1) The BOSS book merely refers to custom effect board systems made by Cornish (on only 1 of its many pages) without commenting on either him or his units - No praise here. 2) The Micheal Ross Book merely states that Bob Bradshaw and Pete Cornish were building "custom effect switching systems" for the stars of rock - once again no praise here - just a factual mention that these 2 are in this business. 3) The Matt Bruck ref is actually an article extensively quoting Bob Bradshaw on pedalboards - Pete Cornish gets just a token nod like 'Oh BTW I must mention that Pete Cornish is also a leader in his field'. All the other 14 so-called reliable sources are just passing mentions / testimonials of Cornish. In contrast, the solid articles on on Cornish and reproduced on his website make it clear that he is simply a competent and sought after craftsman who makes custom effect switching systems for famous rock artistes. The heart of CREATIVE-#1 is that the sources confirming Cornish to be an important figure must originate from his peers (which is not the case here). Annette46 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going around in circles with you. My opinion stays with Keep. Szzuk (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced invention claim hasn't been "conceded"; it still stands as evidence that he is "known for inventing". Your "analysis" consisted of pointing to earlier technology like fuzz boxes and making the bizarre assertion that they were "multi-effects", even though no reliable source has ever called them that. Let's pretend for a moment that your claims were true: what would it prove? Only that he's known erroneously by this source as the inventor. In other words, he'd still be "known as the inventor" in the eyes of that source even if Edison had come up with the idea in 1904.

The emphasis moved on to sourced claims of importance because I found more of those sources since the start of the discussion. "Peers", in the sense used in Peer review, refers to experts in a given field, and relates to their ability to offer a meaningful opinion. In this sense, the specialist magazine articles and books and major guitarists are all his peers in the field of music (specifically guitar) technology. Even if you insist on a different definition of "peers", the sources provided meet the more general standards of WP:N: multiple, non-trivial references. Directly calling someone a "genius", a "legend", a "pioneer", a "leader" is not a trivial reference. "Passing" does not equal "trivial"; they are significant in that they signify the source's high opinion of the subject's importance, and no further detail or original research is required to extract this opinion. The books in which he was mentioned during an account of the development of the technology provide evidence of significance, even if they don't explicitly use that wording (he wouldn't be mentioned otherwise). On top of that, there are magazine articles of which he is the main subject and a book which devotes an entire section to interviewing him. Holly25 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. fleeting mentions by his clients during an interview does not constitute peer review. The "genius" (exceedingly fleeting) mention by Lou Reed was for allegedly keeping loud sounds soft so that Reed wouldn't go deaf (the interview fails to describe how he did it - did Pete Cornish invent earmuffs?). The single source which claims he invented pedalboards justifies that he will be known as the inventor ?? Bollocks !!. BTW I did not claim a fuzzbox was a multi-effect. What I said was "These multi-effects consisted of at least a "sustain" and "fuzz" and often a "wah-wah" (variable comb filter) combined in the same housing.". So refrain from deceptive practices. Annette46 (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out the most appropriate interpretation of "peers", and of course not claiming that the academic process of "peer review" was at work here. And "clients", as I've pointed out, only applies to two of the sources, where I don't see it being an important factor: May and Reed are both multimillionaires and are hardly going to be swayed by offers of a discount if they get publicity for Cornish.

As to the "fuzz box" sentence, I'm not being deceptive: that's what you appeared (to me) to call it in the very next sentence. You said Hendrix was using "multi-effects" in a single housing, then said Robin Trower was using the "fuzz box" at the same time as Hendrix; I read this as meaning Hendrix's sustain/fuzz/wah-wah were combined in a single housing known as a "fuzz box". They were actually all separate units, as I've already shown.

Reed's "genius" mention is fleeting, but it's one of the few cases where a single word is sufficient to establish his high opinion of the subject. The other interview explains the "deaf" comment, he was trying to get feedback effects without having to stand next to a speaker at high volume, and Cornish built some custom equipment to achieve that. Reed and Cornish were jointly interviewed for Japan's "Guitar Magazine" in 2001 (mentioned here and here, but not available online). Holly25 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CREATIVE #1 & #2 have been amply demonstrated. The arguments against don't really hold water: the claim that Hendrix used multi-effects units is demonstrably false (the univibe is not a multi-effect); that he didn't invent effects pedal customization in general is irrelevant (nobody was arguing that he did, only pedalboards); the reading of the term "peer" seems overly restrictive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On Creative-#2, May I enquire exactly which "significant new concept, theory or technique" reliable sources attribute as originating from Cornish ? The statement that Hendrix used multiple effects (and not multiple effects units) is demonstrably true - many sources state that he used a combination (aka "pedalchain") of sustain/fuzz/wahwah in series and later also a univibe (which from analysis of its schematic has at least 2 simultaneous mixed effects within it - ie. phase shifting and sweep). The fact that even 40 years after Hendrix's passing effects manufacturers are still trying to duplicate his setup within a single unit [49] must say something. Examining the notability claims in the article itself - we find 2 specific claims therein. a) That he invented the "pedalboard" (1 source), b) That he is a key figure in the transition from single effects to the development of multi-effects units. A passing mention in a single source (which previously admits in the same article that "Many players build their own pedalboards") is not sufficient for the extraordinary claim that Cornish invented (?) the pedal board. In any case the so-called invention of a pedalboard (described by the other sources cited in the article as "a piece of wood you buy in a hardware shop") can hardly be said to be a significant new concept justifying inclusion. So far none of the sources cited have claimed that Cornish originated either any single effect or any multiple effect unit. From the article subject's website) and from in-depth articles (exclusively on him) reproduced on his website we see that Cornish's specialty was integration of single effects (manufactured by others) by A) connecting / isolating them properly B) Packaging them to work reliably. This is why he is claimed to be a key figure in the transition period. I shall address your points about WP-CREATIVE-#1 after we reach some consensus on #2 . Annette46 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a

Delete. Does not meet anything in WP-Creative. Now as a guitar slinger myself, I wouldn't mind having him throw all my stomp boxes together into a single rig, but after reading all this text*, I agree this person doesn't meet Wiki standards. (*anyone have an aspirin?) --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:54, 27 January 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 Andrew Jackson. This, or a merger to a possible Family of Andrew Jackson article, seems to be the outcome best reflecting the varied views expressed in this discussion. Sandstein 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson, Sr.

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

Delete no evidence of notability Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Being the parent of a notable figure does not in and of itself constitute notability, and that appears to be Andrew Jackson Sr.'s one claim to "fame." Perhaps warrants inclusion in article on Andrew Jackson? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in this book, First Fathers, helps to establish notability. – Eastmain (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is the subject of an active merger discussion. I don't how splitting the discussion between three places (including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Jackson (businessman)) helps us to come to a reasonable consensus about how to deal with these articles. I would note that Andrew Jackson already runs to 69K so it is ripe for the creation of some WP:summary style sub-articles. Let's have a discussion about how to organise the information about President Jackson's family in one place rather than have three separate discussions going on (maybe with a Family of Andrew Jackson article). I just checked out the speedy keep guideline and see that it doesn't include articles about which a discussion is already taking place elsewhere. It should do so to avoid us having multiple discussions about the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Jackson (businessman) closed on 20 January and Hugh Jackson (businessman) and its talk page were deleted. There are thus no other active discussion of the page that I know of. Cnilep (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Actually, Family of Andrew Jackson is a good idea for an article. The man died the same year that (going by the supposition of this article) Andrew Jackson was born-- and what's up with this "Sr." stuff? I'm sorry, the 7th President of the United States wasn't ever called "Andrew Jackson Jr." His mention in a book about fathers of American Presidents doesn't make him historically notable. All that proves is that there is a market for books about every explorable detail of the American presidents, and that the author had to include everyone in such a book. Mandsford (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in a book on an obscure topic does not do much to establish notability. "Family of Andrew Jackson" is a good idea for an article if anyone can produce sources establishing notability: to simply say that it's a good idea is not enough. I am puzzled by Mandsford's logic: Mandsford argues against notability of Andrew Jackson Sr, and yet suggests a merge: surely if he is not notable he should not be included anywhere, whether in his own article or merged. As for the "active merger discussion", not a single contributor to that discussion has supported a merger. A note was added to that discussion saying it had been taken to AfD, and since then no further discussion has taken place there, so the discussion is not taking place at three different places. Anyway, if the subject of the article is not notable it should be deleted, whether or not there is another discussion in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as bad as I hate to concede that you're right about the merge, you're right that there is nothing to merge to. I'm more puzzled by the statement that "if he is not notable he should not be included anywhere, whether in his own article or merged", and perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning. Like you and me and most Wikipedia editors and 99.99999% of all human beings who have ever lived, he's non-notable, but he's not an "unperson" out of 1984. Non-notable only means that he isn't entitled to his own article. He can be included anywhere, in any existing article, that any editor sees fit. I don't know of anybody who would edit an article to remove any mention of things deemed not notable enough. Mandsford (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Andrew Jackson. A more concise version of the material in this stub can fit into the main article just fine. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Per Ginsengbomb's comments on notability. Not notable enough to warrant own article but considering source meets WP:RS might warrant a section on his son's article.Nefariousski (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following might be useful for Family of Andrew Jackson. [50] [51] [52] --can dle •wicke 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrew_Jackson#Family_and_personal_life, it looks like that section would be a good incubator for a future Family of Andrew Jackson article. He's not notable enough on his own. Wine Guy Talk 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep We have enough material here for a stub. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The immediate relations of a head of state are normally considered notable, because of their influence on him, and the amount of public and historical information paid them. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrew Jackson. Marginally notable in his own right, but I think stub articles like this are better served by being merged into longer ones. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrew Jackson or to something like Family of Andrew Jackson. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability. I know of no policy suggesting that the fathers of US presidents are presumed notable. Although there are articles on Thomas Lincoln and Jack Reagan, there are none on Nathaniel Fillmore or Jesse Hoover. Cnilep (talk) 21:42, 29 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Bie Brahic

