Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 May 18 May >

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Angel Escalayer

[edit]
Beat Angel Escalayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable sources turns up nothing. No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 23:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Animetric ; ANN ... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reliable sources. Animetric is a self-published website that fails WP:SPS and the ANN Encyclpedia is open edited just like Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does that meet any of the notability guidelines? Especially since both the anime and the game have not received significant coverage by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There wouldn't be a point in having a custom search for reliable sources if people didn't find those sources listed reliable. [2] If you don't believe something should be on that list, then discuss it at the reliable sources page, and have it removed. If consensus supports it being on the list, it must be a notable website, so their reviews count. Plenty of results. Dream Focus 12:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at what is listed in that search? It is full of torrent sites, forum posts, stores merely selling the title, sites like Animetric that already on the list of sites that aren't reliable sources (WP:ANIME/RS#Unreliable), and other things that are clearly not significant coverage from reliable sources. Even the reliable sources in the hits aren't actually good hits, but things like a nearly-empty encylopedia entry without even a plot summary (Manga Sanctuary), or a review of another title that just mentions this title in passing (Anime News Network). If you see anything in that search that you think is actually significant coverage from a reliable source, please point it out. Calathan (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calathan, if you have a problem with my CSE please tell me. Before I posted my link here - and before I post CSE links anywhere - I did in fact go through the results and blacklist a couple dozen URLs. (I am aware of Animetric, but they seem to me to be like ANN's encyclopedia - a jumping off point that is not useless enough to be worth blacklisting.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:35 25 May 2010 (GMT)
What is showing up in that search has changed since I posted my above comment (I don't know if that is because Google changed something or because you did). I'm seeing less torrent sites and porn sites, though that doesn't necessarily mean that the remaining sites are reliable sources. But regardless, Dream Focus seems to be treating it as if it is a list of sources considered reliable, while instead it seems to include all sites that haven't specifically been excluded as unreliable. Personally, I think it would be more useful if you just limited it to sites that are known to be reliable (i.e. at WP:ANIME/RS). Calathan (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search results are always changing; rankings for obscure searches can (I think) change just by people searching and clicking on certain hits. Who knows why it changed. (I did another sweep just now and have gotten rid of all the bad hits; for now.)
I'd prefer not to limit to just ANIME/RS. (I'm not even sure whether I can do that with CSE.) If that very short list of good sites turns up nothing, then a broader search is called for. Good sites get extra search points from being in the whitelist, and the blacklist gets rid of the worst dreck. If you think the hits aren't very good, then try a general Google search for 'Beat Angel Escalayer'!
If Dream Focus wants to rely heavily on CSE results, then I'd be glad to give him access, since I assume we generally agree on what goes on the blacklist and the whitelist, and he has enough sense to ask me/the project about grey sites. --Gwern (contribs) 01:46 25 May 2010 (GMT)
We need a new search thing then. Anyway, Google book search shows a result, it having coverage in The anime encyclopedia: a guide to Japanese animation since 1917‎ on Page 52. This series was also released in French as well as English. Dream Focus 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there has been some debate about The Anime Encyclopedia because it attempts to be a comprehensive directory of all anime. Directories are specifically excluded by WP:NOTE towards notability. —Farix (t | c) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has more than just a brief directory mention. A bird encyclopedia might try to list every bird there is, but that doesn't make it less valid. The Anime Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, not a simple directly. And I find it unlike it list every single anime ever made, it skipping over some failed series that no one noticed, and just listing the successful ones. Dream Focus 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked this up in The Anime Encyclopedia, and its entry is extremely short. The entry also consists entirely of plot summary except for half a sentance saying that this anime is a rip-off of another anime. While The Anime Encyclopedia gives some anime longer coverage that I would consider significant, in this case the entry seems to fall well short of what would be considered significant coverage. While the anime encylopedia doesn't cover every anime ever made, it attempts to cover a very large percentage of them. For entries such as this one that have no real content beyond a plot summary and a little production information, I don't think they meet the threshold of significant coverage required to show notability. Calathan (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much could you actually say about something like this? There isn't a lot to talk about in this sort of thing, it not some run longing series with detailed character development, but instead just animated pornography. The fact that they choose to mention it at all, shows its notable. Dream Focus 06:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't think this quite meets the notability requirements for an article, but it would be a valid search term, so it should probably be redirected to either the game studio or the animation studio. Calathan (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Diamond gives it a review.[3] Seems like a notable site, with editorial overview, and professional reviewers, well established and all. I don't see any comments about it on the reliable sources page though. A few other Wikipedia articles quote reviews from it. [4]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Leigh-Davis

[edit]
Dr. Leigh-Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined a speedy as a hoax because it's not quite as obvious as I'd like. While a preliminary gsearch seems to turn up this person, the sources aren't all that independent. Yuin University doesn't even seem to have a law school[5], and google isn't aware of her Ms. California titles. If it is a hoax, I appreciate the effort that went into making it passable. If it isn't, I think we have a notability issue, as the wider press hasn't taken note of her historic achievements. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— CreativeEndeavors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The article and the press release make much of being the "first female Dean at Yuin University's School of Law", but the official Yuin University website does not list a school of law. That site says they have 3 schools: business admin, theology, and "acupuncture oriental medicine". There's also the broader problem with the institution's standing itself. Perhaps you could shed some light on these concerns? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as a likely hoax, and at the very least, unverifiable. Look at press release image and web site where the image is shown again. That looks like an album cover. She has no first name? -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - even assuming it's true, Davis is not notable and neither is the law school, again assuming it is brand new. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Phony for a number of reasons. 1) Yuin University does not seem to have a law school. 2) The address of Yuin University given on the (probably phony) press release is different from the address at the school's website. 3) She has no existence online except for the press release and this article. 4) She apparently has no first name. (I tried under Dr. Leigh Davis too. No luck.) 5) The press release says she founded "100% magazine" but the article says she founded "110% magazine"; neither magazine can be found on Google. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 21 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JT Southern

[edit]
JT Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2007 - the only reference is a Geocities site; No reliable sources found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:ATHLETE. Claritas (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ATHLETE states that an athlete meets the notability threshold if he or she competed regularly at the top level of a sport. In this case, JT Southern was a regular, featured wrestler in World Championship Wrestling, one of the big two promotions in the United States. The article needs some work, but deletion is never the answer when notability is already demonstrated in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not an expert in wrestling, but looking at the 3 sources currently in the article:
    1. I don't have access to this book (Wrestling Title Histories) - could you possibly quote exactly what it says about JT Southern?
    2. wrestling-titles.com: It shows the CWA International Tag Team Title holders - but my impression is that CWA isn't counted as the top level? If there was some indication of his participation in WCW which is, then that might be different.
    3. SLAM! Wrestling: "Joey Maggs dead at age" - The sole mention of Southern is A guy named J.T. Southern was so bad that I pulled a good match out of him
    Could you find reliable sources which shows that he was a regular featured wrestler in WCW? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Phantomsteve.--Curtis23's Usalions 16:57, 15 May 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) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ATHLETE doesn't require a professional athlete to compete at the "top" level. It simply requires to have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport." This was a professional wrestler; by definition he competed at the fully professional level. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this guy has a bunch of references. He both wrestled and played sidekick in WCW--that's the top professional level. Unquestionable that he should not be deleted.Sarcasto (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on a reason given by nominator, I take it as a bad faith nomination, quoting WP:NORUSH. Optakeover(Talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but how is this nomination bad faith on my part? I may be wrong about the lack of references available (although it appears that a lot of the references since provided rely on publications which I have not got access to) - but it remains a fact that it was unreferenced for 3 years, and that I was not able to find suitable references in my searches. Yes, there is "no rush" - but if a new BLP was to be unreferenced for 10 days, it could be deleted. And I don't think waiting 3 years is "rushing"... and I don't see any evidence that you have looked for reliable sources in the last week, let alone in the previous 3 years... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article should be deleted if it doesn't meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria for inclusion. An unreferenced BLP of a notable subject shouldn't be deleted, although a deletion nomination is one way to force improvements. Rather, it should be subject to some non-deleting action, such as stubbifying to known references, expanding the references, or merging with another article. In any case, the article seems to have plenty of references now, so this nomination should probably be closed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Guanabara

[edit]
Gustavo Guanabara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fixing malformed AfD nomination. Although no reason was left on the talk page, a reason was left in the History section, which reads, "see Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox" (although I've slightly tidied it up). I am currently neutral at this stage. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:04, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cromie

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Paul Cromie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly four years have elapsed since this article was first nominated and the subject is no more notable now than then. He is a local councillor who has held no higher office and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article is still poorly sourced and seems to rely on a minor news story which falls under WP:NOTNEWS, nor are there any other sources which would lead to him meeting the general notability guidelines. Further to that, none of the arguments advanced for keeping the article in the original AFD are based on policy. To summarise those arguments then and counter them in anticipation of them being made again:

1) "He represents a neo-nazi party" the status of the BNP as a neo-nazi party is hotly disputed, see the endless arguments on that page for more details. Whatever it is, there are no exceptions to notability criteria for members of supposedly neo-nazi parties, they fall under the same notability requirements as everyone else ie coverage in reliable third party sources. The party also has around 60-80 councillors, so there's no specific reason to have an article on this one as he is by no means unique.
2) "the BNP uses him as a mask of respectability" whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it's not our job to counter BNP propaganda.
3) "there are background issues (not yet resolved)" with the benefit of hindsight nothing major or notable seems to have arisen from those background issues, they got a couple of lines in a local paper, but nothing that would meet the kind of notability needed here. Valenciano (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The argument for keeping last time was that he succeeded in getting elected councilor, and for someone of his party to succeed in getting elected to anything at all was notable. Considering they've now won two seats in the european parliament, jTis accomplishment is not notable. Nor was he the first councilor elected, which might be notable also --that was Derek Beackon in 1993. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GetEducated.com

[edit]
GetEducated.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: this article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geteducated.com.

Unnotable article and promotional piece posted by the webmaster of the site. Fails all aspects of WP:WEB but CSD A7 was declined by User:DGG because it "seems to indicate some notability, & has sources". However, as noted on the article's talk page, most of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the site, only a one-line mention, except those sources which are from GetEducated itself. The author, contributions, is the "website manager" for GetEducated, per his user talk page, and notes that he is "here to verify that colleges are linking to our reviews and ratings correctly, and to add to the general body of knowledge about online education in any way that I can." He also spammed numerous links to said site in various education articles. The site is not a notable site per WP:WEB, as its content has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (the only source with more than a line or two are press releases, non-reliable sources, and a single interview with the founder. The website has NOT "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" and the content is NOT "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The site fails WP:N as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

It also fails WP:CORP, for which it was notability tagged, per this excellent analysis by User:Amatulic (copied from the article's talk page with notes per some updates made to the article):

The notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP, specifically the part (shortcut WP:SIGCOV) regarding significant coverage. Mere "mentions" are not sufficient. Let's go through the sources.
  1. Whitney, Lance (7/16/2009). "Survey: Best Buys in Online Business Colleges". CNet News.
    This is a blog. It's a blog on Cnet, but still, it's a blog. The author isn't an editor or writer for Cnet, he's a blogger on Cnet. This seems like incidental coverage, failing WP:CORP.
  2. Gangemi, Jeffrey (8/18/2005), Do Online MBAs Make the Grade?, BusinessWeek.com.
    Trivial mention. Not significant coverage. This does not confer notability.
  3. Fisher, Anne (9/29/2003), Will I End Up Getting Scammed if I Pursue an Online MBA?, Fortune.
    I don't know what to make of this, it looks like part of the editorial section in a column called "Dear Annie". This doesn't appear to be coverage by the publication, but by a columnist who answers reader mail. I'll give this the benefit of the doubt.
  4. Carol Frey (August 19, 2009). "Different Paths to a College Degree". U.S. News & World Report.
    Does not appear to mention geteducated.com anywhere in the article. Not a source of coverage that can be used to confer notability on the subject. [REMOVED]
  5. Phillips, Vicky; Yager, Cindy (1998). The Best Distance Learning Graduate Schools: Earning Your Degree Without Leaving Home. The Princeton Review.
    Article unavailable online, but authored by the company CEO, suggesting another conflict of interest. Essentially self-published source by geteducated.com - cannot be used to claim notability. [REMOVED]
  6. "How to Hang On to Your House; Job Advice: The Best Places to Send Your Resume; Going Back to School Online; How to Keep Your Hard Earned Cash Away From Scams and Charges". Your Bottom Line. CNN. 3/7/2009.
    CEO Phillips is interviewed briefly, the name of the company is mentioned 3 times, but the coverage seems incidental in the context of the larger piece. Possibly.
  7. Top Ranked Best Buys - Online Master's Degrees in Engineering, GetEducated.com.
    Self-published. Doesn't count.
  8. Singel, Ryan (2/2/2005), Database Fights Diploma Mills, Wired.com.
    The CEO is quoted on the general subject of diploma mills, but the company itself gets only a trivial mention. The article is not covering the company, but another subject, and is simply quoting the CEO.
  9. Perry, Marc (9/23/2009), Unmuzzling Diploma Mills: Dog Earns M.B.A. Online.
    Another blog by a "Wired Campus Blogger". Need I say more?
WP:CORP states right up front: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." WP:SIGCOV further requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail."

This article, being created by the webmaster and with a heavy promotional tone (some of which has since been removed) appears to have been crafted purely to promote this site and attempt to give it notability through Wikipedia, rather than its already actually being notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with some regrets. I believe the author is trying to edit in good faith, honestly and up-front disclosing a conflict of interest, but without fully understanding the rules. contributions's editing activity does strongly suggest a conflict of interest even without the disclosure on the editor's user page. In fairness I'll note that many of this person's edits are maintenance edits on links to geteducated.com that other editors have added. Geteducated.com does contain some interesting and relevant content that could be (and is) cited in other articles, although I believe it's a borderline reliable source and should be reviewed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. But to have an entire article about the site? I don't believe it qualifies according to Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when you closely examine the sources. The author contributions has requested on Talk:GetEducated.com that the article be moved to the author's userspace for further developement, and I have no problem with that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete pending a check of the market share with respect to similar companies. That I declined a speedy does not mean I think the person actually notable--the standard for speedy is much lower. If when I decline speedy I think the person is actually actually notable, I generally say so and remove the notability tag from the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst COI is an issue, that's not a matter for consideration here; the only question for here is, is this a notable subject, and could an article be written about it? I have tagged it for rescue simply because I think it is a borderline case on notability. I agree with the assessment of the references, but wonder if others can be found, and if it can be fixed. DGG was quite right to decline it as speedy. I will wait and see what other people think, before !voting here.  Chzz  ►  04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  Chzz  ►  04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhere between a strong undecided and a very weak keep combined with stubification. There might be enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as notable per WP:WEB Criterion #1, summarized as: the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, "trivial coverage" being defined by the examples: (1) newspaper articles that only report the URL (2) Articles that only report when the site is updated (3) A brief summary of the nature of the content or the URL (4) descriptions in internet directories or online stores. I think the following sources I was able to find (barely) pass the "non-trivial" test:
CNNMoney The bulk (+50%) of the article seems to be based on information sourced to geteducated.com content and the owner Vicky Phillips. The actual website is mentioned 3 times.
CNNMoney The website is mentioned 3 times.
LATimes Website mentioned 3 times; Majority of content sourced to site owner Vicky Phillips.

The following mentions, while from reliable sources, are probably too trivial, especially when a "brief summary of the nature of the content" is considered trivial. There are easily a half-dozen more like this; do a half-dozen trivial mentions add up to something?

BusinessWeek The website is mentioned twice.
NYTimes One mention of the website.
NYTimes A one-sentence mention
Forbes A one-sentence mention

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - longstanding spam for a non-notable operation (one with an ugly history of spamming Wikipedia, but not notable in the outside world for much of anything). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although most sources are small mentions there is a very significant number of sources, some of which (see sources mentioned by LinguistAtLarge) in my opinion are non-trivial (at least as defined by the guideline). - EdoDodo talk 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a significant number of trivial mentions still doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Included in that list is an extremely small number of non-trivial mentions, which doesn't quite meet WP:SIGCOV. That's why I voted to delete "with regrets" above, because I think this is a borderline case leaning toward the "delete" side, but a few more non-trivial sources may shift it over to "keep". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had the same doubts as you, but even with just the sources provided I'm already leaning towards the keep side per the reasoning provided by LinguistAtLarge. - EdoDodo talk 10:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam article about non-notable website. Fails notability requirements for websites/businesses. SnottyWong talk 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by LinguistAtLarge. They add to something, in the meaning that (a)has received coverage from several sources and (b)there is some material to build a verifiable article. In this sense it passes notability, even if perhaps by a hair. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this article. --Cyclopiatalk 13:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources cited do not have significant coverage, trivial mentions or referrals do not establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google news link at the top of the AFD shows 177 results, that notable news sources mentioning them. Market Watch says:
According to Vicky Phillips, founder of GetEducated.com, "Almost one million online learners visit GetEducated.com annually seeking advice on which of the 406 online MBA degrees we review best meet their needs. The number one question our counselors receive relates to affordability. Consumers want to know where they can obtain a high quality degree at a reasonable cost. We launched our Best Buy awards to help spotlight America's hidden gems of affordability offered through distance learning.
They quote from these guys in news articles dedicated to good and bad online colleges, saying which ones are legitimate and which ones are a scam. Dream Focus 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quote from the site's founder on a web site that is republishing the information from businesswire. From their about us page: "Thousands of member companies and organizations depend on Business Wire to transmit their full-text news releases, regulatory filings, photos and other multimedia content to journalists, financial professionals, investor services, regulatory authorities and the general public worldwide." I believe that it's a press release, not significant coverage from a reliable source. Also, many mentions in notable news sources does not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification about source businesswire is a compilation site for press releases; anything you find there is to be regarded as not from a reliable source, to put it mildly. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of millions of articles, Google shows 177 hits? While Google hits aren't a good metric, that seems small to me. Also, regarding Dream Focus's "keep" vote: a website containing nothing but press release is not a reliable source. Dream Focus hasn't made an argument for notability here. So far, I don't see any convincing arguments above to keep — in fact the only valid one admits passing notability "by a hair". I believe that this encyclopedia is helped by removing this article, as it also removes an apparent source of promotional spam. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy and if significant coverage can be shown, recreate then. I've carefully looked at the above discussions, and agree it is close to showing notability, but for me, it does not do so. The references provided currently are simply too tenuous to represent significant coverage (to my mind). Despite being flagged for rescue and having quite a few people look at it, nobody has managed to add any substance. A close call, but I think we need to be definitive in the need for some significant coverage, and I simply don't see it here. I note the view of Cyclopia that, in their opinion, it passes GNG (just) - personally I think it just barely does not, and I have to say, "I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting" is a very weak reason to keep. If this does go towards 'no consensus-keep' then this will be a very tricky article to maintain due to the lack of good sources, hence I feel I needed to !vote to delete it - and I kinda do hope the closing admin will consider that point; whilst NC = keep, keeping because 'no good reason to delete' makes for poor articles in the future - especially with corporate stuff, where it is 'challenging' for volunteers to separate the true RS from PR.  Chzz  ►  18:13, 24 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang

[edit]
Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The album is not notable. The person contesting prod deletion was using the arguments of WP:Other Stuff Exists which is not a good basis for proving this album's notability. He was suggesting that the nomination of the article had racial grounds just because the article was not a white american artist. I deny that accusation (as a person of colour myself) and point that user as well as others reviewing the discussion to WP:NALBUMS where it states that if an album only has a tracklisting it is unlikely to be notable enough for its own page and could easily be merged to the artist's page. The album has coverage from only two sources, no critical reception, no context, no charts and no awards so it is not notable. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The source that I added from The Hindu says that this album won "rave reviews and critical acclaim", thus confirming that it has been the subject of critical reception, and the one from Dawn is solely about this album, and in itself constitutes critical reception. And, as for the claim that this has "no context", I think that the nominator needs to look up the word "context" in a dictionary. I would add that the singer featured on the album is a Padma Shri recipient, an award that has only been given to just 2336 people in 56 years in a country with a current population of over a billion, so it is inconceivable that any of his albums would not be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the artist winning awards makes the artist notable but doesn't necessarily make the album notable. The media (the Hindu source) says it got rave reviews but that is a slanted and bias view. without examples of those rave reviews it is WP:OR. basing notability on WP:OR and WP:Other Stuff Exists is not credible. The track listing for this album isn't even sourced. But again i state that based on simply a tracklisting (which is unsourced) and a media report saying that album recieved rave reviews the album in my opinion fails notability. don't forget WP:NALBUMS suggests that if a track listing is the main body of an article it should not have its own page, instead it should be merged into the artist's page especially considering that the page is unlikely to grow in size.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth is a citation to The Hindu, one of the highest circulation non-tabloid newspapers in the world, original research? In fact, as a secondary source reporting that the album won rave reviews and critical acclaim, it is more in keeping with our guideline on reliable sources than such reviews themselves, which could be considered primary sources requiring interpration. And on what basis do you think that it is slanted or biased? And please stop referring to WP:other stuff exists - my point is that an article on an album by an equivalent artist in the anglophone West would never be considered for deletion, not that such articles exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a circular argument. Both of us have expressed different points of view and are now trying to make our point using different words. I'm personally going to wait and see the outcome of the discussion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 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. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources is fatal. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Noonan

[edit]
Jimmy Noonan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs some sourcing, but appearing in all of those movies is a good assertation of notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ENTERTAINER says that he needs to have had significant rolls in several movies, TV, etc to meet the criteria. It seems to me most of his roles were small, such as "bouncer", "goon", "mover #1", and "delivery man" which I can't imagine can be considered "significant" by anyone.[6] Although I must admit that I've never seen Super Troopers, so I can't judge how big his role was in that. Nikki♥311 23:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been nominated for speedy deletion on two previous occasions, in both instances by someone who had a personal grudge against Mr. Noonan. Both times is has been quickly determined that he does indeed meet the criterion for a person of note. As Nikki311 notes, she has not seen Super Troopers, where he played a fairly large role as Frank Galikanokus. His bartender role in The Grifters was also more significant than it appears. Not having a named character is not always indicative of a minor role. Mr. Noonan is quite notable for his role at World Wrestling Entertainment, where he was a major public face of WWE for several years. Presuming Nikki311 is not a wrestling fan with a personal grudge against Mr. Noonan, and is sincere in her comments, I would suggest she spend some time familiarizing herself with the person behind an article before jumping to a hasty conclusion on an issue which has been decided in favor of keeping the article twice previously. User:noonanmark (talk) 18 May 2010 (UTC) — noonanmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • It doesn't matter that I haven't seen Super Troopers, as he still needs to have had "several significant" roles to meet the notability requirement and that is just one movie. Can you prove that Noonan was the public face of WWE for several years with a reliable source? Also, I did the proper search for reliable sources and looked up his roles in movies before I nominated the article for deletion, and I believe he doesn't meet ENTERTAINER or GNG. Just because an article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the requirements for AfD. Lastly, this user probably has a conflict of interest, considering his user name and the fact that he hasn't made any edits that don't relate to Noonan. Thanks. Nikki♥311 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The solution is simple. The author of this article can provide references, thus proving notability. If notability is established, I'll vote to keep and so will others. Evalpor (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's dispose of the acting career as an indicator of notability. He has not had much in the way of significant roles. Even the role in super Troopers, claimed as the most notable is way down teh credit list. So the key to notability would be his role as a "major public face of WWE for several years". I can verify he was head of security. [7]. But in order to establish him as a major public face, I would want to see significant coverage about him in his WWE job. I don't see that. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As an actor, he's nothing special, and has only had one major supporting role. But as an "actor" on WWE, arguably he's a major player. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can you provide some sourcing for this? I was not able to find any substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Major players in WWE are wrestlers, refs, commentators, etc. The head of security is rarely if ever shown on television, doesn't have storylines, and isn't named on-screen...it's like being an extra in a television show. Nikki♥311 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything Nikki has said. Plus the only significant roll was in Space Troopers by what I've seem so that's 1 significant roll which doesn't qualify an article and so what if he was the head of security they never show up on TV anyway.--Curtis23's Usalions 18:39, 22 May 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 Ron Sexsmith. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelele Brothers

[edit]
The Kelele Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable..plus no references Moxy (talk) 19:45, 17 May 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 Not-delete. Whether to redirect or not can be covered on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Lumumba

[edit]
Sekou Lumumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is not notable.. not sure if the band she was part of is even notable Moxy (talk) 19:42, 17 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Potvin

[edit]
Roxanne Potvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not see notability here Moxy (talk) 19:37, 17 May 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 and improve. Many of the arguments for deletion focus on apparent inaccuracies in the list, but if there is any valid, verified information on the list that argument does not hold water. AFD is not for cleaning up an article, it's a discussion of whether we should have an article at all. Likewise, having redlinks or bluelinks that point to dab pages is something that can be fixed by editing the article. Clearly, the list is not perfect, but perfection is not required. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Biblical names

[edit]
List of Biblical names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A substantial number of discussions have been conducted on the talk page of this article relating the inaccuracy of the definitions included on this page, all of which trace back to a single source which, judging by the specific errors alleged, is simply unreliable. Unfortunately, these inaccuracies are presently being defended on the theory that Wikipedia can prevent information that we know to be inaccurate so long as we point to the source from which our inaccurate information derives. The page also has other problems. Short of a massive search-and-verify effort, there is no way to have any confidence that all of these names appear in the Bible at all, or that all are used as names in the Bible. It is a massive disambig/redlink farm, and many, of not most, links on the page are for articles that will never, ever be made because they are for a name used once in the Bible and never again, in any other context. This also makes the page simply redundant to the much better-developed List of minor Biblical figures, and List of Biblical places. To the extent that it is useful to present one author's inaccurate collection of definitions, which happen to be in the public domain, the work belongs at Wikisource, not in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) ~[reply]