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

I cannot find evidence that this translator meets the general notability guideline. While Google Books shows quite some hits, almost all mention her as a translator of a cited book and thus do not provide significant coverage. The first hit is in Descant, a literary magazine, but having a piece published in such a magazine is not evidence for notability. No hits at all in Google News. I would be happy to be proven wrong on her lack of notability.

I declined an A7 speedy on this article some time ago because of her being shortlisted for the Popescu Prize. Since then, it has been proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed. Ucucha 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A literary translator (as opposed to, for example, a translator of legal documents) is a creative professional. I added some reviews of her translations. Note how this review discusses the difficulties of translating the text properly. - Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding these sources. I looked at all of them and am not convinced that they establish notability. The Derrida review only cites her for saying that Derrida's French text has various textual difficulties. The review of Cixous's Manhattan states that Brahic included endnotes and that "Translating an author who enjoys playing with text is challenging, but Brahic excels at the task." The Dream I Tell You review says "Brahic's translation captures their late night spontaneity". The review for The Day I Wasn't There and Reveries of the Wild Woman states "The English translation by Beverley Bie Brahic of these two remarkable books of fiction ... is a valuable addition to the increasing number of publications available to Anglophones by this major writer." and "Brahic is well aware of the difficulties involved in rendering the motifs of Cixous's thought ... and proposes substitutes that do justice to Cixous's concatenation of sound and meaning." She is apparently a good translator, but I do not see anything that meets the "significant coverage" criterion of our general notability guideline--all the reviews are primarily about the books themselves and their authors, with only a few sentences at best devoted to the translator. Ucucha 12:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep WP:AUTH, which covers this creative professional, is a horrible, muddled mess of either/or/and/if/then/etc. such that it can be difficult to figure out how it applies to any particular subject. The way I read it, as it applies to this case, is as follows: 3. The person has played a major role in co-creating a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Brahic clearly meets this guideline. Wine Guy Talk 06:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I read that page, topics still have to fulfill the general notability guideline (GNG) even when they meet some of the more specific criteria; it has not been established that this article meets the GNG (see my comment above). Additionally, I don't believe Brahic even meets the criterion you cite: she did not create, but only translate those works, and the reviews are primarily about the works themselves and not the translation. Ucucha 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The debate hinges on whether literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, it appears to be your assertion that it is not. I (and Eastmain above) disagree, as does the WP article on translation: "Translation of literary works (novels, short stories, plays, poems, etc.) is considered a literary pursuit in its own right." Here is a lecture given by Charles Simic on the Art of Translation to the Library of Congress; have a look at a few books, Performing without a stage: the art of literary translation[53], The Craft of translation[54], The translator's invisibility: a history of translation[55]; there's an interesting article here on The Art of Poetry Translation; there are also a number of notable literary awards given for translation. If you can accept that literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, I think you should also accept that Brahic is, in fact, notable. Wine Guy Talk 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually think our disagreement hinges on a different point, and agree that translation is itself a creative art. But not every creative artist is automatically notable. I am arguing that the reviews are not primarily about her work, but about that of the original authors. Compare it with a review of a novel that says the artist who designed the cover did a good job, but otherwise focuses only on the novel itself: don't you agree that that doesn't make the cover designer notable? Ucucha 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I misunderstood your comment above: "she did not create, but only translate those works", as if to say that literary translation was simply a mechanical process as opposed to a creative art; I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. I certainly do agree that not every creative artist is automatically notable. I absolutely disagree with the analogy between a cover designer and a translator. Especially in poetry, Brahic's speciality, the words of the original author and the translator are inextricably linked, such that any review of the work is a review of both writers. A literary reviewer reviews words; in the case of a translation, those words were written by the translator. That being said, I'm not sure there's much more to be said. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. Wine Guy Talk 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Translation is a creative art in its own right. See for example from the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Translation Has Its Moment at MLA" By Jennifer Howard for an explanation of the current status. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is hard to argue with DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 30 January 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 Snowball delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bicycle Goals in the A-League

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

Unsourced, incomplete, and completely unnecessary trivia Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too specific and trivial for inclusion as a list. Camw (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too trivial along with being unsourced. How does something that has only happened on one occasion need its own list. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd wager it has happened on many more occasions, but a fan of the particular player/club concerned has decided to "big up" his favourites by creating this list and not bothering to check for any other occurrences. It's a bit like when someone created a category called something like "Players who have scored goals from inside their own half" and added it only to Xabi Alonso..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too trivial for a list. What's next, List of goals scored by players with their hands in the FIFA World Cup? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a vague and trivial list with potential definition problems. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support it if it was comprehensive. But it includes just the one goal, is unsourced and is trivial.--EchetusXe 14:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As previously stated, this is too specific a list to be encyclopedic. (What will we have next - players who have committed handball in the lead-up to a goal?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A player made a "bicycle goal" two weeks ago, I get it, but a list of one is not a list. This can be mentioned in bicycle kick or in the article about Eugene Dadi, but it's a factoid. Mandsford (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information is too specific and too trivial and should not be included in an encyclopedia. --Carioca (talk) 19:24, 24 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devery S. Anderson

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is so poorly-sourced that the only "reference" is to a webpage that simply lists him as the winner of $1,000. He's simply not notable. Unit Anode 04:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of shown notability, substantial information, and interest; but not because of the amount of the prize money -- the prize is related to his alleged notability. With better sources an article on him is possible. Borock (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned the amount as a matter of fact, not as a reason for deletion. That's all that's listed at the one bare ref, which is troubling. Unit Anode 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too harbor some worries about the notability of the subject. However, I declined the prod —as the stated reason (unreferenced BLP) was no longer correct, and I feel having eyes more knowledgeable about notability in history and other disciplines examine the situation would be helpful. Ray^Talk 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be zero GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I did some research and added material back into the article, all of it sourced, so maybe it should be reassessed. I'm familiar with Mormon studies and I think he's notable in that field. He could also be making his name with his Emmett Till research, but it would help if he ever published his book. He has edited two important award-winning documentary history books and has published in four academic journals. I think he'll grow in influence and people will want to look him up here when they read his work. I have to confess that I don't know what "GS cites" are (it sure isn't WP:GS). ——Rich jj (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get what GS is (WP:GSNR was my clue), but what is a GS cite? ——Rich jj (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar cites of which there appear to be 1. Around 500 are usually required for WP:Prof #1. Look at the top of the page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Xantipppe, there is no such guideline for GS cites. The number has to be evaluated in terms of what constitutes notability in the particular subject involved--because academic notability is as an authority in a particular special field, and the citation density varies very widely. This is one of the lower ones--its one of the narrower fields of history. even so, evaluation is based also on the importance of the publications venues, and of the citing ones, and the distribution of counts for the various works: 10 good papers is worth more than 20 mediocre ones. Purely numerical evaluation of citations is a device of lazy academic administrators. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any person will be hard pressed to pass WP:Prof #1 on the basis of one cite. Signed: Lazy academic administrator.