  • Comment - FYI - This article is a direct copy and paste of the entire Hitchcock dictionary, word for word, from start to finish. It is in the public domain, so it is not a copyright violation. However, it belongs at Wikisource. LordGorval argues below that the list can be backed up and verified by the other sources mentioned in the article. However, the content of the article itself is a word-for-word copy of a Bible dictionary, from A to Z. SnottyWong talk 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Delete They have multiple sources. Turns out that Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary from "Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible" is part of Bible Study Tools where most of the definitions can be verified and backed up by their table of Torrey's New Topical Textbook, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Nave's Topical Bible. Take for example the first one of Aaron: a teacher; lofty; mountain of strength. It gives further extensive details by clicking on the blue link letters of the various bibles and dictionaries herein mentioned. They are already referenced as 1, 2, 3, and in "External Links." The References are already described in the lede.--LordGorval (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an example of what is wrong. A while ago, I removed "Attalus" from the list. It turns out that, despite the word's appearance on the list (apparently coming from that inaccurate source), it appears nowhere in the Bible. Perhaps Hitchcock was pulling a fast one, making up meanings (and, in some instances falsely claiming things as Biblical names), in order to turn the Bible into dollars in his pocket. Whatever the motivation, and whatever sources the work claims to be collated from, this is shoddy work. Names on this list should be backed up by some actual scholarship, and should actually exist in the Bible. Disambig links and red links should be unlinked unless and until there is actually an entry on the individual named in the Bible. We have, of course, Wikipedia articles on "Gina" and "Hen" which appear on this list, but we do not have (and will never have) articles on a Biblical "Gina" and "Hen" - because there is no "Gina" in the Bible, and the only mention of a person named "Hen" is the following: "The crown will be given to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the LORD." Zechariah 6:14 (New International Version; does not appear at all in the King James Version. Why we would continue to perpetrate this fraud is beyond me. It is true that we used Britannica 1911 as seed material for many of our articles, but we corrected its errors, rather than defending their inclusion. bd2412 T 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes you have to be a little flexible when looking up these words. Maybe you can not find that EXACT spelling, however you can find Attalia which shows up in Christian Classics Ethereal Library of Calvin College which is reference # 2 for further sources and references for the names (look in their infobox of "Other Dictionaries"). Remember to be a little flexible on the spelling and you will probably find what you are looking for. Every once in awhile, like what you demonstrated, the EXACT spelling of today might not be there. Look for variants. C.C.E.L. has additional Dictionaries and sources for these words besides what Bible Study Tools has in there table of additional Bible Dictionaries. Most names will have several sources as you can see if you go through a few dozen or more. Remember, there are variant spellings of approximately the same word.--LordGorval (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is why I would like to see a citation to an actual Bible verse for each name asserted to have been used in the Bible. Frankly, I see no benefit to listing multiple sources for the names and definitions if there is no way to tell offhand which source corresponds with which name. Ideally, we should have multiple unrelated sources in support of the definition claimed for each name. bd2412 T 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, on further reflection, no, I do not "have to be a little flexible" when looking up these words, any more than I need to be flexible in allowing an article to say that 2 + 2 = 5. At the least, at the very least, the unreliable information should be removed, and not returned until indicia of reliability can be introduced, in a footnote. bd2412 T 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to an article on the publication and start another one on this topic. We should have such a list, even if we do not have articles on each one. (My own feeling is we could probably find enough for articles even on a name given once with nothing said about it, because there will be commentaries discussing it, at least from mystical or linguistic standpoints) Quite apart from Hitchcock, dozens of secondary sources discuss every name in the bible . The major reference I know is The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [8] but there are many others. To transcribe a list of names from a copyright source is not a violation of copyright--to copy the information they give about them would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically a "Name Your Baby" list that expectant parents look at to find out what a name "means", except that it's less encyclopedic. It's drawn from one source which, since it's public domain, was free-- and it's worth what was paid for it. Thus, we are told that "Aaron", is a word in some language (might be Hebrew, might not be) in which the word means "teacher". Or maybe it means "lofty". Or maybe it's "mountain of strength". Abez means "an egg", or maybe it means "muddy". I like the three meanings for "Caleb" (a dog; a crow; a basket -- take your pick). Fun stuff like this was an essential in Wikipedia's early days, but it isn't 2002 anymore. If kept, put a disclaimer at the top of it. Mandsford 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this supposed to be list of names from the bible (like names that people are given from biblical sources) or list of names in the bible (names mentioned in the bible no matter the context)? Because names (or characters if you want) in the bible would seem to be a Religion topic, and the other would be an anthronym topic.--Savonneux (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could move this article to project space and merge some of the info into List of minor Biblical figures as appropriate references to actual Biblical use are provided. However, note that this is not merely a list of people, but of places and tribes as well. The list itself gives zero guidance as to whether a particular name on it belongs to a person, a city, a supernatural being, a holy day, whatever. bd2412 T 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove meanings the meanings given are allegedly from a public domain work, but this is not verified, and by adding the meanings here, gives them legitimacy, as if we are confirming these meanings as true. I can see the value of a list of all proper nouns in the bible, and since we have links to the articles around the names on this list, thats a nice function, but i dont see how we can list the meanings: this is one persons possibly idiosyncratic definitions, and it would take a whole lot of research to confirm if even one of the meanings here is generally considered a concise, accurate meaning. if someone wants to additionally transwiki this in its entirety somewhere else, i bet it would fit in elsewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary - a list of dicdefs ; the list itself could work as a Wiktionary appendix, while each definition can be broken into a wiktionary entry. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that was already done, quite some time ago. A transwiki of the current list would be useful in reconciling discrepancies that have arisen between the lists since then. However, since the issue is the inaccuracy of the definitions in the list itself, it does not belong at Wiktionary either. If anywhere, it should be moved to Wikisource. bd2412 T 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, the list is basically the same as it was when started in 2002. I don't see where the "issue" is the inaccuracy of the definitions. No editor in this debate has brought up this "issue" other than the nominator - apparently to discredit the list. If the nominator could give some examples, then perhaps I could compare to C.C.L.E. and Bible Study Tools resources to see what he is talking about. If it is such an "issue" then the nominator should easily come up with several examples - instead of just using words to discredit the article. Since the inception of the article it has been viewed approximately a half a million times, however the definitions have stayed the same.--LordGorval (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about everything in the Bible is notable due to centuries of scholarship. The nomination's complaint is that the article is imperfect but AFD is not cleanup and it is not our editing policy to just delete and start afresh. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that this list is irreparable, particularly so long as some prefer its present, inaccurate and inadequately sourced list of names and definitions, and revert efforts to clean up that much of it. Would you agree that the definitions should be removed, and no definition should be restored unless it is sourced to reliable research, and unless the word is shown to actually occur in the Bible? bd2412 T 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list is basically the same list as when it was first introduced back in 2002. The length is basically the same (100K vs 108k) and has expanded little over the last 8 years. The nomination's complaint that it might be "inaccurate" in some places probably is correct; however he has given no examples on his guess of this. The list of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary as part of Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible was written by Roswell Dwight Hitchcock. From the Wikipedia article and what I could find in Google Books, he seems to be a credible theologian. Calvin College uses this in their Christian Classics Ethereal Library and apparently they feel comfortable in using it and feel it is basically accurate. They have additional sources and references for most of the words in their infobox "Other Dictionaries", so there is much in the way of information on each of the definitions.--LordGorval (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far the only "issue" I have seen from the nominator is the word Attalus. That definition given by Hitchcock is increased. The word before of Attalia is given as that increases. From Bible Study Tools of their resource of Smith's Bible Dictionary it says that it is from Attalus. Close enough for me to be convinced that Hitchcock was on the right track. Perhaps the nominator could give some better examples of the "issue" he believes as incorrect definitions. So far haven't seen any.--LordGorval (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Gina" was also on the list, and does not appear in the Bible (as I mentioned above). That is not even a translation error, merely a wrong name altogether. How many mistakes must the sole initial source be shown to have before you will acknowledge that we need better sources? I noted in the nomination that there are many comments on the article's talk page about the unreliability of the "translations", and their inconsistency with information in better sourced Wikipedia articles. Here, here, and here, in particular. bd2412 T 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, nothing that you've said addresses the problem of this article being a link farm for red links that will never become articles, and disambig links, most of which will never have the sense of the name as used in one passing reference in the Bible (if it, in fact, appears in the Bible at all). bd2412 T 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is another one, Aijeleth Shahar. It is the name given to a Psalm, but the name itself does not appear in the Bible at all, and it is not the name of a person or a place. There is no way of knowing, from the list, that it is non-Biblical, or what it is even the name of. bd2412 T 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list contains over 2500 names. 1% of that would be 25. If you can come up with 11 that you think might be inaccurate, that would make the article 99 and 44/100th per cent pure. Out of the two you think might be inaccurate, I found Ginath which is Ginnetho, a garden. It has additional information in the Other Dictionaries. Now we are down to one possible definition that might be inaccurate - out of 2500. I can not calculate what per cent that is since it is so small. It makes the article then at least 99.999% accurate.
        • The fact that "Ginath" is in the Bible doesn't excuse the fact that "Gina" is not, and "Gina" was still on the list. Let us not make a false sense of completeness be the enemy of a true sense of correctness. bd2412 T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright I'll give you the fact that "Gina" is not in the bible, even though "Ginath" is. I see you are not flexible in the least. Then you have 2 on your side and I have 2500 on my side that are uncontested. Even IF you find 9 more you believe to be inaccurate then the article is 99 and 44/100th per cent pure. According to calculations then IF your 2 are disputed and you personally believe to be inaccurate then it stands that 99.9992% are correct and accurate.
      • I didn't realize the "issue" was red links. I thought it was your idea of what might be inaccurate definitions. But anyway, I didn't make those red links; however IF they bother you we could remove the linking and make them black. Just by a quick look it appears that around 80% are blue and 20% red links. Whatever the ratio, it looks to me like there are more blues than reds. If it is the 80/20 ratio then about 2000 are presently linked and 500 red links. Does red bother your eyes?--LordGorval (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not the issues, it is another issue. Apparently you are not using Javascript. I don't see that much blue, because my Javascript makes disambiguation pages show up as yellow. That means that, despite my extensive efforts to fix this page, there is an abundance of links to disambiguation pages, meaning not to the article that the link should go to (which, in many cases, does not exist at all). For example, the article contains a link to Hen, which I think I pointed out before. Did you know that this article is ranked #2 on the list of articles with the largest number of disambig links? It would still be #1 (as it was a month ago) but for my efforts, but I've only scratched the surface. bd2412 T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused - which "issue" are you complaining about. First you told me it was inaccurate definitions, THEN "red links"; now its "yellow" Javascript. So, is it "yellow" Javascript why you want to delete the article OR is it something else you haven't brought up yet?--LordGorval (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused also as to why cann't those that show up as "yellow" Javascript just be delinked?--LordGorval (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I made an error in my calculations. It appears that approximately a million views have viewed the article since its inception, not a half million as I stated before. Could you look over the history to verify this. I also see that there are 49 Watchers of the article. Since it appears that approximately a million views have seen the article and 49 Watchers watching the article on a regular basis and basically the definitions are the same as when the article was started in 2002, then apparently there are no objections to the definitions - other than yours, of course.--LordGorval (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A million people could walk by a "YEILD" sign without commenting on it. This does not make it the correct spelling of yield. The fact that unknowning visitors are tricked into accepting wrong information does not make the information right. bd2412 T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, I guess what you are saying is that all these views are "unknowning visitors tricked into accepting wrong information" AND you know what the correct information is. Well for one, I'll stick with Hitchcock and the biblical dictionary sources I provided. I don't know your theological credentials, but I must admit I have learned a lot from this debate (way more than you can even imagine) and it has been a lot of fun since I have pick up on some great ideas.--LordGorval (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not need "theological credentials" to look in the Bible and see that a name appearing on this list does not actually occur in the Bible, at all, or to see that there is a list of examples on the talk page showing contradictions between the definitions listed in this article and our other articles on the same names. I certainly don't need them to see that this article contains zero inline references, either to the Bible, or to the source of any particular definition. bd2412 T 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Per Calvin College and their Christian Classics Ethereal Library the terms have been viewed over 3 million times since 2005. Perhaps the college and all those viewers have also been "tricked into accepting wrong information".--LordGorval (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You seem to be advancing an argument along the lines of "the more that something is read by people, the more correct it becomes". I could write a book on things that are wrong despite having been widely read. Note also, I'm not saying that every single definition on the list is wrong; many of them are undoubtedly correct, but we can not know which ones without comparing them against other sources. If the page is to be kept, the definitions should be removed, and any individual definition should only be restored once the name is shown to actually occur in the Bible by citation to chapter and verse, and shown to have the meaning ascribed, by citation to multiple sources. bd2412 T 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Close. The more that something is read by people, the more likely it is incorrect. Basically the definitions have not changed in 8 years and have remained the same with over 4 million views. I would think if these definitions were not in the bible, it would have long since been noticed and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordGorval (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The problem with that view is that is presumes the people looking at this lengthy list would know what does and does not belong. However, if they already knew all that answers, they wouldn't need to look at the list in the first place. If someone were to add a Biblical-sounding fake name, like putting "Ishban" after Ishbak, or "Japhlo" after Japhlet, do you seriously think anyone would pick those out as not being in the Bible? bd2412 T 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • IF someone tried to do as you describe, THEN they somehow would have to get it past the additional sources and references provided for the words. Obviously such an entry would be detected since there would not be additional sources to back it up.--LordGorval (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • How would anyone looking at the page know that it wasn't just copied over from Hitchcock, like the rest? There is no means of control. bd2412 T 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I find it funny that every time db2412 finds a name on the list that doesn't appear in the Bible, someone comes up with a name that is close to that name and claims that it's just an alternate spelling. For instance, Gina = Ginath or Ginnetho, Attalus = Attalia. Out of a list of 2500 names, you could probably come up with a name that is sufficiently "close" to just about any word in the English language. "Oh, Birsha isn't in the Bible, try Birchap. What's that? Jehohanan isn't in the bible either? Try Jehobanana." Either it's in the bible or it's not. If the confusion is between different translations of the bible, then the list should be standardized on a single translation. SnottyWong talk 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently all the issues (definitions, "red links" and "yellow" Javascript) of the nominator has been addressed and answered to the satisfaction of the nominator since he is now only concerned that each word gets an individual inline citation. Obviously the only reason for this is IF the article is not deleted and is planning on being around into the future. I interpret this as the nominator withdrawing the deletion nomination.--LordGorval (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not withdrawn anything. The article is almost irreparably problematic, and other editors in this deletion discussion have put forward additional rationales for deletion (including the one just below, as the article is indeed an indiscriminate collection of names appearing in the Bible, with no weighing of the relative importance of those names. Suppose we had a list of words appearing in the Bible, listing in alphabetical order each word used in any edition. What use would that be? bd2412 T 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, also, that the majority of "keep" votes in this discussion agree that the meanings should be removed or referenced, or that the article should be made into an article on the publication from which these particular definitions come. That should tell you something. bd2412 T 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Why would the nominator want individual definitions for 2500 words if the article were to be deleted within a couple of weeks? This task would require a couple of years. Obviously the nominator believes the article is going to be around for a couple of years. How else could the task get done unless the nominator wants the article around for at least a couple of years?--LordGorval (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will you please stop posting misleading edit summaries claiming I've withdrawn this nomination? This article's issues are irreparable to the extent that it should be deleted. However, it has not been yet, so I will continue working on it until this discussion is resolved. bd2412 T 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • AND you want individual inline citations with multiple detailed references each for 2500 words? How long do you think that task will take to complete? OR maybe you don't want the task to be completed as you are requesting? Why then are you requesting this task to be done IF you don't really want the task to be done? IF you don't want the task to be completed, THEN perhaps you can remove the task requested? UNLESS there is another reason why you have put this task request on the names? WHICH is it, you do want the task done as requested OR you don't want it really done? Why THEN have you put the "citation needed" task request on the names? PERHAPS there is another reason?--LordGorval (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "real question" is whether this article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. Perhaps you should begin providing citations to the Bible and alternate sources for the definitions for the names presented, if you wish to demonstrate that the article is salvageable.bd2412 T 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator knew about the references for each letter as he fixed the broken section headers on May 19. Obviously he accepts those as references, otherwise he would have removed these references and explained why he had done so. Just as obvious is that all the concerns the nominator had (i.e. definitions themselves, "red links", "yellow" Javascript) is resolved and the ONLY thing he wants now is alternate sources for the definitions. All he has to do is look at those sources that he already approved (i.e. letter "A") and all the additional information he needs is there. For example click on Aaron and it indicates detailed entries from Nave's Topical Bible, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary. This follows a format very similar to Featured Lists I have found. List of American Idol finalists gives only a reference (one time at top of table) of their ages and no other references for the table, even though it asserts other facts (i.e. Name, Hometown, Season, Finished). List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates gives two references at the top of the table (one time each) and does not reference other individual facts like Season, Name, Hometown and Finish. List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests also only has two references (one time each) at the top of the table and does not reference Season, Name, Profession, Status or Finish. I could give a few dozen more Featured Lists that shows this point (a reference one time at the top of the section), but I believe you can see my point. There is already a reference for each letter one time at the top of the section - all one has to do for further information on any name is click the reference and the name - similar to what is demonstrated in Featured Lists. The nominator can not speak with a forked tongue and have it both ways. His actions have demonstrated he has withdrawn the deletion nomination. It looks to me like he is satisfied with all his complaints and is just now squabbling over points of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and how they are interpreted by individuals. He obviously wants the article around for some time since he asked "Perhaps you should begin providing citations to the Bible and alternate sources for the definitions for the names presented..." This task he is requesting would take some time (i.e. one day, one week, one month each) so he sees the article being around then for at least 7 years and possible as long as 50 years. The nominator actions demonstrate he has withdrawn the deletion nomination.--LordGorval (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • LordGorval, you are continuing to attempt to influence this discussion through deception, through your false assertions in edit summaries and in this comment asserting that I have "withdrawn the deletion". This is untrue, and it is very immature of you to be continuing in this effort. I intend to seek administrative action with regard to your conduct. I don't know about anyone else here, but I feel that a topic ban prohibiting you from editing Bible-related articles would be an appropriate dissuasion. bd2412 T 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know then how you expect to get 2500 multiple Bible citations (book, chapter and verse) as you are requesting IF the article isn't around. Obviously the article has to be around in order to get this information you are requesting - THEN I can only conclude you have withdrawn your deletion nomination. How can you expect to get your citation requests IF the article isn't around? UNLESS perhaps there is another reason why you put this "citation needed" tag on 2500 words? You know the information is in the reference at the beginning of each letter. You can not have it both ways; that is doubletalk. Just because I interpret the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as many Feature Lists do and it does not fit what you want, then the next thing to do is topic ban prohibiting me from editing Bible-related articles. That would be most interesting! Did you ever think to just ask me this? Perhaps IF you ask me real nice, we could talk about that. I personally am not a "religious person", whatever that may be. I don't especially like the "religion" of Christianity, however I do find it most fasinating. There is way more there than you can even imagine. The secrets in Hitchcock's words would reveal some of those secrets, IF only you were paying attention. I for one am not going to let you in on those secrets, because you would come completely unglued. So IF it floats your boat to topic ban prohibiting me from editing Bible-related articles, go for it. But, like I say - it might be eaisier just to ask me. Knowing you however I'll bet you are going to take the hard way, sure as shuten. It will be fun and interesting to see how this plays out.--LordGorval (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LordGorval, regardless of how you interpret the MOS or whatever you're babbling about, there is no arguing the fact that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, if there is unsourced material in an article, I can challenge it. If a qualified source exists and anyone cares to provide it, then the content stays. Otherwise, it gets deleted until someone provides a source. Just because someone added 2500 names to a list article (with no sources for the majority of them) doesn't mean that they automatically get to remain in the article until someone proves that they're inaccurate. WP doesn't work that way. If you're interested enough in this article and you want all 2500 names to stay, then I'd suggest you get started on providing sources for all of the material that is currently tagged with a "Citation needed".
Therefore, your logic that the nominator has removed his nomination is completely backwards. What should happen is that this article gets stripped of all of its unsourced content (i.e. all of its content), which results in a blank article, and is therefore speedily deleted. How's that for logic? SnottyWong talk 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've come a long way from the days that mediocre articles like this one were the standard. The first improvement on a page like this would be to at least list the languages from which a name is derived-- Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc. The second would be to show the actual etymology, instead of nonsense like "Joseph means increase or addition!", or "'Joseph' is how Hebrew speakers say addition!". It's possible-- here's a list, for instance, of Hebrew words [9]. There is some (emphasis on "some") truth to the suggested meaning of names on the list. Caleb is derived from the Hebrew word for "dog" (Kelev) and Adam derives from "Adom", a Hebrew word for "red". Wikipedia's individual articles about proper names have gone beyond the dopey "Philip means 'lover of horses'" approach, which is OK for the baby names book, but not for an encyclopedia. I don't see that there is any interest in making this an encyclopedic article. Mandsford 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use as sources for name meanings, Christian websites exclusively. the meanings must either be found in the bible itself, thus self defining (and which must show here or on the main article the chapter and verse where the name is defined), or we must source multiple meanings for names from multiple sources, not just christian sources, but jewish, academic, bible as history, bible as literature, etc: all notable sources in history that have attempted to define these names. thats why i said to strip out the definitions. someone can try to do the exhaustive research, then upon completion, add material back. dont know why someone would do that. Example of how wrong this list is: Jehovah is defined as "self subsisting" but this word or phrase does not appear in the main article on jehovah. you'd think someone at WP would have added that as a meaning at some point, if this source had any authority. its one religious persons nonnotable definition of this name. its like saying, in a list of science terms having "age of universe: 5k yrs" with a mention of bishop usher in passing as the sole source for defining this phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The authority for what names in the Bible mean can be two-fold: modern philology, and also traditional religious interpretation--which in most cases do coincide in this area, for the traditional interpreters were not ignorant of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. It does not take exhaustive research, it just takes looking in a few of a number of reliable references -- among which the one used for the present state of this article is not included. We do not have to decide ourselves what the names actually do mean--that would be Original Research, we just have to report what people discussing the subject in reliable sources have said they mean. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, a lot of editions of the Bible add appendices that include an alphabetical index, so to speak, of the proper names mentioned therein, so there are sources. The most reliable ones would be those that have etymologies that demonstrate the derivation, some of which may be more sophisticated then the "Adam means 'man of red earth'" variety that is just fine for the "name your baby" paperback. This one rested on whatever laurels someone thinks they should get for a cut and paste, and never aspired to be anything more than it is. It doesn't matter to me whether the source is Christian, Jewish, secular, etc., so long as it actually demonstrates that "Adam" is akin to the Hebrew word. "Joseph" doesn't actually "mean" anything in any language, for instance. It's essentially the English adaptation (as opposed to Jose in Spanish or Giuseppe in Italian) of the Hebrew "Yusuf". Rather than simply saying it "means increase or addition" an etymology would point to Hebrew words for various concepts of "to add" ([10] is a translator that shows the Latin and Hebrew writing forms)-- "yasaf" is the phonetic pronunciation for adding something to things already gathered. We don't need to rest with a book that may have been the best of its kind up to the 19th century, but has been superseded now. Mandsford 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i don't think this was ever a reliable source. It's odd in a way that the author invented names in a period when so many literate people knew the Bible thoroughly. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesnt appear to be a reliable source. I dont find it odd, people with a religious passion often make stuff up, based on internal prompting, ie "god spoke to me" or "god told me exactly what this means". this may be the case with this book. and mandsford, thanks for the insightful comments. just to be clear, i was not responding directly to your previous comment above, just to the thread in general. Thanks for demonstrating more skillfully the high quality which this article would have to attempt to be kept.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare List of minor Biblical figures, which is attempting much the same coverage, at least with respect to names of persons. It is far from perfect in presentation, and very far from complete, but at least it tries to demonstrate the inclusion of these names in the Bible itself, and provides references for additional information where that is offered. bd2412 T 02:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to Wikisource per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTLINK. The entire content of this list is a copy and paste from the Hitchcock dictionary, word for word, unchanged, from A to Z. The primary purpose of Wikisource is articles like this one. This article does not belong here. The only way this article can be kept is if it is completely blanked and rewritten only with information that is sourced with a Bible verse, and with a published etymology of each name to verify the meanings of the names given. If the result of this AfD is Keep or No Consensus, then I invite the nominator to contact me and I'll help challenge and delete any unsourced material. Then, the people who want to keep this article can add material back when it becomes sourced. After all, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material. SnottyWong talk 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of minor Biblical figures, which is a far better list in terms of sources, and rename that page List of Biblical figures to include everyone. I find it incomprehensible that the names on this page don't have source verses. (Every name must have a source verse, or else it doesn't appear in the Bible, right?). As for the translations, we should be able to include as many translations as are out there, citing each source. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list can not be merged to List of minor Biblical figures because it is not a list of names of people, but (purportedly) of names of anything for which a name was given in the Bible. This includes names of towns or villages, geographic features, tribes, holy days, and songs. bd2412 T 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But did you notice that this page, List of Biblical names, is the redirect for List of Biblical figures?
      • Alternate to my merge idea is to source this current article completely. Every single name has to have a source-verse and every definition a source-reference. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was unaware of the redirect, but those are usually cleaned up along with an article deletion. I have also proposed sourcing every name and definition, but this notion has received resistance from an editor who contends that the status quo is fine (and reverted deletion of the unsourced definitions). bd2412 T 22:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article needs references. That is not a reason to delete it. After references are found the article will be fine. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the article is a direct copy of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary, which is most likely out of copyright since it was written in the 1800's. Surely there is a WP policy that says that articles should not consist entirely of exact copies of another publication, whether it is copyrighted or not? SnottyWong talk 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, we gladly incorporate material from out-of-copyright encyclopedias to the extent that it the information is accurate and reliable. The problem here is that there are serious concerns about the accuracy of the material. Even the primary defender of this article contends above that it could take up to seven years to fix, at a reasonable rate of repair. bd2412 T 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we incorporate material from out-of-copyright encyclopedias, but is it common practice to have an article whose entire content is a complete copy of a single source? SnottyWong talk 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It won't take seven years if we each take a section and find sources for the content. Just a suggestion. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that the definitions should be removed unless and until they can be sourced? bd2412 T 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amplifying on Alpha Quadrant's idea, many of the sources are already there at the beginning of each letter of the Bible Study Tools Library. Just click first on the associated letter Bible Study Tools Library reference provided and then on the word interested in and then the links provided for the additional sources. Other sources from Christian Classics Ethereal Library of Calvin College are also provided for each word under their infobox Other Dictionaries. It wouldn't be necessary to remove the definitions because SmackBot has provided Date maintenance tags. There has to be some time provided to do the task that the nominator is requesting.--LordGorval (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile if User:BD2412 would be so kind to delink all "yellow" Javascript that would solve two problems: 1) incorrect disambiguation pages and 2) too many links to the page.--LordGorval (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LordGorval, you've had since August 8, 2002 to add the sources. I think that's long enough. If we delete the unsourced material, then you can have all the time in the world to restore them one by one as you find sources and bible verses to substantiate them. There is no WP policy that says unsourced, potentially inaccurate material can't be deleted for a certain amount of time. And the yellow links are only the tip of the iceberg with the link problem. Those are only the links that happen to go to disambig pages. The remainder of the links are still inaccurate (e.g. Boson links to the article about the subatomic particle, not the biblical character whose name means "taking away", but the link is not yellow). In order to fix the link problem, we'd have to unlink every item and start over from scratch. SnottyWong talk 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more since to wait for the outcome - as is recommended by the Help Desk. It could potentially save you a lot of work. What is it that you are afraid of that you are in such a hurry to delete material? Are you afraid that readers and editors will see the references and sources I have provided and that they match the terms of Hitchcock's public domain source? A few more days won't make any difference. Besides there are others that would like to help with the additional sources and as long as they are there with the references provided already (Bible Study Tools Library and Christian Classics Ethereal Library), they have all the additional sources necessary to go to, since the references are already there. They already have maintenance tags on them. There is nothing damaging in the terms. It won't hurt Wikipedia nor the readers of the article.--LordGorval (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to delete the majority of the article in the middle of an AfD, as that would be unnecessarily disruptive to the process. We're just anticipating a "No Consensus" result and planning for the future of the article after that happens. And, the Hitchcock reference is all well and good, but it can't be solely relied on because it's already been proven to be inconsistent and inaccurate in some cases. Marrying the Hitchcock source with the Bible verse in which the term appears would be a good way to cross-reference this unreliable source. Until we do something along those lines, all of these list entries are suspect. And just tagging them with "citation needed" doesn't solve the problem, especially since we've exceeded the number of legal "citation needed" tags you can have on one page (if you scroll down the page you'll see that they turn into regular links at a certain point). SnottyWong talk 16:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can do all the "Marrying" they want IF they look at the References I have already provided for each letter (Bible Study Tools Library and Christian Classics Ethereal Library). They are not suspect to those that look at these References - ONLY to those that have not looked intentually. Hitchcock is NOT the sole Reference. It happens to be one, however it is backed up at each letter at the top with Bible Study Tools Library that has a table that shows the symbol and its corresponding resource:

  • [B] - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
  • [E] - Easton's Bible Dictionary
  • [H] - Hitchcock's Bible Names
  • [N] - Nave's Topical Bible
  • [S] - Smith's Bible Dictionary
  • [T] - Torrey's New Topical Textbook

Can you point out at which letter the "citation needed" stops. I see it going through the letter "Z". I think somewhere along the line we recently lost the template at each letter of "AlphanumericTOC|numbers=|top=|)}}". Can you fix? I have only known about the article since this month.--LordGorval (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, Hitchcock really is the sole reference of this article, seeing as how this article is a complete copy/paste of the entire Hitchcock source, letter for letter, from start to finish. Since we've already seen proof above that Hitchcock's dictionary is inconsistent and inaccurate at times, it's not an unreasonable request to provide the Bible verse in which each name appears, if only to confirm that the name actually appears in the Bible. And, the list should be standardized on one translation of the Bible, to reduce confusion about alternate spellings of names. Regarding the "citation needed" problem, it happens right after Joshah. You'll notice the font changes and the link changes from Wikipedia:Citation needed to just Citation needed. Also, your {{compactTOC7body}} templates do not display correctly after the J's. This is because you're over the limit of 500 parser functions on a page, a symptom of a page which is far too large and bloated with unnecessary and non-notable information. Seriously, a list of every proper noun in a book is a little ridiculous. Perhaps we should start work on List of proper nouns in War & Peace after this. SnottyWong talk 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, it's not acceptable to just list a bunch of Bible dictionaries at the top of the page, and claim that the article is properly sourced, especially since we're likely to find conflicting data in each of these sources. SnottyWong talk 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copy of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary as you say, and it was obtained from Christian Classics Ethereal Library (which has been viewed over 3 million times). Calvin College believes it to be consistent and accurate, as I do. It has not been proven otherwise. It may have been debated otherwise, but not proven otherwise. For example take the first name of Aaron: a teacher; lofty; mountain of strength. C.C.E.L.'s Other Dictionaries points out Easton's Bible Dictionary, Nave's Topical Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1: Aachen-Assize, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge [Dictionary edition] and The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I: Aachen - Basilians as additional sources and information. Easton's Bible Dictionary shows mountain of strength, illuminator and Smith's Bible Dictionary - a teacher, or lofty.
Of as May 19 the "compactTOC7body" was working correctly, before all the "citation needed" tags were added. Everything was working properly BEFORE all these "citation needed" tags were added. It was easy to navigate then. Now nearly impossible to navigate. Yes, "Wikipedia:Citation needed" or just "Citation needed" - in any case they were all added for disruption, not that the citations were ever really needed or wanted as User:BD2412 claims he has not withdrawn his deletion nomination. His actions however say something different as he has added all these "citation needed" tags on all 2500 words. Looks like disruption to me as why else would he add all these "citation needed" tags IF the article was to be deleted in a few days anyway. He cann't speak with a forked tongue where he expects the article to be deleted in a few days, HOWEVER then follows up with all these "citation needed" tags for 2500 words. In order to get this task done it will take some time, therefore the ONLY conclusion I can come to is that he has withdrawn his deletion nomination - UNLESS he did this for disruptive purposes. Which is it?--LordGorval (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that db2412 gave several examples of names that appeared in this list which do not appear in the Bible. That is the reason we are saying that the Hitchcock source has been shown to be inaccurate, inconsistent, and/or based on an uncommon translation of the bible.
LordGorval: have you ever taken part in an AfD before, or is this your first one? It is not uncommon for the AfD nominator to modify the article during an AfD. Such modifications are not normally interpreted as the nominator withdrawing his nomination. If he was withdrawing his nomination, he would have plainly said so. I can't even begin to understand the logic going on in your head that is bringing you to this conclusion. Take my word for it: the nomination has not been withdrawn. Just drop the idea and move on. Your comments are far more disruptive than the "citation needed" tags, which are completely valid in this case. SnottyWong talk 19:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your reponse. I've given up on responding to his ruminations. Obviously, I added tags for citations to each line in the article because citations are needed for each line in the article. The AfD had several days left to run when I added them, and even in that time we should not let readers be lulled into thinking that this article has been vetted and found reliable. In reviewing the list, it is impossible to even know if the definitions offered are meant to be the modern meanings, or the meanings said to have existed at the time those names were written in the Bible. I also removed "Christian" from the list, which also does not appear in the Bible (for obvious reasons), and I have to wonder whether there are other post-Biblical religious constructions on the list as well. bd2412 T 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is: Actions speak louder than words.
It is not just a bunch of Dictionaries at the top of the page as you say. It is specific Bible Dictionaries that pertain to EXACTLY those words that start with those letters. It is specific definition sources for specific words that back up the Hitchcock word definitions. Could these very detailed definitions and information pieces be interpreted in different ways? I imagine so, especially since they are religious terms. Could any other sources that you could come up with for a particular Biblical Name have conflicting data? Most certainly. No difference, these sources or other sources. The idea of sources that are references at the top of a table are very much like what you will find in many Featured Lists - as I have already explained above.--LordGorval (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for certain words on the list like "Christian" - it was added later and not in the Hitchcock list. I had / have no control of people adding names. It just means that after this addition of a name not originally in the Hitchcock list, THAT THEN the Wikipedia list is inaccurate - not the complete Hitchcock list. HOWEVER the word "Christ" is on the list. Its definition is given as "anointed." The definition of "anointed", according to Random House Dictionary, is "to choose formally, anointed a successor." The word "anointed" can be attributed to Chaucer in his poem Boece according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps a "Christian" could be said to be one that has been chosen formally for an important position. And I said I wasn't going to let you in on the secrets. That's it though, no more.--LordGorval (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BD2412’s actions speak louder than his words.
On May 17 he started the article deletion process. Through May 18 most votes were for Keep and I had answered most of his objections. Starting on May 19 he went on a tag bombing campaign to sway the debate more towards a "Deletion" result. He ultimately "citation needed" tagged all 2500 words. Being a Senior Editor III with over 200,000 edits he knew this was not the right thing to do. He claims in his words he knew the process would take a few more days to finalize and the reason he gives is "…even in that time we should not let readers be lulled into thinking that this article has been vetted and found reliable", even though the article has been around since 2002. Obviously, due to the timing of the tag bombing campaign, it was done to disrupt the process to sway the tide of the outcome in his favor. There is no way anyone could come up with multiple book, chapter and verse bible references as he wants for 2500 words in just a few days. That’s an impossible task. However I gave him benefit of the doubt and chose an alternate answer for the tag bombing campaign - that he really DID want multiple book, chapter and verse bible references for 2500 words. This would take considerable time, probably in the order of years. So therefore choosing the one of the reasons why the tag bombing campaign, I choose the reason then as him withdrawing from the deletion nomination. His words say he wanted to protect the readers all of a sudden in the last few days, however due to the timing of the tag bombing campaign, his actions say he wanted to disrupt the Afd process to sway it in his favor as at that point they were in favor of Keeping the article. As a Senior Editor does he actually think someone could come up with multiple book, chapter and verse bible references for 2500 words in just a few days? If he truly does, then something is wrong with the 200,000 edit count he claims to have. I can only conclude that the nominator has withdrawn from the deletion nomination. His actions speak louder than his words.--LordGorval (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who cares? What are you even babbling about? Guess what, I can bold things too: The nominator has not withdrawn his deletion nomination because he has never said so, and has in fact clearly denied this accusation all of the 19 times you've inexplicably brought it up for the sole purpose of disrupting this AfD. Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself, and allow others to do the same. SnottyWong talk 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks alot for ya'alls input. I have learned much during this debate - way more than you can even imagine. Its a win-win situation.--LordGorval (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a game at all, it is merely an effort to limit the content of the encyclopedia to that which is encyclopedic by requiring that claims asserted as facts be reliably sourced. Why not merely show that these definitions can be sourced by providing sources unrelated to Hitchcock for a few of these definitions? bd2412 T 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. I assume then I am not banned from editing Bible-related articles. I just now gave some references to Christ. I did in fact find references to Christian. Type Agrippa in the Search box. Would this be a good start. Can I assume you have withdrawn your nomination for deletion to the article? If you have, then who knows what secrets may develop. Otherwise, as you know, the Hitchcock words can easily be found on the internet most anywhere. It would be your loss and my gain. It looks like SnottyWong has already come unglued. It was predictable as I had mentioned way before.--LordGorval (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I take that back. I have no power to ban anyone from anything individually, and certainly did not mean to suggest that you were. However, I'd suggest you cite something other than "Christ", which is indisputably well-documented. There are literally thousands of names on the list without such a level of documentation. How about something like Nibhaz, or Delaiah, or Zareah? bd2412 T 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • O.K. Keep in mind I would not be considered a "religious person" (whatever that is) so the way I look at these items is not from a religious viewpoint. I go from the viewpoint of the definitions and discover new things. Before we leave Christ, perhaps take special note that the spelling "Christ" is attested from the 14th century. The word "anointed" is attributed to Chaucer, who died in 1400. I believe "Christian" could be said to be one that has been chosen formally for an important position - not as the religion of Christianity preaches it. Now let's go to Agrippa, who could easily be considered a "king" and definitely was considered "hero-like" - definitions in Nave's Topical Bible and Smith's Bible Dictionary. Hitchcock defines it as "one who causes great pain at his birth", which I see as "one who causes great pain at his rise in power". Agrippa was Octavian's defense minister - a very important position to which he had been formally chosen for. Just some ideas, and not the least "religious." So did I get a "YES" that you have withdrawn your deletion nomination and would you be willing to take away the 2500 "citation needed" tags as it makes it extremely difficult to navigate to make references.--LordGorval (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not withdrawing it, although I would not worry much if I were you as I doubt a closing admin will read the votes as showing a consensus to delete. This may change with further votes, but in my experience they tend to follow the pattern of earlier votes. Do you see the problem, though? You searched for a definition for Agrippa and found one different from Hitchcock's. You may be able to come up with an interpretation that reconciles these definitions, but that interpretation would be considered original research, so yet another source would be required to support your interpretation. Which is why every definition in this list should be (and should have been) removed pending provision of a reference. bd2412 T 20:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split This article needs improvement but using the rationale that it should be deleted because it is on a public domain website doesn't really mean it should be deleted. Having this list in conjunction with the other list is good because it can be expanded while the other list will likely remain stagnent. This page is also way too long and should be split up so that navigation is easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is available from a public domain source, which was listed at the top of the article before someone went through and put citation needed tags next to every single entry. You don't need a link for every single entry, when it says at the top where it all comes from. Note, Wikipedia started out with the public domain encyclopedias and other books incorporated to it. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Dream Focus 20:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource because this list goes way beyond the scope of any normal "article" or lists which should be in moderation. This would seem to violate WP:NOTCATALOG #2, that Wikipedia articles are not: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety...Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles...See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." And #7 "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." As well as violating WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This is like trying to list every one of the over 600,000 letters in the Torah scroll (all holy, full of meaning and important, but each one does not deserve to be listed in a Wikipedia "list" or article). Not advisable. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. This is a primary source and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I thought when I looked at the article I would see a list of personal names, but this is an indiscrminate list of all proper names in the Bible; cities, tribes, rivers and people. Abductive (reasoning) 05:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of hand-waving and suggestions that sources exist and someone will add them sometime. Not convincing. Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • LordGorval, who had been the primary proponent of this article, tried adding new sources. He quickly discovered that these sources contradicted the original source, and changed his vote to delete. At this point, I'd propose the following steps. First, revert the article back to its original state and transwiki it to Wikisource, as has been proposed in several comments above. Second, move it to project space so we can use it as an index to determine which items on the list actually represent missing articles. We can then work through it at our leisure, deleting the ones we have (or make), and the ones with no prospect of becoming articles. When all the links are done, the project itself can be deleted. bd2412 T 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a valid list. The names themselves can easily be sourced, albeit to a Bible, a primary source. The translations should be removed pending valid sourcing. --PinkBull 20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are many variations on a single biblical name.RussianReversal (talk) 00:04, 26 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Midnight