Indeed so. Neither is the level 500. Where the level does lie is a matter of judgment, based on the nature of the subject and the nature of the citations. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rich jj's work - well done! --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of coverage in published sources. Everyking (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Examples would be nice. Rich jj seems to be focusing more on his own view that Anderson is notable, than on any actual sources. If no examples of "plenty of coverage in published sources" are produced, then I would encourage the closing administrator to ignore any such keep recommendations until such are provided. PROF#1 is pretty clear. UnitAnode 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But...there's a whole pile of sources sitting right there in the article. That's what I was referring to. Everyking (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unitanode, you'll recall your deletion argument was that the article only had one reference. There are now 20 references, every sentence has multiple citations, all to published sources. Rich did an excellent job, surely that meets Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, your requirement as phrased in the nomination? As for notability, Anderson has won multiple awards for his work: also referenced. That meets our requirements. Don't take it personally that an article has been improved, surely we're all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to "win", right? --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having gone through the article, there seems to be only one reference which provides significant coverage in an independent reliable source - this article [56]. All the rest are either written by Anderson himself, or provide trivial coverage. If that's all there is, I have to conclude he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography at this time. Robofish (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried rewriting the article with no sources from Anderson (see User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Devery S. Anderson). This reduced biographical content, not his claim to notability. WP:BIO#Academics says some may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." He remains an award-winning published historian of Mormonism and Emmett Till. However, this is mostly gathered from mentions in journals, websites, and books. Not being a wiki-lawyer myself, I don't know whether that makes them trivial or unusable sources.

His notability mostly rests upon (1) his two published books, which have both won awards from two historical societies; (2) his longtime work with Sunstone and numerous symposium speeches; (3) his early-1990s Mormon study group that ran afoul of ecclesiastical leaders, to be reported on by Mormon intellectual Lavina Fielding Anderson. I can accept if this is not adequate to establish notability. ——Rich jj (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if his work is notable, that could become the subject of an article. What do you think? Unit Anode 23:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose his work could have its own article, since its reviews might be non-trivial 3rd party coverage. Would this be to transform the biographical article into something like "Works of Devery S. Anderson"? Anderson could be less notable than his work, though he has had limited coverage in third party publications for his Mormon studies group, Emmett Till involvment, and Sunstone symposium work. ——Rich jj (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what people are notable for is their work. Writers for what they write, as athletes for what they perform. It is not the personal life of someone that makes them notable, but what the do with it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Robofish. I'm not convinced that this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims of influence are not supported by citations. Minor awards are excluded by WP:AUTHOR. Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 30 January 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 close in favor of the other still-open discussion on the same article that is linked from the article and has already attracted actual comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devery S. Anderson

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

This is a BLP that is so poorly-sourced, that the only "reference" provided is to a website that notes that the subject of the article won $1,000. He is non-notable, and the article should be deleted straightaway. Unit Anode 04:33, 23 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Changzhi

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

This page may be a hoax; see discussion on talk page & similarity to Pwang War, which is also being discussed for deletion as a likely hoax. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this is not a hoax, it fails WP:Notability, having no verifiable references. Joshua Scott (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only plausible reference I can find is [57], which appears to have nothing at all to do with this presumed battle. Just like this Pwang War one, this one quacks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, all I could find is the one Google Books hit linked to above. That particular book is about Deng Xiaoping and seems to be discussing the Chinese Civil War, which took place hundreds of years after the subject of this article. Hut 8.5 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lone contribution from an SPA, and a search of Frederick Mote's books on Google doesn't turn up any mention of General Wong, Levtai Khan, or a battle at Changzhi in 1449. Looks like a hoax to me. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, created by the same person as Pwang War (compare Xxxfunkychixxx/Sandbox before it was blanked). --Latebird (talk) 19:16, 25 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.Sc Emergency and Trauma Care Technology

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:N. Daa89563 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and also rather promotional. fetchcomms☛ 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur, there isn't enough here to satisfy our notability requirements, and the tone is promotional; I'd be inclined to gut the article and start with a stub, if the notability was there. But it isn't. I don't see any need to merge, either; if the university has a list of its degree programs, an entry for this one would be sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Possibly G11 or G12 speedy deletion. This reads like some college's prospectus for a specific degree program rather than anything encyclopedic, and although I can't find an exact duplicate there's a strange pattern of parts of this that appear to be copied and pasted from different sources on the net: [58] [59] [60]. My guess: someone cobbled together pieces of other similar programs when writing the prospectus, and then the thing was copied whole here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 29 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Half-Life series

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion before, with no consensus, but I believe that it clearly should be deleted; it seems that no one was able to find more than a few sentences of references, and the creatures with notability were split off into their own articles. The rest is simply original research and reads like a game guide or plot compendium. There's not really any place to merge it to either, due to the list format and mostly unencyclopedic content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of Half-Life (and shrink, instead of doing a direct textmerge, it should be a summarized merge) 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Exactly what was said by 76.66.192.206. smithers - talk 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am more inclined to keep two large lists in smaller lists than have one hard to navigate list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to merge an article listing only the creatures in a series, with another significantly long article about just the people characters themselves. I see no valid reason to delete this article either. The encyclopedia isn't complete without full coverage of everything an encyclopedia would normally cover. It doesn't matter if it is from history people consider real, belief systems and legends that no one believes anymore, or modern day works of fiction. Millions of people play these games, and the creatures you find in all of them deserve their own article, covering them. Some of these creatures are so notable, they have their own separate articles even. Dream Focus 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & clean up - this article needs some major trimming to be encyclopedic, but I agree with Dream Focus in that merging it with the characters article would probably go against WP:SIZE, making it too long. It also suffers from the typical "Wikia copy-paste" syndrome, as much of this material is copied directly from the Half-Life Wiki. --Teancum (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual, this article was copied to the Wikia. See the edit from December of 2008 [61] and then note the wikia [62] on January of 2009. It was here before it was seen over there. Dream Focus 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it belongs here; if wikia wants it also, fine, because they can expand on the details more than we appropriately would. There is no point in merging something which is already a properly merged article. The ones with notability insufficient for an article of their own should be covered here--there is no notability requirement forthe content of an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly, this subject seems to receive some level of third party coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 28 January 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. No significant independent coverage. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Slam

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

Contested prod (removed by article creator). No evidence that this event meets notability criteria: the linked Business Week piece is a promotional supplement (identified as such on the page), and I can turn up no non-PR national-level coverage in a news search. The most promising link, to Bloomberg, turns out to be a press release. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising spam. No independent notable coverage. Racepacket (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, This is not a spam. Just compare other conferences on computer science you have in Wikipedia and the one submitted. Cloud Slam has 88 sessions on topic of cloud computing (http://cloudslam09.com/content/schedule-cloud-slam-09-conference-156.html), it has been referenced on many major vendor websites (Platform Computing, AMD, Sun Microsystems) that has not been indexed by Google. I've done some research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_science_conferences , according your argumentation - one can delete most of conferences there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapenov (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sapenov, thanks for your comments. To respond to your two points:

To demonstrate notability, a subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources - see this page for details of what qualifies as sources of this kind. If you know of references to Cloud Slam, could you provide links here, so we can assess them to see if they amount to substantial independent coverage? (A mere mention of a subject does not qualify as substantial coverage; this would need to be detailed and extensive discussion.)
Because there is no formal editorial process, there may well be other articles on Wikipedia that are eligible for deletion, but have not (yet) been considered for it. Please see the article WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details about why the existence of other articles on similar subjects doesn't necessarily affect any particular deletion discussion. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzonoir, thanks for your points. I'll try to find reliable third-party sources, but it'll take time since it's been awhile. Off top the head here's reference on Platform Computing website http://www.platform.com/press-releases/2009/platform-ceo-to-be-keynote-speaker-at-cloud-slam-09 , Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/cloud/entry/sun_at_cloudslam_2009, pretty notable cloud computing expert Steve Foskett http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/19/sun-cloud/ , leading analytics company Saugatuck http://www.slideshare.net/mik3w3st/saugatuck-cloud-slam-blue-skies , Steve Lesem CEO of Mezeo Software: http://stevelesem.sys-con.com/node/990758 , leading cloud computing testing vendor http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_tom_lounibos_soasta.php , http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_jonathan_bryce_rack.php , http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_michael_berman_catb.php,

ERP.COM http://www.erp.com/my-erp/erp-community-events/details/49-cloud-slam-09.html

A lot of article in Russian editions of CIO.com, PCWorld and other media,e.g. http://www.osp.ru/pcworld/2009/12/11078735/ , http://www.osp.ru/cio/2009/11/10527894/

I also know IBM has published references, but don't remember it now.

thanks, KS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapenov (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've looked at our logs for last several months and there are thousands of references to Cloud Slam from different websites. I'm going over it and post some at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_Slam Sapenov (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's full list just for convenience:

I don't think this article is a masterpiece of writing art, but it, like most articles about thousands of similar conferences in wikipedia is pretty descriptive. This global event itself has gathered thousands of people, interested in cloud computing for lively discussion and exchange of ideas, it has definitely left deep impression in live world as well as internet. Here are some links from independent sources, that I am able to get off top the head:

English language resources:

Cloud Slam '09 Program
Cloud Slam '10 Website
- These first two are primary sources, and though they help to verify that the article exists they can't be used to demonstrate notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard University http://research4.dfci.harvard.edu/content/cloud-slam-2009-4-day-virtual-conference-cloud-computing-april-20-24
- This is a blog reproducing a press release by the conference committee; there's no commentary, and no evidence that the blog itself is particularly prominent, so I don't think this demonstrates notability either. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geoff Arnold: Live coverage of the Cloud Slam '09 Conference
- This is a self-published source (see WP:RS), and though its author has a distinguished pedigree in computing I can see no evidence that the author is an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (to quote the WP:RS guideline). Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Backbone Magazine http://backbonemag.com/_pvwe1c41a9f/events/items/event_04200901.asp
- The text at this link is reproduced in dozens of other places on the web, which makes me think it is straight up press-release copy. Is that the case? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.cloudave.com/link/cloud-slam-09-conference-on-the-clouds
- Again it's a blog, i.e. self-published, and I can see no evidence that the authors are sufficiently authoritative in print media to meet the requirements. Probably the best source yet, though. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://natishalom.typepad.com/nati_shaloms_blog/2009/05/practical-guide-for-developing-enterprise-application-on-the-cloud.html
- No evidence that blog's author is an established expert. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thinkstrategies.com/blog/2009/05/is-google-gumming-up-the-cloud-computing-movement.html
- CloudSlam gets a passing mention here, but again no evidence that the blog's author is an established expert. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://markusklems.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/openspan/
- Blogger is a student; no evidence of expertise. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapenov (talk • contribs) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://dallasdatacenter.com/news/press-releases/193-dallas-data-center-featured-as-a-cloud-computing-pioneer-and-sponsor-of-worlds-largest-virtual-cloud-computing-conference.html
- It's a press release, so helps with verifiability, but doesn't speak to notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ondemandbeat.com/2009/03/31/discount-passes-for-cloud-slam09-conference/
- This is a promotional link on a blog with no evidence that the author meets that established expert standard. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AMD Site http://sites.amd.com/uk/topic/cloud/Pages/about.aspx
- All it says about Cloudslam is "Join us in this lively, discussion" - six words (however oddly punctuated, heh) isn't enough to amount to "substantial" coverage Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.platform.com/press-releases/2009/platform-ceo-to-be-keynote-speaker-at-cloud-slam-09
- Again, it's a press release Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://blogs.sun.com/cloud/entry/sun_at_cloudslam_2009
- Another theoretically heavyweight source, since Sun Microsystems are of course prominent, but: (a) it's not a substantial discussion of CloudSlam itself, and (b) I can't find proof that author Russ Castronovo has published substantially in this field outside of blogging. The Russ Castronovo producing several GScholar hits is a professor of American literature.
Notable cloud computing expert Steve Foskett http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/19/sun-cloud/
- Steve Foskett is an established expert, so I think this is the best source yet, but I would not call this substantial discussion of CloudSlam itself. The author writes about what he's going to discuss at CloudSlam, but says next to nothing about the conference itself. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://univaud.com/about/news/press_2009/04152009.php
- Press release Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leading analytics company Saugatuck http://www.slideshare.net/mik3w3st/saugatuck-cloud-slam-blue-skies
- This is a copy of the slides from someone's Cloudslam presentation and doesn't address notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sys-Con http://stevelesem.sys-con.com/node/990758
- This is only a passing reference, not a substantial discussion. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_tom_lounibos_soasta.php
http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_jonathan_bryce_rack.php
http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bda/2009/04/cloud_slam_michael_berman_catb.php
- The preceding 3 links detail the subjects that their authors presented at Cloudslam; they don't discuss Cloudslam itself and couldn't be used to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.erp.com/my-erp/erp-community-events/details/49-cloud-slam-09.html
- Press release Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.zhen.org/zen20/2009/05/17/cloud-slam-09-golden-nuggets/
- A passing reference to Cloudslam only Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://xeround.com/438-events
- Verifies the company's presence at the event but doesn't indicate the event's notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple references (we had a lot of guys presenting from VMware) http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2009/08/index.html
- I'm not seeing a reference to Cloudslam on the linked page. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/cloudslam-09-conference-materials
- Self-published source with no evidence of author's established expertise Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://dorado.com/news/2009_Releases/4.13_Dain_CloudSlam.html
- Press release Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
eVapt http://www.evapt.com/news/upcoming-events.php
- A passing reference. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language: Russian editions of

CIO.com http://www.osp.ru/cio/2009/11/10527894/
PCWorld http://www.osp.ru/pcworld/2009/12/11078735/

Sapenov (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited text, so it is neutral and doesn't sound like and advertisement. More edits to follow. Sapenov (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant internal link has been added to wikify the article Sapenov (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sapenov, thanks for engaging in the discussion and sorry to have taken so long to respond. I am away for personal reasons at present and unfortunately haven't time to review the sources, but someone else will review them as part of the AfD process. Please don't remove the afd tag from the article while the process is still underway. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzonoir, thanks for response. I was under impression, my entry was forgotten :) Let's wait until next review, let me know what else needs to be done. Sapenov (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig @ 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note by relisting admin: although this debate looks long, only one user besides the nominator and the article creator commented. — The Earwig @ 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The conference seems to attract some top level executives for a few Fortune 500 companies, yet there is a lack of any significant independent coverage of the event. The only information that I could come up with came from either Cloud Slam itself, or various blogs. WP:N. Daa89563 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Phew; I've gone through the list of links provided by Sapenov to see whether any of them appear to satisfy notability (please see notes for each above). These are my thoughts:
- The volume of stuff here is immense, which is initially impressive. It is, though, in the nature of a web-based, web-focused event, at which companies and individuals are promoting themselves, to generate a lot of web-based coverage. What I was looking for was evidence that this event is being discussed and noticed by people other than the participants: independent news or scholarly coverage. I am still not seeing that evidence in the links provided.
- The majority of sources listed are press releases, passing mentions, or self-published text (blogs) where there is no evidence that the author is an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (to quote the WP:RS guideline)
- The best source above, I believe, is the Steve Foskett blog post, since it's by an established expert. But it contains no more than a passing reference, and it alone cannot convince me that this event is receiving substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.
- I regret I can't read Russian, so I cannot speak to the quality of the Russian-language sources linked.
- I am not the world's most zealous crusader for the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy, but I want to note that we discourage contributors from working on articles about subjects in which they have a direct personal interest.