[edit]
Johnny Midnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:19, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane McGarrigle

[edit]
Jane McGarrigle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem notable Moxy (talk) 19:06, 17 May 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 Great Lake Swimmers. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Millson

[edit]
Greg Millson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standers Moxy (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Royer

[edit]
Glen Royer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem notable Moxy (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Elon

[edit]
The Shops at Elon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable shopping area, 37 GHits, non of which provide the coverage required by WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 18:59, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Fraser (musician)

[edit]
Allan Fraser (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating the article as it appears to not be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 May 2010

Can you please explain why this should be deleted and redirected rather than merged and redirected? There is information about him (and references) that are not currently in Fraser & DeBolt. Voceditenore (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blair O'Halloran

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Blair O'Halloran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating the article as it appears to not be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 May 2010

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

The result was no consensus. There are a couple !votes here that I'm not giving a lot of weight in my considerations. That all of these articles shouldbe kept is a valid position to hold, but is not backed by policy. Personal notability standards are even less so. Even said, Ive read the debate, I've read the sources, I've read the article. There's just no consensus here. Numerically there are a few more keeps than deletes, but several !votes on both sides were made with weak rationales, but there were also some good arguments for both keeping and deleting. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norway – Sudan relations

[edit]
Norway – Sudan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

YABRA (Yet another bilateral relations article). References are statistics of Norway and a link to another wiki page.

Nothing to indicate the respective foreign relations articles aren't enough, and we've had this discussion already on a thousand others. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, most of those look like Norway's statements about Darfur; I would bet my !vote that you can't find a UN country that hasn't made a statement about Darfur (largest 100, let's say). There's no unique arrangement though here, which is what I always thought the agreed upon standard was. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to Wikipedia definitions of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are your criteria too focused on disputes and colonization? What about aid or the attempt thereof? Norway has quite notable relations with Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the vast majority of X-Y pairings fall into the In between situations category. Most of those X-Y parings that have been deleted were ones where they didn't have embassies and weren't otherwise involved in a dispute. In my experience, when countries lack embassies there are rarely sources available that address their relations directly and in any depth, so the pairing fails WP:GNG. So BR#X-Y relations are inherently non-notable when: just tuns that observation into a rough guideline. There's not an intentional focus on disputes and colonization, this draft guideline just combines some common sense with general observations to come up with some rules of thumb. Yilloslime TC 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they are not inherently notable as at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted (and I'm saying this as someone who is !voting keep on this one). LibStar (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough reliable and verifiable information exists for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Jesus christ, here we go again... This is a personal vendetta, isn't it? Just because an article deals with an esoteric topic does not mean it should be eliminated. Somebody did the work, it's done properly: VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, NPOV. It's sourced and properly footnoted. Case closed. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that this is even being discussed for deletion is a waste of time. Channel deletionist energy elsewhere, por favor. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personal vendetta? I don't think I've ever worked with you or the author of this article before. Your insinuation otherwise, aside from being wrong, is just rude

    Next, this (or WP:ANI#Canvassing for the current one) is the related ANI discussion that began with a complaint against Richard in a discussion like this. That also provides some background on the epic [14] battle that has been going on with these articles for about a year now. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations appears to be the closest anyone got to a standard.

    Finally, I naively thought this problem had been solved by merging content into the "Foreign relations of X" articles, which was what I thought the truce was back the fall of 2009. I guess I was wrong (and the vitriol above seems to confirm that). That's unfortunate because instead of discussing whether or not these relations meet notability, we're discussing a much larger meta-battle over some very entrenched ideas.

    I hope future [and past] commenters here will engage the actual argument about the sources, as Libstar did to me, and I responded (those are fair arguments; I'm not convinced, but it's a real discussion that's occurring). Shadowjams (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Bearian doesn't sound unduly incivil to me. I wouldn't have used the same words she/he did, but Bearian didn't call Yilloslime "stupid", "ignorant", or otherwise disparage her/his ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference. We need to allow some slack for lost tempers -- or all of us would be eventually banned permanently for what we write to trolls & other troublemakers. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you folks take a joke? First of all, I agree with Yilloslime. Secondly, I think the tone of the nominator was in fact uncivil. Thirdly, my references to CIVIL and NAM were so that people could step back a little while and get some perspective. Finally, my comment about assigning an essay is regarding how I'd respond in my classroom to such unprofessionalism. I may be pendantic, but I am never rude and rarely crass. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get the sense you were making a joke, and I'm pretty sure you're still calling my nomination uncivil, despite some quite reasonable opposition. I asked you about this objection days ago, you never responded to it. That's fine because you're responding here, but my above explanation was a part of that. Maybe it's that you don't like acronyms. My naivety [see above] response should explain that. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, and I've been called out on my mistakes before, but I don't think this is a mistake, especially when an administrator is canvassed, the canvasser is admonished, then the cycle repeats. I made a nomination that explains, has been supported by a number of long-standing editors, and while it may ultimately fail (I'll leave it to the closing admin to weigh the influx of bilateral relations editors), I have hardly badgered opposes, or done anything else uncivil. So no, I don't agree that I've been uncivil, nor do I appreciate you calling me that, nor do I think you're objective in this matter. So no, it's not a joke, and your attempt to backtrack is transparent to say the least. I'm not talking about my professional status here either, and I would never [I hope] use it to justify my position. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I'm just saying, as I did in my first response, that Darfur statements and normal relations will generate some news. Your link's first hit is to a shopping site, of which the link is dead. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the Google News results indicated that there is a lot going on, if one reads them. The Google Books results coughs up "In relation to the Sudan Norway has also played a high-profile role, primarily as a substantial provider of humanitarian aid, but also as an occasional participant in the peace process...", "Norwegian involvement in the Sudan would be an appreciation of the unique position of Norway in relation to that country...", "Norway played a substantial role in negotiating a peace agreement between the Sudan's North and South", "Sudan has had no official representation in the Scandinavian countries since the closure of its embassy in Stockholm, Sweden, and, until recently, relations with Norway were difficult, with Sudan accusing...". This constitutes exactly the sort of analysis by secondary sources lacking in other bilateral relations articles. Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another nonsensical synthesis of random facts to suggest that this is a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep , Substantial interactions and multiple references. What Stifle above calles "synthesis of random facts" is by all means not WP:SYN (no novel conclusion is reached), but it is the very stuff encyclopedias are made of: collection of sourced information from multiple sources in a coherent, structured fashion. --Cyclopiatalk 11:31, 25 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afflatus

[edit]
Afflatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion, this article is a violation of WP:NOT, because it's a definition of a word. It does not significantly expand on the content of the Wiktionary entry -[16]. The term "Romantic Afflatus" has been widely used, but I'm not sure whether it meets general inclusion requirements, and there's a good discussion of the concept at Artistic inspiration#Enlightenment and Romantic models. If "Romantic Afflatus" is a suitable topic for an article, it do not believe it should be under this title, because Cicero's one metaphorical use of the word "Afflatus" is a separate matter to the concept. Claritas (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around. It's a valuable link and a useful subject to be able to refer to. I suggest this is closed now as speedy kep.  Giacomo  20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the term and concept has been a bit out of fashion for a while. In fact, at some point between 1853 and 1911 it was dropped from Encyclopedia Britannica. But we don't have the space restrictions of a printed encyclopedia. Hans Adler 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Giacomo's "speedy keep", under the snowball clause. Articles about words that appear in Wiktionary should never come to AfD. If there's something encyclopaedic to say, we should say it, and if there isn't, then we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary. But with an article about a word, the one thing that we should never do is delete it and leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write an article. That's just creating a rod for our own backs, frankly. Also, in terms of standard Wikipedian guidelines, this is a speedy keep because it fails WP:BEFORE. WP:BEFORE says we can't delete material unless we've exhausted the alternatives to deletion. In this case, a soft redirect to Wiktionary is an alternative that we clearly haven't exhausted. So even if "Afflatus" isn't notable, I'm quite satisfied that this nomination has no chance of success.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SM's reasoning, and suggest we actually make a rule to that effect. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 18 May 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 prejudice against a redirect if anyone thinks there is a need for one, but there's nothing here to merge into the school's article. If anyone disagrees, the text will be happily provided on request. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsmead Community School and the Carnegie Award

[edit]
Kingsmead Community School and the Carnegie Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single literature award given by students in a single department at a single school. No claim in article that award is notable; award not mentioned in school article, so a redirect makes little sense. Previous prod by another editor contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 17 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giselle Lorimer

[edit]
Giselle Lorimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable BDSM author, published on a press of debatable notability (no website, no sources, recent declined prod). Single citation is WP:SPS page on Goodreads.com / edg ☺ ☭ 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's not much there, but if anyone wants a copy in their userspace, all you have to do is ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flutewise

[edit]
Flutewise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flutewise is indeed an organization for young flute players: you'll find that in the first four hits on google. Other than that, there's no indication that the group is notable, and as such I see little reason to keep it here. Suggest userfying until the article can get any relevant content at all. Two sentences just doesn't cut it, and I don't know where the third-party sources will come from (the person userfying it should determine that!). — Timneu22 · talk 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Host-proof hosting

[edit]
Host-proof hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Coatrack spam -- Clipperz∙com buzzphrase with no independent notability. Google hits on this topic all relate to Clipperz product Passpack, mostly promotional and support.

the term host-proof hosting that my colleagues and I take sole credit for. We do not claim ownership of the concept. I am certain that others had the same or similar ideas at around the same time that we did. I also take credit for publishing the first (as far as I know) articles that explored the possibilities afforded by AJAX for implementing a zero-footprint (i.e., pure Javascript, no plugins, applets, etc.) solution for browser-based crypto.
-- Talk:Host-proof_hosting#Comment_from_Richard_Schwartz

/ edg ☺ ☭ 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As well as the article looking a lot like WP:OR to me, I was put in a couple of edits to the "risks and vulnerabilities" section to try and get across the fact that the whole concept is inherently insecure. Moonradar (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's pretty obvious the concept has not been debated in any serious security publication. Your criticism however (a form of man-in-the-middle attack), although I agree with it, falls foul of WP:OR. Howerver, this situation also highlights the need for WP:N: without coverage in credibly independent sources, a wiki article is bound to uncritically just regurgitate some primary source, which may in not a good idea in some cases, e.g. wp:fringe. So, I tend to agree that wholesale deletion may be the best option here. Pcap ping 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a comment along your lines in the comments section of this [18] video talk by Nate Lawson (comment #8). Since he is a published security researcher, it could be used as source (allowable per WP:SPS). Pcap ping 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. There is one book that covers this at some length [19], and it's independent of the subject, but it's only one source, and it's an AJAX book, not a security book (not even an Ajax security book—there are some of those as well). After presenting the pattern, the book author also writes: "There are no public real-world examples to my knowledge." A WP:NPOV presentation is currently impossible without some WP:OR criticism, and the only source is not terribly reliable for discussing security matters. Update: Apparently, there is criticism that can be sourced to a security researcher, so maybe this should be kept and fixed. Pcap ping 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea of host-proof-hosting is so fundamentally flawed (as partially explained in the article itself) that it is no wonder that it is not published in any respectable security venue (or, for that matter, any security venue). The main idea of host-proof-hosting is for a website to send some Javascript to the browser. This Javascript encrypts some data using a password entered by the user. The declared purpose of HPH is to remove the requirement for the user having to trust the website with the data. However, the system not only fails to achieve this (it is the very website that provides the Javascript that receives both the data and the user's password and can do with them pretty much whatever it likes, i.e. whatever the website likes), but it actually introduces a new vulnerability that does not exist in the absence of HPH. Namely, now the website must be trusted with the user's password. User's that re-use passwords (or passphrases) therefore expose themselves to a greater extent that is the case without HPH. All these points are so ridiculously obvious that I do not understand why the article still survives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. As a comment on the technique, I'd also point out that if it were possible, it would be nigh useless, since the server wouldn't be able to do anything but store data for the user.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 1:38:23, 22 May 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. — Scientizzle 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora Movement of Kenya

[edit]
Diaspora Movement of Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence of independent coverage. This is a promotional page. Biruitorul Talk 15:39, 17 May 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 AfD filed under wrong article title. The title of this AfD refers to "Alexey Golobordko", while the actual article title is "Alexey Golobrodko". There is a correctly titled AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Golobrodko. (Note: My own "speedy keep" recommendation applied only to the non-reason submitted in this AfD, but is no longer applicable with respect to the correctly titled AfD where there is a legitimate nomination reason.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Golobrodko

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alexey Golobrodko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is very talented -----limited2fan 02:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limited2fan (talk • contribs) 2010/05/16 02:30:23

Apparently the same article is also being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Golobrodko; there some sources seem to have been found . Huon (talk) 17:01, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BulletProof FTP Server

[edit]
BulletProof FTP Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable FTP program. MBisanz talk 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ftp-software-review.toptenreviews.com

http://download.cnet.com/BulletProof-FTP-Server/3000-2160_4-10065912.html

There were a few references on google scholar as well. This is one of the oldest ftp software available. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 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 already deleted by User:Cirt. JForget 14:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
ERDB Entity Related Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, along with Xcelerix, were both created by the same account. It looks like these were created solely to promote the product. Now, there may indeed be some notability here, but these two new articles do nothing to indicate the importance of the topic. In any case, I can see no reason for both articles to exist. — Timneu22 · talk 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education institutes in sri lanka

[edit]
Higher education institutes in sri lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason to have a Higher education institutes in sri lanka that does not list universities, when there is a separate article on the subject. What I see is that this is an article created without refs to promote a certain group of companies that offer degrees from other universities. It is more of a advertisement than a encyclopedic article. Therefore I state it should be deleted. Cossde (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not represent any specific Higher education institutes in sri lanka. This is belongs to [[www.esoft.lk}]] personal IT institute . This is self promotional work using Wikipedia encyclopedia . I strongly nominate to delete this usefulness.wipe 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC);

Someone asked that very same question in the other listing!Mandsford 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sry that was my mistake. Cossde (talk) 17:05, 19 May 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 My Little Pony. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyville

[edit]
Ponyville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is insufficient secondary and third person sources to justify an article and this article seems to rely solely on primary sources therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:01, 16 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reese Joins the Army (1)

[edit]
Reese Joins the Army (1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TVEP. This article is unreferenced, there's no indication of how it meets notability guidelines. Most of the contents are a close paraphrase of [20]. Nothing in reliable sources found, and this may well be unverifiable. Claritas (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a redirect at Reese Joins the Army would be sensible, but the "(1)" makes this an extremely unlikely search term. Claritas (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't know the official name of the episode anyway. Some TV shows (dramas, documentaries, and cartoons, mostly) display a title as part of the opening credits, whereas most comedies, as a rule, don't do so. It doesn't appear that it is linked from any other article [21] except for the merge target (List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes). Mandsford 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- Uncited, no coverage, copyright issues [22]. Some of it is a total cut and copy copyright violation, this is in both.. Reese shows up in a white t-shirt. He explains to his instructor that he has traded some of his equipment for a gameboy and extra cartridges. The instructor punishes him by making do push-ups in the mud. Awful, delete, Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 24 May 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 wrong venue. See WP:TfD. Tim Song (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usher singles

[edit]
Template:Usher singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Left the {{Usher}} navbox with nothing in...--L.Geee 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work Management

[edit]
Work Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a WP:OR essay that is not an encyclopedic topic. This is not written from a neutral POV and it really just reads like a term paper. We need more reasons to speedily delete these, but they don't exist yet. — Timneu22 · talk 15:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; probably should have been G11. Only sources are from the article's author and link to his commercial site to sell the product pitched on the page (I've just removed this). Rough to find any other sources as the concept is fairly generic. Kuru (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with supervisor. There are probably other articles here about this topic but supervisor seems to be a good place to start. Whatever it's called, it is a highly notable topic. And, as Wikipedia is almost completely lacking in effective management, it would be good to improve our coverage of this field. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which information would be merged? I see nothing worth saving, because it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. — Timneu22 · talk 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created to advertise a product and is basically an essay. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Work Management is a strategy for planning and getting work done through people. The management of work is distributed through most people involved (not just managers).... Key components to be managed are:

    * People - doing the work and affected by the work (stakeholders),
    * Tasks – what needs to be achieved,
    * Actions – the work to complete tasks, and
    * Management processes –processes that make work flow

    Work management coordinates the dynamic relationships between the key components, so work gets done. Work management uses a distributed management paradigm and technology, rather than traditional manager centric approaches....

    If somebody I managed started to write like this, they'd be cleaning out their desk. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Comments

I have tried to incorporate the feedback provided so far. My goal was to provide a framework for others to contribute to an important area of management.

I agree that Wikipedia needs more on effective management. Before this article was submitted, when you searched on work management it linked to project management (that is only a small part of work management).

I believe that work management fills a hole in Wikipedia’s offering on management. Wikipedia has a lot of entries about emerging technologies (like the cloud and mobile devices), but not a lot about practical management methods to effectively exploit current and emerging technologies.

The fundamental difference between traditional top down management and work management is that work management is distributed and organic. As an analogy, traditional management methods are like the intensively managed Encyclopaedia Britannica approach and work management methods are like Wikipedia.

The original ideas for work management were developed 20 years ago, but the technologies required for implementation were not available. They are now available and leading managers are looking for a work management solution. It is a bit like flying. The ideas about how to fly were around for a long time before the technologies required to construct an aircraft were available.

The suggestion to merge work management into supervisor is not understood. Supervisors are an integral part of the traditional top down management approaches. The key to work management is that all levels of management (senior managers, managers and supervisors) plus people doing the work can all flexibly manage the work together in real-time.

I am keen to have a dialog and do what needs to be done to make this entry work, because I believe it will make a significant contribution to management knowledge and the way people work. Workmanager (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your username and the thesis-pushing style in which the article is written, there seems to be a clear WP:COI problem here. — Timneu22 · talk 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I have been working in the work management field for over 20 years. I would have thought that an entry by someone who understands the topic would be preferred by Wikipedia. The PhD was only mentioned as a reliable source of how long work management has been around. I have edited the entry to make it neutral. My desire is to put a stake in the ground for work management so others can think about it and improve the Wikipedia entry. --Workmanager (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. — Timneu22 · talk 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere DB120

[edit]
John Deere DB120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be blatant advertising (cost and productivity numbers) with absolutely no indication of why it is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I only gave it an article because it's the largest one in the world by far and probably will be for at least five years. I don't think anyone's gonna buy a third of a million dollar machine because of a wikipedia article that lists productivity. Just remove what you think is spam; I was surprised by it's coverage myself. Believe me; for a tractor related thing, a single internet, let alone a few internet sources is rare. It's fairly notable. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not blatant advertising, or even subtle advertising. Mentioning the retail price of a piece of agricultural equipment is encyclopedic, as it reflects on the economies of agricultural production. Notability claimed as the unit is the largest of its kind ever produced. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 17 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MD Rabbi Alam

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
MD Rabbi Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary web hits include Facebook and Twitter, and not many other sources of notability. Lack of notability is the primary reason for this AFD; this is almost a promotional article. Finally, this is a clear conflict of interest based on the username. — Timneu22 · talk 14:54, 17 May 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. — Scientizzle 02:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Anees-ul-Hasnain

[edit]
Allama Anees-ul-Hasnain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. Claims notability, but the claims are effectively unverifiable. For example, the Library of Congress doesn't carry any of the books he's supposed to have written. Has been deleted before under a different title, but is (if memory serves) sufficiently different to avoid speedy deletion as a repost. Was prodded, prod removed by author. Huon (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would please stop this childish behavior of yours, don't you have anything better to deal with? As per reliable sources the sources i have mentioned are reliable and since this article is a stub, i am currently working over it by providing further reliable sources. Even Before you couldn't stand this article and nominated it for speedy deletion yet again you are showing your true personal grudge against Shia related-stubs and articles. In this regard i have no other option left except for personally victimizing you and your related work. Stop being biased i know you can't stand this mire reality.SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the matter is now settled and the Deletion message on the page should me removed and we should continue by further improving the article. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the matter isn't settled yet. AfD runs for seven days, maybe longer if consensus isn't established by then. Please refrain from removing the deletion message until then. You can, of course, continue to improve the article, and in my opinion it needs such improvement in order to be kept. I'm still not convinced by its sources. We have:
    1. Two websites that look like local community efforts, hardly satisfying WP:RS. One lists the name without any additional information whatsoever, the other actually is about Husnain, but it's in Urdu and thus unhelpful for the vast majority of our readers. (By the way, the Urdu Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Husnain.)
    2. A newspaper article which mentions him as a Shia scholar in connection with Muhammad Ali Jinnah's burial. A reliable source, but a passing mention at best.
    3. Two blogs, one of which actually mentions Husnain. It refers to the author of the newspaper article and rehashes the information given there.
    4. Some sort of encyclopedia that only mentions Husnain in a "possibly related" section and refers back to Wikipedia.
None of those, nor all combined, suffice to satisfy the general notability guideline, which requires a topic to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Huon (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well instead of criticizing my effort you can kindly help me with further improving the article. I don't accept that your claims regarding insufficient sources. All these sources are not self made, they are all independent neutral sources. I don't understand why are you the only one against this article why not others? What makes me feel is that you are inparticularly victimizing me, and since this respective personality is supporting the claim for being a witness to Jinnah's funeral prayers according to Shia rituals along with Yusuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, Aftab Hatim Alvi and Liaquat Ali Khan. Hence you want to Diminish this fact like an ignorant lad, like you have done before. I hope the respective admin settles the stubs so that i can continue by further editing the article. It needs time, please stop criticizing help me improving the content. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. There's just not enough information available about this person to be able to judge his notability. Considering that he lived before the internet age, I thought there might be something in Google Books, but there was not a single hit - either with or without the title "Allama". Granted, there may be sources in Urdu, but if so you would think he would have an entry in the Urdu wikipedia. BTW SyedNaqvi, you are not helping your case with your nasty attacks on the nominator and your constantly begging other people to "improve the article". If there are no reliable sources to verify what is said or to establish notability, there is nothing we (or you) can do to "improve the article", it will simply have to go. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I can find in Google books and Google news archive (under the spelling "Allama Syed Anisul Husnain") was the pointless anecdote already described in the article that he ran someone's funeral properly. That's far from enough for WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 22 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Jerak

[edit]
Ivica Jerak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Not notable, fails WP:MILPEOPLE. He has not won the MOH, nor multiple DSCs, nor was he a flag officer, nor high-level command, did not play a significant role in a significant military event, has not made a material contribution to military science, nor has he been recognized by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters. While I salute his service, he was a soldier who has only 1 Bronze Star for valor (the other 3 are for service). See WP:NOTMEMORIAL GregJackP (talk) 14:12, 17 May 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 Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovaks in Hungary

[edit]
Slovaks in Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. This article was userfied which I have now had reversed as I follow the views expressed in WP:Userfication that userfication amounts to deletion and so should only be done when deletion would be appropiate and as no speedy delete criteria apply I don't believe it is in this case. Now bringing here to get views on whether this should be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Participants may be interested in the discussions here and here. I'll also note that the creator of the article is indef blocked and cannot speak here for his article: someone may want to transfer any comments he may have on his talk page. Finally, the nominator does not seem to have notified the article's creator of the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right I hadn't yet got round to notifying people. Now done. Dpmuk (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing it from scratch would be easier I took a quick look at it, but it's awful. For example the user added what appears to be a 1915 reader letter to the NYT as a "source". The topic itself is relevant though, writing a new article would be easier than dealing with this mess. Squash Racket (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped notices on the talk pages of WikiProject Slovakia and WikiProject Hungary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. Whether the subject is possible to cover within our policies or not, this article, a monograph, fails WP:SYN and WP:RS, plus almost certainly WP:NPOV (as tagged) after a second read-through, and is also in very poor English right from the outset - "Slovaks in present day Hungary are hangover of multiethnical Hungarian Kingdom". It was userfied to allow the author to repair these issues but it has been moved back to mainspace. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(I changed this from my original vote Userfy after seeing it was already done once before and moved back) This is the best solution right now. There is no prejudice against the notability of the topic and it removes the article from mainspace in it's current form. The topic is notable but a scope should be set also. Should it focus on more on present day, or be a history focused one etc. So a delete without prejudice towards the topic/userfy seems the best option here. Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy, it's badly written but the topic seems reasonable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have no problem with a userfy close. I'm just of the opinion that userfication should occur after an AfD not before hence the reason I restored it to main space. As the creator is currently blocked it would seem pointless to userify there but the other edit involved may want it userified although they've yet to comment. Dpmuk (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The author of the article has been indef blocked. Pcap ping 15:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate or delete. There's no point in userfying this, because its author can no longer work on it here. The article is written in badly broken English, so it's hard to follow. Given the ethnic slurs that its author liberally used, POV is an obvious issue. The topic is potentially encyclopedic, but the current contents is not. Moving it to the WP:INCUBATOR might be a good idea. If nobody else is willing to work on it, just delete. Pcap ping 15:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating a harmless stub? Slovaks are one of the largest minorities in Hungary.European Commission --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, if no one objects be bold and strip it down. We can come back later and pull anything salvagable from the history. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:21, 17 May 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. following the request of the single author. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Renewal Therapy

[edit]
Evangelical Renewal Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy tag but believe the article is unencyclopedic, and the term is a neologism. Would need a fundamental rewrite, mostly because it is not about the therapy itself but about the paper on the therapy. The references are: Two passing mentions, one listing in a large bibliography, the paper itself, and a further proof that the paper exists. Not sufficiently notable as a topic. Pgallert (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This article is written about a topic and/or is research by Patrick Saucer. Patrick Saucer also wrote the article. Clearly this is WP:COI. Also, this article reads like an essay, is clearly WP:POV, and comes to conclusions (repentance is achieved through...). This is not an encyclopedic article now, and written by the author himself, is unlikely to become one. I do not even know if the title of the article is valid in the mainstream study, or if it was coined by the author. Essays like this should fall under some CSD; I wish they would. — Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. This actually gets seven Google Scholar hits. One is for a report by the author; others seem to be citing that work, and as is usual in Scholar hits its hard to judge the depth of coverage. Not yet convinced that this is significant enough to count as a notable theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The rules do not prevent the author of research which has been published in peer reviewed journals to create a neutral page on that topic. When an academic article is listed in a bibliographic section of another academic paper, it means that it was mentioned in the article. Entriles are not placed in bibliographic sections as filler items. Citation means that the material is considered as having some value. Although ERT has fewer citations that other recognized forms of Christian psychotherapy, it has miminal acceptance in the field of Christian Psychotherapy. No negative articles have been published against ERT. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: all edits by this user have been about this topic, even if only to add the text "including religous counseling" to pages. — Timneu22 · talk 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one says your paper has no value. You will however notice the absence of, say, a few million Wikipedia articles on other valuable scientific contributions. Every scientist has a list of published papers, every scientist has to some extent developed new terminology. To conclude that your theory has "miminal acceptance" because it has not been refuted is adventurous -- on the contrary: If someone wrote an article against ERT, that would indicate its importance. --Pgallert (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the subject matter, size, and format of the ERT article is similar to that of Nouthetic Counseling, I find that the criteria for deleting the ERT to be capricious and not applied equally. Allowing Nouthetic Counseling to remain while allowing ERT to be deleted shows a pov bias. The Nouthetic Counseling is more of a neologism than ERT. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like an editor proded Nouthetic Counseling and that an IP editor removed the prod. Regardless, that other stuff exists is not reason to keep this article. But it might be a reason for a separate AfD for that one, or a reason to include Nouthetic Counseling in this AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request As the author of this page, I am requesting that it be immedately deleted as I am unable to rectify the problems listed above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:49, 19 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns and Hymn Tunes – "Marriages"

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hymns and Hymn Tunes – "Marriages" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an absolute essay, pure WP:OR, and not written in the style of an encyclopedic article. I am unable to find any appropriate title for an article written like this, and keeping this title as a redirect is clearly the wrong thing to do, as the article title now would never be used in a search. I suggested right away to the editor that userfying is the right thing to do, but I forgot about this article until now. We don't have WP:CSD reasons to speedily delete essays, as I tried with this one, but there is a discussion to add some. — Timneu22 · talk 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The term, "marriages" needs clarifying; I have added a paragraph explaining, "Why the term, 'marriages"?" hopefully to explain the significance it embodies.