So, altogether, I have still seen no evidence that the subject is not notable, and think the article should be deleted. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-While the above statement contradicts itself, I suggest that it should be kept given that this is its first annual conference. It boasts an impressive list of sponsers and notable speakers. Also, its among the premiere cloud computing conferences...its had its first meeting, but we'll need to see more meetings in order for it to solidify its notability.Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant independent coverage. To expect notability in the future is WP:CRYSTAL.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cloud Computing is really new thing so you won't find "established experts". The conference gathered 80% of cloud computing experts in person, there's strong evidence in form of video recordings of each session, that can be re-used by any established independent media (given they are up to date with the technology). There are closed analytic reports based on the conference done by Gartner, Forrester, 451 Group and other well-known experts (who either presented or attended as media reps), btw Geoff Arnold, who you neglect to recognize as established expert is heading Huawei's cloud computing department now :).

While this was a first conference and it can't be measured in number coverage sources in mass media, it had deep impact on social sphere (e.g. a lot of students in developing countries like Vietnam got access to the latest technology for free), it generated enough buzz in business world and really shaped cloud computing landscape, resulted millions of funding (e.g. Brick File System had been acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars) and other positive effects in business sense. I am satisfied with the outcomes of the conference, as it had brought a lot of useful practical results, rather than another pile of multi-page 'scientific' papers, that nobody cares about. Cheers, Sapenov (talk) 09:48, 24 January 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. JForget 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Star Zlatna

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no significant information. Fails WP:N. Daa89563 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 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. NW (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Star Forums

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

A search for reliable third-party sources turns up nothing. Article fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. Article is based entirely on first-party sources. With only 200 members, it is unlikely that this webforum will ever receive coverage by reliable sources required for inclusion. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Seriously unnotable minor little forum that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. It was created by a user of the forums. Would also recommend salting as, per said creator, "...after discussing it with the owner of the site, she has said that she will require all staff at Rising Star Forums to create wikipedia users in order to regularly edit and update the page..."[63] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zip in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22rising+star+forums%22 and results are actually a good source of sites to blacklist. --Gwern (contribs) 03:17 23 January 2010 (GMT)
Delete. Notability not established. WP:WEB. Daa89563 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete and Delete. Never mind the COI issue, this is about as far from notable as it gets. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has "over 200 members". Not really notable enough to be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:56, 27 January 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 Steve Hewitt. An relevant material can be merged. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Amongst Ruin

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

Originally tagged for deletion CSDA7, but was declined due to the notability of Steven Hewitt. However, I do not believe this band quite meets WP:MUSIC. Also, wikipedia is not a crystal ball for success. Let's discuss. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Steve Hewitt. There are at least 2 notable musicians in the band (assuming Donneye is, as the article states, a member) but no releases and no coverage yet, so there's little to justify a separate article. It can be covered adequately in Hewitt's article.--Michig (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It seems that Donneye is not a member of the band but produced their album. The band does include a sometime member of Lamb though. --Michig (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Hewitt, where this band is already mentioned. From searches I've done, there's no evidence that the band is independently notable, yet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:45, 24 January 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. no consensus for deletion after three weeks of discussion - default keep JForget 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Värmlands Filmförbund

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

Non-notable film company. No secondary sources found to establish notability of company. Created by a user who created a whole slew of conflict of interest articles that were deleted a couple years ago. Was previously considered for deletion in this nomination. Claim to fame is operation of a film festival called Filmörnen which is also of questionable notability and is currently up for deletion here. Redfarmer (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is not linked properly from the article - it has a redlink in the template where the link to this article should be! Tomas e (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is properly linked. I'm kind of baffled by this user's comments on two of my open AfDs. Redfarmer (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now the link works, it didn't when I added the comment, and usually the text "this article's entry" is not a redlink. I now have seen the explanation at the other page that this slightly buggish phenomenon isn't anything to worry about, since the redlink actually works despite being red. Sorry for the bafflement caused and space wasted. Tomas e (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Admittedly marginal notability as it is a regional film association, but in my opinion barely makes the cut together with their long-running festival Filmörnen, which could be merged here to provide a more substantial article. The interwiki-linked articles in svwiki exist unchallenged. Tomas e (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:30, 23 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Davies (inventor)

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

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources found to establish notability of an individual. tedder (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been searching for coverage, which is difficult because of the common name, but I've found this but not much else. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been suggested that no "evidence of notability" exists for this inventor. I'll hunt for more citations or otherwise, but Mr Davies is mentioned here: http://www.theshapeofmusic.com/index.html and http://www.c-thru-music.com/cgi/?page=info_faq Is not creation of a unique invention and fostering it into a real product that many top-level musicians find useful (http://www.theshapeofmusic.com/testimonials.html) notable? I believe it is. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several users of the Sonome have been contacted, and will likely add their comments KR MusicScienceGuy (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage needs to be independent of the subject. The Shape of Music is his company and C Thru Music was given rights to produce his invention, so neither is independent. Since his notability would be tied to the sonome keyboard, I tried searching for that and only found a few mentions aside from those two companies and ourselves. Is there any source that shows this device to be significant in terms of widespread use or performance use by well known musicians? Celestra (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a new instrument that is just getting off the ground. I've contacted a few other musicians that I correspond with re: the sonome and their uses of the instrument were added (citations 5-9). The C-Thru company has a fair list of favorable reviews of the sonome (branded as the Axis-64 and Chameleon) as listed here: http://www.c-thru-music.com/cgi/?page=talk, including Brian May from Queen and Jordan Rudess of Dreamtheater (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WlS2dfZ3L0 )- should I contact them? Also, is it fair to say that someone is not notable because he is quiet, calls his invention generically a sonome and someone else is doing the marketing and calling it the Axis-64? MusicScienceGuy (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted once, so I'm changing this from "keep" to "comment". tedder (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inventor is very notable, and the instruments of his invention have been covered in the media. Here at Synthtopia is a video of very famous musician Jordan Rudess playing the Axis-64 which licenses his keyboard layout - http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2008/11/25/jordan-rudess-dreamtheater-demos-the-c-thru-axis-64-pro-midi-controller/. At DeviantSynth, here is a review - http://www.deviantsynth.com/2008/05/11/axis-64-review/. At Harmony Central here are reviews - http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Midi+Keyboard+Controllers/product/C-Thru+Music/Axis64/10/1 http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Midi+Keyboard+Controllers/product/C-Thru+Music/AXiS-49/10/1. There is also scores of discussion at various blogs, these are just mentions of his instruments at few of the more notable sites. Xj (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the coverage is about instruments invented by Peter Davies, not Peter Davies himself. He is only mentioned tangentially in the sources (if at all), which I don't regard as enough to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided by Xj are mainly unreliable sources that mention Peter Davies in passing. This does not establish notability. My searches for sources on Google News Archive return no results. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inventors are notable because of what they invent. If, as seems to be accepted, he made several notable inventions of significant instruments, he is notable It is not someone's personal life that makes them notable, but what they do. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that the subject's inventions are notable. For instance, Davies invented the "Note Tracker"; a search for sources returns only eight results, four of which from Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 31 January 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. Many of the keep arguments are not based on Wikipedia policy, whereas the delete arguments are. Not all local routes are notable, in fact most of them are not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson Creek Road