Wikipedia has its article on "Hymn" which is valid for obvious reasons. It is definitely long enough without a new identifiable independent factor added to it. There is now an article on "Hymn tune," and the important independence of the two has only recently been acknowledged by Wikipedia articles. The third factor, which I regard as of great importance, is how the hymn and the hymn tune two come to be linked together. The term frequently used to describe the linking process, is "marrying" or "wedding" the two. The term crops up in research materials relevant to hymns, tunes, hymnals, hymody, hymnology, etc. The parallel to marriage is apt, but using the term has confused some to think of "wedding music." Consequently, a paragraph explaining why the term is introduced in the article will help aim readers in the right direction, and hopefully prepare them to recognize the term when they do further research on the subject.

Please Note: Wikipedia has over 60 hymnals identified for future articles. "Hymns," "Hymn Tunes," and "Hymns and Hymn Tunes - "Marriages" are subjects vital to all 60 of those articles. Rather than burying the diligent work of editors of all those books, I would say it is best to put these three facets of hymnody right out front where the layman, not already familiar with or thinking about what the editors of those books do, will gain insight into their work through the focus on this aspect of what's on his hymnal's pages.

When you sing hymns, consider the great significance not just of the text/words/hymn, not just of the tune/melody, but also of how well they fit together, how well they support each other, how they enable the Christian to SING his praises, as instructed in the Bible. And think, too, of HOW text and tune got together, of WHO found them, evaluated them, saw the rightness of how they fit together, and then put them together in a hymnal. It's a third factor behind what's on the hymnal page.... And it's undoubtedly behind the success or failure of what's on the page....Hymnlover (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-18-10[reply]

  • Keep and retitle. A notable concept, and there are other general concepts in this field that could well be discussed similarly. there's an immense literature. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What an incredible instance of original research. Articles for deletion is about articles not topics. Even if DGG would re-create the article in a fantastically sourced version, it wouldn't have this name, nor would it involve this text. None of this appears to meet notability. Really. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely curious about what part of the article you consider to be original research? Most of it looks attributed or attributable to me. Thparkth (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment made on the Discussion page of the article discusses the validity of this article. Ths use of hymnals is widespread; this is an insight into the work of editors. It describes an important aspect of "Hymns" and "Hymn tunes," relates to both and is independent of either one. Please see the "Dicussion" at Hymns and Hymn tunes - "Marriages". Hymnlover (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-21-10[reply]

  • Note: I think the bottom line is that some of the information here is legit, but there are so many things wrong with this (starting with the title). This article definitely needs to be scrapped, and anything relevant should be in Hymn, Hymn tune, or Hymnal; and/or much of those need to be merged. My opinion is that hymn, hymn tune, and this article should be reviewed and merged, while hymnal would remain its own article (as the topic "hymnal" is about collections of hymns, not about the hymns themselves). — Timneu22 · talk 15:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research/essay. The process of matching words with tunes to create a hymn may be a skill of interest, but it should be a section within Hymn. Anyhow, there is no way anyone would figure out from the article title that this is what the article is about. Personally when I saw this title I was going suggest changing it to List of hymns about marriage. Shall we say, it's an example of a poor marriage of words to intended meaning? --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 22 May 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. — Scientizzle 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goal 4

[edit]
Goal 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Movie not yet officially announced, no verifiable information available, no reliable sources found, not listed in IMDB. Fails to meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF Jarkeld (talk) 12:01, 17 May 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. — Scientizzle 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morpeth RFC

[edit]
Morpeth RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 UtherSRG (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar networking

[edit]
Solar networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a deliberate hoax. It purports to be about transmission of data by "controlled modulation of global solar radiation", but the references say nothing about that. They are about (1) use of a neural network to predict the amount of solar radiation, (2) monitoring the amount of solar radiation, (3) research on the effect of radiation on primates, and (4) plans for a network of monitoring stations to measure surface radiation. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 17 May 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. WP:CSD#G4 by Athaenara (talk · contribs) - repost of deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon lukas woodenman. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon lukas woodenman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jon lukas woodenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely sure how notable this guy is; the article has an extensive list of networking sites and little else. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind. It falls under G6. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:12, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Danger

[edit]
Empire of Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • for deletion/Empire of Danger|2=AfD statistics}})
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. These Eric Shook films are popping up after the articles about the filmmaker and his production company have already been deleted for lack of notability. This film was made for $100,000 and has no box office information at imdb. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment What do you want? Please be specific there are legitimate news paper articles listed on the page, websites as well. I checked Wikipedia and they state News paper articles are legitimate, so I posted them. Will you please tell me what would make you happy and I will locate it if I can. I am unsure what you are after, if you would just tell me, but be specific, it might help.

Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Everard proudfoot put a deletion tag on the page, after he deleted my secondary proof on the page. I had to re edit the page and put the news paper articles back on the page after he removed them. I think he is abusive to other users. One thing I have noticed is he will not be specific about information he wants, he automatically starts putting delete messages on your hard work pages you created. He has been harassing me from day one with threats of deletions. I was trying to add this movie for a friend, but never thought in a million years other users could be so mean. If they would have contacted me with their concerns I would have fixed any problems they had and a simple welcome to the site would have been nice as well. I am new here.

Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What secondary proof? I don't remember having deleted anything. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than my addition of the afd template, the only edit I made to the article was this one, reverting the vandalism involved in removing the afd template. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if we want to start throwing around accusations, perhaps you can explain this? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you asccusation of my having been harrassing you from day one is also not true. You've been here since March, my first edits and interactions with you were two days ago. There were several other editors interacting with you explaining why all of your Eric Shook and Westfield articles were going to be deleted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you send this to me? I asked you not to harass me and you send a threatening notice to me. These notices are used for legitimate reasons, like profanity, hate letters that sort of thing which I have done none of these things. You asked me a questions and I simply replied back to you, then I asked you for assistance about your concerns with this article. I do not understand your threats; there is no need to be hostile here. I am just trying to correct your concerns peacefully about these two articles. I delete a lot of stuff, I changed my mind, haven’t you ever changed your mind about something? No big deal to me I don’t like something I posted, so I delete it. Why is it a big deal to you? Why wont you tell me what you want, so we can straighten this article thing out. What are you looking for that would constitute legitimate?

Thanks kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold on I apologize for saying Proud foot deliberately removed the resources and that was wrong of me without solid proof to make that statement. I can only hope he works with me to solve these article problems rather than request to delete the articles. I correct my statement by saying the new resources I put up were removed right after he put up another deletion notice, anyone could have removed it after that. I hope that someone will help work out a solution to keep the articles rather than attack me for my ignorance how to use this site. If the articles can’t be redirected or some other alternate solution discovered, then I accept the deletion. I only hope that you see that independent movies without million dollar budgets and revenue should have a place on this website and help me find a place for it. The two news articles I posted from the Times courier are a professional solid news agencies with over fifty years in the business, with ties from Decatur Illinois to Chicago Illinois news agencies. I think they deserve the respect that they are a legitimate news organization. If you’re debating this movie should not be included because it didn’t make millions of dollars, or how many people watched them than this would be an injustice to the true core of any movie. There’s no scale to follow how many have to watch a particular movie to make it notable or not, both of these movies where notable to some extent maybe not by millions, but thousands possibly. I have provided legitimate news articles from reliable sources Times courier, listings from IMDB, the Mars Society among other, all which are notable in their own right. There comes to a point though where you can’t satisfy being listed in every news paper and company article to satisfy everyone. I truly hope you reconsider deleting these articles.

comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user edited and not a reliable source, nor are inclusions in directories a sign of notability. IMDB lists all movies ever made. Also, the Mars Society in the article is not the national society, it is a single branch in a single city and the page listed is not a review, nor significant coverage, it is a listing of titles they watched on movie nights. I'd urge you to read WP:NF and WP:N to understand why the film is not notable. Time Courier is a reliable source, no one has disputed that, but the articles are local pieces on a local person who happened to be in the films. That does not confer notability on the film nor her (anymore than a story about a business in its local paper makes the business notable). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: IMDB is not "user edited", as users do not have access to the IMDB database editing tools. While certainly anyone can "submit" information which then goes through some sort of vetting process by IMDB staffers, it is the IMDB staffers themselves who are the ones with access to the database editing tools. The staffers are the ones doing the editing... based upon the information submited and the IMDB vetting processes. That said however, simply being listed in the database, no matter how the information got there, does not impart any notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I see little credibility with any of these sites that I found as references to a Mission to mars articale from this site. There is synopsis of the movies, reviews, etc, nothing too much different than the references I posted on my articles. What’s the difference other than they spent millions to make it? I see no well known news articles from the New York Times posted. Also they listed rotten tomatoes as a source and so did I but it was moved down on my page like it wasn’t accepted. I am not trying to make anyone mad, but I am trying to show my stuff I have post should count as credibility if the stuff below count as a creditable news sources. These links are the references to the movie Mission to Mars that I looked up from this site. Thanks for all the help, theres an awful lot of stuff to read here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_mars comment added by Sholun

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=missiontomars.htm http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_to_mars/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Dillon http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/cahiers.html http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_3 http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5176/year/2000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars‎. It seems pointless to continue just copy/pasting responses between these two AfDs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll cut-n-paste... for emphasis.
  • Delete and userfy if requested. I made the article prettier... I converted the Wilipedia in-line cites to Wikilinks... I placed the two local news articles into proper ref format... but the majority of the text cannot be properly soucred, and there is no coverage of this film after March 24, 2003. While yes, it exists, and yes it is being distributed... not of the usual sources do anything but repeat what is on IMDB or the production's website. To User:Sholun... all you have shown us is that Mission to Mars has the coverage and notability that Lost on Mars does not. Find us some more coverage of THIS film that is not in blogs or self-published websites. Show us proof that it has screened at a festival anytime after 2009. Show us that schools have included it in the sylabus. Something. Please. Show us how it meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. Struck my delete. See rationale below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Blogs or self-published websites I already did that, try going to the page and look at the bottom of the page. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier. I see no self published, or blogs from me, what are you talking about? Why would it go to a festival, it was made in 2004 why would someone send it to a festvial after 2009? That makes no sense to me, I don't even think a festival would allow it since it was made in 2004. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... being "re-screened" at a sci-fi festival five years after initial release could indeed give a consideration toward notability.. as yes, many films do have life on the festival circuit that makes them notable. And yes... I went through proffered sources (again) just as you requested. Rotten Tomatoes is a listing that proves its existance, but the listing lacks any comentary about the film. IMDB is a more compete listing. It might verify the film but being listed in IMDB does not impart any notability. SFF World shows viewer submitted comments. I09 has a brief review of Lost on Mars but only refers to this film by saying "Turns out there's a sequel, and they're both coming out on DVD soon." It does not even use this film's name. Vidoeta is simply a listing. The Mars Society simply lists a brief sysnopsis twice on their "Mars Movie Guide". No coverage or commentary. The only two sources that work toward notability are the 2002 and 2003 articles in the local Journal gazette and Times courier, and they are less about the film than about a local actress IN the film. Believe me, I have no bias here, as I bend over backwards to improve articles whenever I can. I urge you to more carefuly review WP:NF#General principles and WP:NF#Other evidence of notability and WP:RS. With what's available out there currently, this film fails. And I am sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reply is at Lost on Mars AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [23] is a coverage of it. There are four articles total concerning the film from that one news source. [24] The article needs to be rewritten, of course, but bad quality is not a reason to delete it. Dream Focus 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To nominator, yes it is on IMDB, although I don't see what that matters or not. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518195/ Spike television and others have it. [25] Notable television channels have played it. Dream Focus 11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the big point - it has NO significant coverage in reliable sources. So what sources, specifically, do you claim will establish that the film is notable when none appear to exist? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per at least 4 articles found dealing with the film: [26], [27], [28], and [29]. I have struck my "delete" above. While the author's arguments are obviously being made by someone totally unversed in WP:RS, there are reliable sources that deal with the film... either directly or as part of their context. However, I my "keep" is "weak" because of the local nature of the coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has the same problem as with the other, those are local articles about a local film maker, and the creator is basically a younger brother proud of his big sister for being in the films[30] Local coverage of local folks does not, by itself, give the film notability, and that is all this film has - the local paper talking about its citizens. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael that's not significant coverage of the film, since it's all from the same website. Also, this: "Director James Cameron’s Aliens for instance, proves that it can be a success to make a sequel. Not to say Empire of Danger comes close to an excellent film like Aliens, but you have to remember that Empire of Danger didn’t have a million dollars to back the production." Of course that can be fixed/removed, but the COI is obvious here. Some people may be able to write a neutral article on something close to them, but this brother simply can't. Mike Allen 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: so we cannot find many google hits right now. So what about 7 or 8 years ago because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. This is the problem with articles about older movies. Sources get harder to find, but that does not mean that they are not out there. We should at least spend a little extra time looking for sources before deleting the article, because notability does not degrade over time. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not operate on that concept. There is a difference between sources not existing and their being difficult to find. In this case, they simply don't exist beyond the local paper coverage. We don't keep articles around that have no demonstrable notability just in case a source ever appears. Any editor always has the option of requesting the article be put in their user space to go search for sources at their leisure, but at this point no one has provided any demonstrable evidence that there is even a likelihood of sources exists. So why spend "extra time" on a pointless exercise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to read down the line tonight at some of the comments and I saw Schmidt gave a weak keep. Thank you for re-considering and giving some hope. I appreciate it more than you will ever imagine. I am looking for other news articles on Google, but you guys are right they have probably been deleted over the years and they are hard to find. Dream Focus found this one http://media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2003/04/18/TheVerge/Eastern.Students.Star.In.Movies.Filmed.In.EastCentral.Illinois-420928.shtml and I didn’t even know it existed.