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

Article about a non-notable county route. No real content and seemingly little chance there ever will be. Brian Powell (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an important road in the panhandle. This is the only paved road to most of the communities mentioned in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are thousands of other places where there is just one paved road to access them. That doesn't justify articles for them all, especially if they have no history or backstory on the road. Brian Powell (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no assertion of notability. Were this a person it would be deleted under CSD A7. As it stands county roads in the U.S. are presumed non-notable unless proven otherwise, so there you go. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no assertion of notability. Big Bay, Michigan is only served by one paved road, County Road 550, which doesn't make CR 550 notable. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but H-58 (Michigan_county_highway) is notable, and there's a List of Michigan County-Designated Highways which includes references to unsigned dirt roads that happen to have a number but don't even have any signs. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one road in a state-wide, MDOT-assigned numbering system. The other roads that aren't as notable are in the complete list. As for H-58, how many county roads are the subject of Congressional action so that the National Park Service can pay the county to rebuild the roadway? The fact remains though, H-58 demonstrates notability, this article does not. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From looking at this road on Google Maps, the road is several miles long and links several communities. Just because it is a county road does not automatically qualify it for deletion. Had this been a state highway, the article would not even be here. ---Dough4872 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Google maps link doesn't show that it serves the towns listed in the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scroll farther down, they're there. ---Dough4872 18:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had this been a state highway, it wouldn't have been here—because the selection for inclusion in a statewide numbered system of highways with state highway funding makes it notable. Being a state highway is pretty damn special. (See User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ for more.) Were this road notable, WVDOH would have likely placed it in the state highway system. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jurisdiction of the highway should not always be the line for notability. In New Jersey, for example, some county routes like County Route 537 are more important than some state highways such as New Jersey Route 167. ---Dough 48 72 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not the argument I am making. I'm saying that state highways are assumed notable because of the difficulty for inclusion in that system (a doctrine which has precedent in every state highway AFD conducted for the past five years) while county highways must go the extra mile to provide reasons for notability. This road does not meet that bar. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ideally, it would be nice to merge this road into a list of county routes, as this is known as CR 5 in Grant County and CR 11 in Mineral County. However, no CR lists exist for either county. Perhaps we could start a list for each county, moving the content of this article there. This article then can serve as a disambiguation page between the two CR designations. ---Dough 48 72 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I know project guidelines are just that guidelines, not binding policy. However, the U.S. Roads Wikiprojroject's Notability guidelines states as a general rule, county routes should either be a list or redirect to something else, unless they are overwhelmingly notable. I don't see any reason why this couldn't re-direct to either the creek or the town of the same name, with a one-line mention of this road in that article (essentially a content merge as there is only one line of prose anyways). I'd make a more specific recommendation but most of the roads articles for this area are so over-categorized it makes searching for a suitable highway redirect difficult. Dave (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and significant road that meets notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability guideline did you use to make that determination? Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable county route in an incredibly rural area. – T M F 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, Delete if not. This is the sort of road that should ideally be merged into a list of county roads, but there are no such lists for this part of West Virginia yet. As it stands, though, it isn't notable enough for its own article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, per Dave. --FormerIP (talk) 16:57, 1 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 EVO Smart Console. to EVO Smart Console JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Envizions Computer Entertainment Corporation

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

I'm not seeing any reliable sources to support the notability of this company, though, knowing very little about the field, I could be mistaken. Most of the assertion of notability rests on a piece of software the company has created (which has its own article) rather than the company itselfHJMitchell You rang? 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most reliable sources is the technological industry is Engadget which is list on the page. The page simply states the company product like any page for a company would. However the page also list the company’s location, CEO and Founder, why the company was found, and other facts. The company has a international following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star788 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references show notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banned user. Pcap ping 09:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to find additional sources: [64] Gamasutra, [65] PC Magazine, but they are all about the console. Pcap ping 09:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EVO Smart Console for now. It doesn't look their other products have attracted any attention. Pcap ping 09:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EVO Smart Console per Pcap. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this company. The sources on Google News Archive are mainly press releases. Cunard (talk) 03:33, 31 January 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 keep. Nomination wtihdrawn, no arguments for deletion have been made. Fences&Windows 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Morgan

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

In 2009, I prod'd it; prod was removed by an editor. Two more prods came today, so I figured an AFD is due. No indication of meeting WP:PROFESSOR or WP:AUTHOR, no references despite being tagged since January 2009. Managing Urban America, the best claim for notability, is also up for deletion. THF (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Managing Urban America has been through at least six editions, suggesting that its author passes criterion 4 WP:PROF as the author of a widely-used textbook. See http://www.cqpress.com/product/Managing-Urban.html#testimonials for comments from other academics. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Worldcat reports 858 library holdings for all editions of Managing Urban America. See http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn:1568029306 – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added reference to his named chair at Oklahoma, which qualifies for WP:PROFESSOR. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward Vielmetti and per WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a GS h index around 20+ and passes WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination per WP:SNOW and arguments of above users. But the article still needs much improvement, as there isn't a single secondary source. THF (talk) 04:05, 28 January 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. (weak) keep - no consensus for deletion JForget 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwant Dwivedi

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

I don't believe we presume ambassadors to be notable, but this fellow is neither an ambassador nor even a consul—he's a consul-designate. The fact that he's spoken to the press on a number of occasions and been an employee at Fiji's High Commission in Canada also does not imply notability. Per WP:GNG, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources" for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't create this article, but after I saw the AfD notice I formatted the extensive collection of references in the article. He may well be notable for his role in promoting exports from Fiji to Canada and for fighting fish imports to Canada which were falsely labelled as coming from Fiji (including a dispute over a trademark that falsely implied the fish were from Fiji). He is no longer a consular official for Fiji; he is running a company in Vancouver, British Columbia. A "consul-designate" is simply someone who was been appointed as a consul but who has not yet taken up the position. – Eastmain (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The citations seem to make some note of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There are sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:12, 28 January 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 There is a lot of off-topic bickering and repetitive argument that this afd could have done without. Anyway, it seems clear the result is Redirect to ABN (rap duo). Any content worth merging will still be in the redirect page's history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It Is What It Is (ABN album)

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

This page was previously deleted via WP:PROD. The re-created version does not make any significant changes from the original and, thus, still holds the same concerns as previous. There are no reliable sources provided, and there is minimal non-trivial coverage anywhere that I can find. The album doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and I can't find anything that would make it able to pass WP:GNG. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeeeep #62 on Billboard's Hot 200, Aug 2, 2008, & #10 on their R&B Albums, passing WP:MUSIC. Should not have been prodded. 86.44.23.221 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSIC: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia (emphasis mine)... All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This doesn't. "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP address has only one contribution, and it's to this AfD. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you ask people to note that? Is it to put across the impression of yourself as a wikipedia insider who should be listened to more than an outsider, regardless of the merits of the arguments? Seeing as my comment was strictly factual, I can't think of any other reason, but perhaps you can.

WP:MUSIC holds a charting record to be an indicator of notability. And ABN consists of two artists each notable in their own right, each with articles here, as this article both notes and links to. Your claim that there was no indication of importance for your prod is therefore shambolic, even if we accept that there is no onus on you to research beyond what the article presents before deleting editors' work. Above, you type "This doesn't" when it's clear that you have no idea what coverage it received. Did you check print issues of the Southern hip hop publication, Ozone? Don't you think they may have written about a rap record by Texas artists at #63 on Billboard's Hot 200? Did you thumb through back issues of the premier national hip hop publications, The Source and XXL? Of course you didn't.

If you cannot accept that a record charting at #63 on Billboard is notable, let's look at coverage as far as what's accessible online: we have reviews from the austinist [66] and 002houston [67]; Shea Serrano used its title to head his 2008 wrap-up for Houston Press[68], calling it in the body a "stellar" record that was part of why Trae deserved national attention. It's mentioned (substantively) in this mag article, and Pitchfork Media in passing calls it "this summer's outpouring of noir" [69]; Dan Greenpeace's well-regarded zine Fat Lace wrote it up [70]; it's been written about by Andrew Nosnitsky who covers rap for NPR, and has written for the Washington Post and XXL,[71] and Al Shipley, who has written for Scratch, Stylus and Pitchfork, rated it among his albums of 2008.[72] I'm more than satisfied that this is a notable record by a notable act. 86.44.32.61 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources you provided, I only see perhaps one or two that would likely be considered reliable. Whether that's considered "signficant coverage" or not is for the community to judge. As for your contributions to this AfD, they are welcomed, as are anyone's. I haven't made any accusations or intimations as to your purpose here. All I said was that there were minimal contributions from your IP address. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to ABN (rap duo). I did a Google News Archive search and found no significant coverage. As was pointed out, most of the sources provided above are either unreliable or don't cover the album significantly. The one paragraph in the 002houston link may be useful as a source, but even if it is, it's not enough to show notability. The fact that it charted on the Billboard 200 makes it more likely to be notable, but without coverage in reliable sources, there's no notability. The album was created by two separate artists, so it can't be made into a redirect. Tim meh 03:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't "pointed out" at all ("perhaps one or two" doesn't indicate any evaluation to me, especially since two=multiple independent sources). The austinist and 002houston reviews, plus Billboard printing its chart entries, are non-trivial coverage. (A Billboard chart entry might be the very definition of non-trivial coverage). The Houston Press article uses the record as a keynote of its year, demonstrating its importance to a local scene. An established, if irreverent, rap outlet (founded 1997), and two established rap writers who might be fairly described as experts in the field, clearly consider it notable. Given all these indications of notability and what further coverage might be out there, the fact it can't be merged is just another reason to keep. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same arguments doesn't help whatever case you might be arguing. If you can provide proof that the sources should be considered reliable, it would help your argument. Charting does not establish notability, and the two questionable sources do not, in my view, constitute "significant coverage" as per WP:N. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't address you, KV5, your last post is unanswered above, but thanks for your take on things anyhow. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I made several new points (Billboard chart entry obviously significant coverage in itself, rap writers coverage being in their field of expertise, all of this indicating liklihood of more coverage elsewhere) but don't let that stop you being reductive. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and anyone is welcome to contribute. I would ask that you remain civil per Wikipedia policy when making further comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly civil to point out the dishonesty of attempting to undercut my honest work explaining my view to another editor by describing it as repeating the same arguments. If you don't share my view that, say, the Houston Press article demonstrates significance to a local scene, or any other point I made above, that's fine, but it seems more like you're the one taking this personally, frankly. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"don't let that stop you being reductive" is an uncivil comment and I will ask you again to refrain. I take nothing that you say personally, but I don't share your view that the provided sources are reliable. I also don't see that you have made any contributions to this article, unless you are editing while not logged in here, and only editing that article with an account, which is probably not the best practice. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your view, that's uncivil. I acknowledge your view but don't act like that's an objective fact: it isn't, and you might consider whether it is worth getting bogged down in (asking me twice to refrain, for instance, even once seems hair-trigger to me). You were being reductive. For someone not taking anything personally, you seem to be doing a lot of work trying to find I'm doing something "wrong". I have not so far edited the article, just as my contributions suggest. Has someone somehow similar to me been editing the article, or was that pure blue-sky thinking on your part? 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you saying there's some onus on me to edit the article? Really it's hard to know what you are saying. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I misinterpreted your earlier comment that your "honest work" included some kind of involvement with this article that didn't involve this AfD. My apologies. Regardless, talk page guidelines dictate that any user may be involved in a discussion and thus you have no right to dismiss my comments because you "didn't address me". You are not speaking to one person in a discussion, you are speaking to a community. I have not at any point during this discussion been disparaging of any contributions you have made; I have simply pointed out that you have not provided any reliable sources, per site guidelines, to support claims that the subject of this article is notable. You have claimed that several articles above establish notability, and I have attempted to refute those claims. That is in no way a reduction of your work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KV5 shares my take on this matter and has explained it well. No more than one of the provided sources is reliable and provides significant coverage. The Austinist review was not written by one of the site's listed staff, so it's not reliable. A Billboard chart listing, containing just the title and a number, is not necessarily significant coverage; you can't write more than a sentence using just that source. If you can provide reliable sources that cover the album in detail, I'll change my !vote to keep per WP:N. For now though, from what I've seen through some research, I'm still in favor of deleting the article because of a lack of notability. Tim meh 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to redirect per J04n's creation of ABN (rap duo), a subject that is more likely to be notable than the album in question. The album can be mentioned at the duo's article, and any relevant and sourced information can be merged there. Tim meh 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find that this lengthy discussion has missed the point. Many other album articles have been allowed to survive, per precedent, with evidence of charting in Billboard. For example, see this discussion. The album under discussion here reached very high in three different notable charts. The debate on this page veered into whether or not certain sources are reliable, and veered away from what this album achieved. You could perhaps make a point that reliable media outlets simply overlooked this high-charting album. Regardless, there is plenty of precedent in WP:ALBUMS that charting in Billboard is evidence of notability. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the point is that WP:MUSIC says "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What I see currently in this article doesn't, in my opinion, qualify as significant coverage. I don't know anything about Allmusic, and obviously Billboard is a reliable source, but a simple mention somewhere isn't enough to confer notability on a person, and a simple mention on Billboard shouldn't be enough to confer notability on a song. The source discussion above is related to whether the provided sources given by the IP editor confer notability, and if they are not reliable, then they do not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate on this page is being conducted as if this is the first time these subjective issues have ever come up on WP. With the uncertain guidelines under discussion, it will help to go with precedent. As I said above, an appearance on the Billboard charts is considered notable enough for hundreds of other WP album articles. AllMusic is definitely reliable and has qualified as a source of notability for hundreds of other WP album articles. The debate on this page is being carried out in isolation as if there are not many other album articles that can be used for guidance. If the album here is deleted for the reasons discussed in this debate, well you will have to initiate AfDs for hundreds and maybe thousands of album articles. Meanwhile, KV5 said in the above comment "What I see currently in this article doesn't, in my opinion, qualify as significant coverage." But the IP editor cited several possibly useful sources up near the top of this debate, so the article has room for improvement before it is deleted in haste. That's what the "refimprove" tag or a stub tag is supposed to accomplish. I will start adding references to the article and I encourage the IP editor to do the same. My vote is still Keep but I will make no more contributions to this debate because it is clearly just going around in circles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. 1) The delete votes are confusing "significant" with "lengthy"! Hearing a billboard hot 200 entry described as "a mere mention" is fucking retarded. This is common sense and in the realm of fact, not opinion, but if it helps, think "non-trivial" and then compare the indications of triviality that WP:MUSIC provides.

2) Generalist critic Chris Weingarten, of Rolling Stone etc., & author of the 33⅓ book on It Takes A Nation of Millions..., lists it as among the top records of 2008 [73]. So we now have three critics who publish in not merely reliable but authoritive sources who consider this notable, yet people who may not know the first thing about anything disagree. This time look up "experts in the field" in your documentation if you need to get a handle on this.

3) I have no idea why theaustinist is being dismissed, unless you think they pay a music editor to sit there and look pretty rather than control what's on her site. Consult the WP:ALBUMS crew if you doubt: i'm pretty confident that massive consensus is in line with this being good to go.

4) No print sources have been checked yet utmost confidence is still maintained by some in the face of all we have learned that none exist. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rediect to ABN (rap duo). I admit that the coverage of this album is remarkable sparse, especially considering its success in the charts, but hip hop albums, particularly the 'underground' stuff, doesn't get much mainstream press. The fact that it still reached 62 on the Billboard 200 is remarkable in itself. As previously brought up there is no logical redirect location for this article as it was recorded by 2 artists, if there were a destination I would say redirect. So, the chart history combined with the Houston press article] is enough for me. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does the fact that an album page can or cannot be redirected somewhere affect notability? Also, this album is only mentioned once, and briefly, in the Houston Press article. Tim meh 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, unfortunately I only have a fair answer. With a redirect at least there is something, a search term that will bring one to an appropriate page for the reader to get some information. Without it we have a successful album with nothing in our encyclopedia. If it does get deleted I would appreciate it if it gets userfied to me. The two rappers have done two albums together now, I may try to put together an article about them as a duo. J04n(talk page) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the album is mentioned in either of the rappers' articles it should show up in a search. Tim meh 21:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: there is now a page for the duo: ABN (rap duo) J04n(talk page) 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, and thanks for taking the initiative. Tim meh 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a redirect to the duo since there is now an article. Their first album, which was previously deleted per another AfD and recently speedied as reproduction of deleted material, could also be redirected now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin could userfy their first album to me I'll incorporate anything useful into the parent article. I assume it was called Assholes by Nature (album), thanks J04n(talk page) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do so now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:J04n/ABN. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good-looking article, but i think the logic is somewhat tortured: the album makes the group notable, but not the album itself, which is more like wackypedia amirite. I don't know why you would want to force readers to go to a commercial, ad-laden site just to get a tracklisting that should be here anyway? 86.44.33.121 (talk) 16:13, 1 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) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Davis

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

COI biography, possible autobiography (discussed here). Google news/web search turns up mostly other people name Alison Davis. The references in the article are either associated with the subject or only mention Ms. Davis in passing. Fails WP:Bio due to the lack of coverage in WP:Reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've also tried to find significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, but haven't found enough for this person. I might also mention that the article was created and substantially edited by an editor whose username matches her husband's name Matthew Le Merle, and there was even one edit by an editor with a name identical to her. Seems self-promotional in nature. -- Atama頭 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since there is a clear COI issue here, people might want to look at the Matthew Le Merle article as well. PDCook (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in detail in reliable sources such as this and this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those are independent reliable sources. The first one you mentioned is more of a profile, not an article. The second reference is from McKinsey and Company, where she was a business analyst.

The second reference is a reprint of material from the San Francisco Business Times. Sources such as this, McKinsey and Reuters seem quite reliable for our purposes. They have significant reputations as information providers to protect and would risk law suits if they published inaccurate information about company officers. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting they are reputable and accurate. I'm saying they're not significant and independent. PDCook (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Business Times and Reuters seem both significant and independent. Please present evidence if you wish to suggest otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the publications as a whole; I was talking about the individual articles you referenced above. Anyhow, I didn't get involved with Wikipedia to argue with people. So let's just see what everyone else thinks. PDCook (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are not sure the article on Alison Davis is an autobiography and even if it is: autobiographies are not forbidden by wikipedia policy. I checked that at least half of the references deal with detailed information about Alison Davis. So this article should be kept and this deletion discussion should be closed quickly. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Please explain which reliable sources you believe contain detailed information that is independent and significant. PDCook (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should run its proper course and not be "closed quickly"; we have conventions for how we do things here!--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the majority of the institutions with which Davis is associated in a senior capacity are red links; if they have not been deemed notable enough yet for an article, I fail to see how someone whose only real claim to notability is an association with them makes the cut. The whole thing smacks of self promotion.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about the sources provided by Colonel Warden. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability. The sources provided by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) establish verifiability, but not notability. Pburka (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond COI, I don't see notability here Vartanza (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not the problem here. The problem is that this person is not notable, she does not meet any criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). A profile in a directory of companies and executives, which is really just a publicly available résumé, does not necessarily establish notability. Wine Guy Talk 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable autobiographical article. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 27 January 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. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harikrish Menon

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. nothing in gnews [74]. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Keep per Mkativerata. (The correct search terms are actually Hari Krish Menon, or Hari “Krish” Menon; this likely accounts for the nominator not finding any results.) Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, let’s see. How many national news articles do we have where this guy is the sole subject? I count 1, 2, 3, 4. The same number of ill-considered Malaysian-related AfDs that I’ve seen so far today. Keep, obviously. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even under alternate spelling, does not generate a lot of coverage [75]. if significant coverage is found in Malay I will happily reconsider. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do four articles in national newspapers where the subject is the only subject of the articles not qualify as significant coverage? Again, read each of the four sources I provided above, and reconsider. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per new sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 23 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback Season

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

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)This editor is blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Delete per precedent against mixtape articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added notable sources. If you still believe that it's not a notable mixtape then go ahead and do what you gotta do. Str8cash (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The added sources confirm its existence but do not indicate its notability. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. The ABC interviewer does mention a mixtape, but doesn't say which mixtape he's referring to; there were three as of the date of the interview. According to the Rolling Stone interview, the most notable thing about the mixtape was that it introduced Drake to Lil Wayne; that is, the mixtape wasn't in itself of note. The remaining references are tracklists. Notability of this mixtape isn't established by significant coverage in reliable sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that ABC was displaying the cover for So Far Gone (mixtape) in the interview. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The artist is notable, and this has been described as his 'breakthrough' release which brought him to the attention of Lil Wayne.Globe and Mail There's also a substantial review here.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for his role in a Canadian television series. He's not notable as a musician. Even if he was, you'd not keep an article on a non-notable mixtape. Per WP:NALBUMS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." The Globe and Mail said he only "made minor waves" with this mixtape; it may have been a breakthrough for him, his big break as Rolling Stone put it, because it introduced him to Lil Wayne. In itself it's forgettable. A fan might treasure its role as an artifact of Drake's career, but it is not notable in itself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly is notable as a musician - if you look at the sources used in his article, most (e.g. Billboard, MTV) are discussing him as a musician rather than as a (child) actor. I wouldn't keep an article on a non-notable mixtape but I would keep an article such as this on an official artist-produced mixtape that has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"[A]n official artist-produced mixtape"? As opposed to a bootleg, yeah? I see it this way: Drake (entertainer) is a child actor who would like to be a musician. That's why there are no albums but only self-financed mixtapes in his discography. Drake Bell is an actor and a musician. That's why you find albums in his discography. See the difference?

No matter how you spin it, this mixtape isn't itself notable, and it doesn't automatically become notable simply because Drake (entertainer) has an article in WP. "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:NALBUMS) That includes this mixtape. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all mixtapes come from an artist and some are not sanctioned by the artist. There are no albums in his discography because his first album hasn't been released yet. End of story. Degrassi isn't a big deal in the UK and nobody over here knows him as an actor, but he gets played on BBC Radio 1, with his "Forever" single labelled "The hottest record in the world for 6 Jan 2010" on the Zane Lowe show.[76] Have a read of this article (which may also educate you as to the difference between an official mixtape and an unofficial one) and then tell us that he isn't notable as a musician. Have a read of GNG - significant coverage exists so it passes.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does any of that fanboy nonsense make this mixtape notable? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Michig and I disagree on many things, I agree with him that Drake is certainly notable for his music as well as his acting. When I first started seeing Drake (and related) articles (quite a while ago) he wasn't, but now he has accumulated more than enough press and cred (not to mention hit singles) to pass WP:MUSICBIO. (I still don't think this mixtape is notable.) A little back and forth is fine but when name-calling enters the equation it's probably time to step back. Both you and Michig have made your points-of-view quite clear, let's leave it up to any other !voters who happen to stop by and the closing admin to decide for themselves. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 23 January 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. NW (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Star Forums

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

A search for reliable third-party sources turns up nothing. Article fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. Article is based entirely on first-party sources. With only 200 members, it is unlikely that this webforum will ever receive coverage by reliable sources required for inclusion. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Seriously unnotable minor little forum that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. It was created by a user of the forums. Would also recommend salting as, per said creator, "...after discussing it with the owner of the site, she has said that she will require all staff at Rising Star Forums to create wikipedia users in order to regularly edit and update the page..."[77] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zip in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22rising+star+forums%22 and results are actually a good source of sites to blacklist. --Gwern (contribs) 03:17 23 January 2010 (GMT)
Delete. Notability not established. WP:WEB. Daa89563 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete and Delete. Never mind the COI issue, this is about as far from notable as it gets. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has "over 200 members". Not really notable enough to be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:56, 27 January 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 userfy. All are in agreement with userfication, no need for a discussion (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of species for which Lyndley Craven is a taxon authority

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

This was split off the main article. However it is all red. Suggest deletion or userfication until it isn't a red list. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Will userfy. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 01:05, 23 January 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. Consensus was delete. Actually, it was moved to userspace, so it's WP:CSD#G7. tedder (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel harmony (based on Matthew)

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

This is an unnecessary content fork from Gospel harmony. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Agree that article is unnecessary, Not to mention poorly written. Would be best deleted and relevent non redundant information added to Gospel Harmony in the same structure and format in the much cleaner article. Nefariousski (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Gospel harmony. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gospel harmony and then delete. Content fork, with no assertion that its subject is distinct from Gospel harmony, or otherwise needs its own page.--Opus 113 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD template removed by User:Lemmiwinks2 and article moved to User:Lemmiwinks2/Gospel harmony (based on Matthew). StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 25 January 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. NW (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Latta

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

Formerly an unnotable actor with a few bit part roles, now an unnotable attorney. Fails the notability guideline by some distance Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vast majority of sources are only lists that mention his name and little more. By that measure anyone who's a member of any professional assosication and was an extra in a commercial or mentioned in a newspaper article meets WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor, non-notable lawyer Vartanza (talk) 12:12, 24 January 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) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Advantage USA

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable non-profit. There is no significant coverage in independent sources, and several references provided refer to a different group entirely. TN X Man 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Wall Street Journal and on WISH TV establish notability. Gobonobo ^T ^C 01:39, 18 January 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) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non profit recognized by www.serve.gov and as mentioned in Cirt's comment . Enough secondary sources to build at least a stub article that meets WP:RS. Nefariousski (talk) 02:13, 23 January 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.