I have a question why is it when I log in it takes me to a page, but when I go to another page it automatically always logs me out. I can’t stay logged in for some reason, so my signature is always messed up. It doesn’t say Sholun when I hit signature above. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a local source (again). For the log in issue, have you made sure your browser has cookies enabled? It sounds like it isn't letting your browse keep them.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 24 May 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 per WP:A7 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Memories: My Year Abroad

[edit]
Vancouver Memories: My Year Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 06:16, 17 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Orlando Omar Ibrahim

[edit]
Kamal Orlando Omar Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected autobiographical article about a Irish Nigerian Catholic who became Mr World in March of this year. Far too much cruft to be of any use, and that appears to be his only claim to significance, that and the fact that he's "trying" to break into TV, and works as a rep for Miss World. Also written in the form of an essay - in short, appears totally irrelevant and not suitable for inclusion due to notability (CSD under A7 already declined by non admin). BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 01:30, 17 May 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. If anyone wants the text to make a list article, just let me know. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOTC Legacy

[edit]
KOTC Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is merely a reporting of results at an MMA event. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." There is nothing about this event that passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. This is the same exact discussion as had been previously held on KOTC events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOTC_Vengence

I don't want to get into all of that again (I spent enough time in the previous discussions, but if a list of past KOTC events is appropriate....doesn't it make sense that someone should be able to find out the results of those events? I thought that is what this website was all about. GUHoyas95 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:N is pretty clear. As for getting results, I'd assume the KOTC home page would have them. If the organization doesn't list them, they sure can't be notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. If they do list them, then there's no need to be on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's place to be a web host. A list of the events may be appropriate under the KOTC entry, but giving every result is not. Papaursa (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website absolutely lists results....but I guess I just disagree that if information is available elsewhere it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Again, you and I had this same argument months ago at which time I stated that I would continue to work on the KOTC pages and give results. I enjoy it and think it is worthwhile. I will say the same thing now as I did then, if I am allowed to continue I will, if not I won't. GUHoyas95 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at will - GUHoyas95, see this page - the "Other stuff exists" argument for opposing an AfD doesn't bode well. Just because one thing is here, another similar thing may be not worthy of inclusion. As it is, I agree completely with Papaursa, if the website for the KOTC don't list the results, why should we? Get the incinerator out, I smell an article burning coming on :) BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that just because something is listed elsewhere doesn't mean it can't be on Wikipedia. However, I also agree that WP:N is clear and that this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. I suppose we could go back and revisit the KOTC Vengeance article. Astudent0 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Enjoy your little club. GUHoyas95 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 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. per nomination withdrawal JForget 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major football rivalries

[edit]
Major football rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Major football rivalries what does that mean? 0 inclusion criteria. What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn for now as at least one user is making a serious attempt to define the scope of this article here . I'd suggest all who support keeping this article join this discussion . Note while I've withdrawn this nomination for now if there is no improvement in a short time I will renominate Gnevin (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not entirely against this but I would need to see some inclusion criteria before supporting it. I mean the 2 local pubs teams in my area have a nice friendly rivalry going Gnevin (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of inclusion criteria is not a reason to delete; you can discuss on the article talk page. The main inclusion criteria on WP however is simple: if it's sourced, it goes in. --Cyclopiatalk 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information aka lack of inclusion criteria is a reason for deletion Gnevin (talk)
No. This only means that the list ought to have inclusion criteria. It doesn't mean that the topic of the list is not notable or not worth an article -it only means that, to comply with WP:NOT, we have to discuss what is the inclusion criteria. But in this case it is extremly simple to get a first objective inclusion criteria: being featured in WP:RS. So, no indiscriminate collection. --Cyclopiatalk 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is nearly 200 KB long. Ridiculous! If this article isn't deleted, it absolutely needs some sort of discerning inclusion criteria to prevent it from being so long. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with perhaps a rename and a pruning. Very notable topic (just look at a gscholar or gbooks search). If the article got away from just being a list of different rivalries with more of an exploration of the topic in general then it would probably be better, but I do not see a reason to delete. Quantpole (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is to be kept it obviously needs some clear inclusion criteria. However, what I would suggest is restructure this article to be about football rivalries in general, commonalities between rivalries, how they originated, that sort of thing, and then move the content from the article, with some rewritting to make it more NPOV, to regionalised lists, sorted either by country or by content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Notable topic which can be well referenced -see for example a full article here about the Milan-Juventus rivalry. The article must be pruned of a bit of OR and POV, and about inclusion criteria, well, I'd say we can stick to the ones that can be referenced. --Cyclopiatalk 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify inculsion criteria. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I echo the calls for an inclusion criteria. I tried cleaning up this article 2 or 3 years ago, sources for everything in it, but since then it has expanded with every perceived rivalry you could imagine. It's so frustrating when there's over 100 references in the article already, but when people add their content they don't want to tell you where they get the information from. Stop the bloat, trim the fat, sharpen the focus! --Bill (talk|contribs) 22:14, 21 May 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. If anyone wants the text to make a list article, just let me know. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOTC Bad Boys II

[edit]
KOTC Bad Boys II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is merely a reporting of results at an MMA event. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." There is nothing about this event that passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. This is the same exact discussion as had been previously held on KOTC events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOTC_Vengence

I don't want to get into all of that again (I spent enough time in the previous discussions, but if a list of past KOTC events is appropriate....doesn't it make sense that someone should be able to find out the results of those events? I thought that is what this website was all about. GUHoyas95 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:N is pretty clear. As for getting results, I'd assume the KOTC home page would have them. If the organization doesn't list them, they sure can't be notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. If they do list them, then there's no need to be on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's place to be a web host. A list of the events may be appropriate under the KOTC entry, but giving every result is not. Papaursa (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website absolutely lists results....but I guess I just disagree that if information is available elsewhere it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Again, you and I had this same argument months ago at which time I stated that I would continue to work on the KOTC pages and give results. I enjoy it and think it is worthwhile. I will say the same thing now as I did then, if I am allowed to continue I will, if not I won't. GUHoyas95 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 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. Sufficient sources could not be found to demonstrate notability. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Broderick

[edit]
Lee Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. Has not received attention from reliable independent sources except locally (Liverpool)." Contested, article improved but not by tackling the main point of sourcing. There are no Google News hits for him[31], and only some 200 distinct Google hits. He doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has he received "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" for this? Fram (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 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 deletion rationale in three weeks other then the nom JForget 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Frost

[edit]
Sarah Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, no substantial coverage in reliable sources just a couple of credit listings at IMDb and Yahoo! TV. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sorry, I should have checked, I used Twinkle. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that you add some substantial coverage from reliable sources then? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might. In the meantime, while she does seem to be weak on WP:ARTIST, she had her hands in a number of notable shows. If she were a voice actor rather than an "invisible" creator, she would pass WP:ENT, for example. I would prefer to keep. - BalthCat (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 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 Thabal chongba per nom (and as it is already redirected, but for the AFD tag)). No need to futz for another 7 days, consensus seems clear and it's a simple thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoubal Chongba

[edit]
Thoubal Chongba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reforming the AFD article to come through on the listing. Original text is "The title of the article should be Thabal Chongba. This is a simple typo on the article's creator's part. There is already an article with the correct title to which this one redirects()Thabal Chongba". I have no opinion on the matter and register as neutral, I'm just doing cleanup. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artifakt (band)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Artifakt (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. A previous deletion discussion in 2008 was inconclusive, but I can't even find the coverage discussed there. Annalise (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2

[edit]
Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability shown for this compilation album. having a bunch of notable artists does not make a compilation notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. prod removed saying "This is a ridiculous delete IMHO - Kitsuné are a reputable label and the artists involved are, in most cases, noteworthy (as expected for a compilation album)." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the next compilation in the series for the same reason:

Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) duffbeerforme (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated when I removed the prod notification I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article, the established notability of the artists involved in the creation of the compilation combined with the Wiki verified notability of the label that released/created the compilation warrant its inclusion. Compilations like this by their very nature aren't going to be easily verified through the internet, they're from a time period when internet coverage for this kind of release was scarce, that doesn't mean they moved less units or involved artists less important than a comparative release which would warrant inclusion today; infact, it's probably the opposite. It's been categorized correctly and fits within the confines of that categorization well - perhaps a less destructive move on your part Duff would have been attempting to source the article rather than prod marking? Stevezimmy (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited. stuff from 2006 not written about on the internet? fitting in a category is far from a reason to keep (I'm a living person, we have a category for that). and discuss the subject, not the editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, re time period I thought it was 96, not 2006. Regardless my other points stand; notability of artists/record label/international distribution/presence on amazon, torrent sites, etc. indicates it's a popular release. You are a person and quite obviously you are allowed on Wikipedia, is there a prod marker I can put on you? Stevezimmy (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the regular prod, but I will remove it before I get deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS, albums normally should have the same level of sourcing expected for films/video games or pretty much anything else. Since this is a compilation, not an artist album, it's even more important that it's sourced with significant secondary coverage. I couldn't find any such sources, none have been presented since the article's creation. Someoneanother 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 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. Existence is not notability. I've looked at every link provided in this debate, and not one of them satisfies the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish Mr. DiMuccio's notability. This is a discussion, not a vote, and I find the arguments in favour of deletion much more convincing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian DiMuccio

[edit]
Brian DiMuccio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion because "This writer hasn't received any attention and fails WP:BIO. he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it." Contested without improvements or reason in edit summary. 66 distinct Google hits for name plus ScriptGirl[32], no Google News hits for same search.[33] Fram (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No awards or honors to indicate that his writing work has distinguished him as a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I heard this writer speak at a SXSW Festival panel. He worked with Cameron creating online content for AVATAR [34] This alone makes him notable in my book. Also, I don't understand "is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it" entry when 5 other feature writing credits easily verifiable on IMDB [35] His film The Demolitionist is a cult classic and was directed by frequent Quentin Tarantino collaborator Robert Kurtzman. I also found this animated webseries he wrote for feature film HITMAN [36] --Sophiashredder (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Sophiashredder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - A quick addendum...still baffled as to why this entry tagged for deletion. I followed several links that clearly establish DiMuccio as writer/producer of ScriptGirl show and co-writer of Questionable Advice Column in Script Magazine. He certainly seems to be a writer of some influence. As for his feature films not having garnered awards or honors, that is certainly not the only criterion by which artistic endeavors are judged worthy...as reflected by the bodies of work reflected on countless wiki bio entries. --Sophiashredder —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The claim that "....he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it" is patently false. Period. Dimuccio is clearly credited on the films listed on IMDB [37] I've seen Voodoo, Little Witches and Moonbase and his name is correctly listed. The wiki article also provides a link to a Yankee Pot Roast article on the creation of Script Girl [38] and credits Dimuccio and Dino Vindeni. Not sure what all the controversy is - if you don't believe Brian Dimuccio didn't write these films, prove it. You can't just make these wild claims and run off. If Brian Dimuccio and Dino Vindeni didn't write these films, back it up. Syoungs (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Syoungs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]
    • Comment - Nobody is disputing that he has the listed writing credits. What is needed is significant coverage about him. So far, all we have is apssing mentions and credit lists. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree. Fram was clearly disputing the writer's credits. I think the verifiable credits and the body of work they represent are suitably notable for inclusion here. The notion that "coverage" equals "significance" is hugely depressing. By that standard, Paris Hilton is the most significant human being of the 21st century. No thank you. --SophiashredderSophiashredder (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All that is being presented are writing credits. Nobody is disputing that he has done work. What is needed is to establish that he is notable by Wikipedia guidelines. This can be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources. A link to Youtube that shows a writing credit is not significant coverage. Having writing credits listed in IMDB is not significant coverage. The nomination for an award for one of the film he wrote is not a writing award, and a check of the nominees shows a list so long it looks like every film shown in the film festival was "nominated". -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sadly the above comment reflects an all too common but nonetheless disturbing bias against writers. Why, if "Little Witches" (one of the films that Mr. DiMuccio penned) and its cast all have wiki entries, shouldn't the creator of said material also be noted? There is a disheartening trend, regarding entertainment bio articles, of kow-towing to the almighty actor. How else can one explain the fact that no less than 29(!!!) ACTORS from that brilliant piece of filmmaking "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" have personal wiki bio entries? I've never heard of most of them, yet I don't see anyone clamoring for deletion of their articles. Perhaps the above user would be good enough to provide proof that all 29 are notable by Wikipedia guidelines as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources? Failing that, I would hope he or she would come to realize that Mr. DiMuccio's body of work, though perhaps not to his or her personal taste, is demonstrably significant enough for inclusion here.Sophiashredder (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And in regard to the YouTube link [44] to the Avatar short that I included days ago and someone else reposted: I stand by my initial assertion that being the only writer other than James Cameron himself to have written for the characters of the top-grossing worldwide release of all time makes Mr. DiMuccio notable by ANY reasonable guidlines.Sophiashredder (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - For any other editors reviewing this, the writing credit is not for Avatar, the movie, but rather for a 1 minute 33 second character spotlight clip. And the assertion of the above editor that "the only writer other than James Cameron himself to have written for the characters" appears to be contradicted by the very clip referenced as it gives writing credit to another writer as well. In any case, none of this is relevant as all that this proves is that he was hired to do some writing for supplementary material. -- Whpq (talk) 11:07, 23 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should have been a delete. I omitted to account for the fact that two keep recommendations were from IPs, probably the same person, and a third was from a new user. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JC Crissey

[edit]
JC Crissey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed for deletion because "No evidence that he is in any way notable. Co-producer for four movies, none of them partuclarly notable in themselves. No good sources could be found through Google News or Books, and not that many through regular Google search either. Fails WP:BIO." ProD removed because "notable producer of Blinded (2004 film)" However, he was an "associate producre", according to IMDb, not the producer or an executive producer. Not one article about "Blinded" mentioned Crissey[45], while there are e.g. 7 Google news hits for Blinded plus the actual producer Van Heek[46]. No evidence of him being notable could be found. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Coverage in reliable sources is found in the references already in article. Others can be found here [47] and elsewhere if one would take the time to look. Gorrad (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The link you provided is to a directory of films currently being made. That doesn't establish notability. I have taken the time to look and found no coverage about him, so if you know of this coverage, presenting it here would be useful. -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - More references found and posted of films previously made. Loads more if willing to go past several google page searches. BAFTA reference cannot be verified, but that is because members lists are not made public. Strong co-producer credits on at least four films, some award winning. Only updating cuz person known in UK independent film. Should keep since within wiki rules, unless wiki only want Hollywood famous people. TV films mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. More references on films and background added. Within wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk)
He is mentioned in lists of people who worked on some films. He has not received any attention personally beyond such name entries. He is, despite claims made above, neither notable nor well-known. Fram (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you not recognise his own lifetime BAFTA membership. This is big for British film people.[1] If that is not notable, where the local industry accepts, no wiki film listing other than top US awards will be subject to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IMDB biography is not an independent source, but user submitted. They are not reliable at all. Furthermore, if it was such a big deal, where are the sources about it? Anyway, I have checked, and he is indeed one of the 6500 members of BAFTA. I don't think that being a member of such a large group does make one notable at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Sources provided before and after this AfD do not establish notability. SnottyWong talk 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Working in a prominent role on notable films, makes you notable. Producers may not get as much press as actors and directors do, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Not as notable as the writers of course, which also don't get much press, despite being the most important people in the film, of course. Dream Focus 01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Producers get enough attention to meet WP:GNG when they are truly notable. I wrote Mark Canton and had no trouble finding the necessary sources. They don't exist for Crissey though, so your keep is rather meaningless (or at least mere opinion, instead of being policy- and guideline-based). Fram (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Weakly cited to mere mentions in unreliable citations, no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks (comics)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flashbacks (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This article is based on one specific issue of Amazing Spider-Man. It is largely plot summary with little real-world information besides the 'inspiration' for the story. There is no evidence to support notability more than any other monthly comic.

I nominated this for deletion a year ago, and it reached No Consensus. The two keep votes asserted it's notability by A.) linking to a comicbook website puff piece [48] and B.) "Nothing wrong with plot summaries, that's how every book article is anyway. The story was notable enough to be reprinted in a hardcover book, along with other notable tales. The comic and the hardcover reprint are reviewed by third party media sources, such as IGN"--I should point out that the latter user's criteria could apply to any comic nowadays.

I decided to give the article a year to see if the article would improve before nominating again, and it hasn't. There is still nothing here that indicates why this issue is deserving of it's own article. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this issue/storyline of Amazing Spider-Man, and it therefore fails WP:N. HOWEVER - I was unable to locate the sources referred to in the previous AfD other than the IGN review, but if they do exist they would be sufficient to pass WP:N. The fact that similar sources would entitle many comic storylines (or single issues) to Wikipedia articles is not a barrier; it may simply be the case that every comic storyline or single issue deserves a Wikipedia page. WP:N is not a terribly discriminating policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 17 May 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 In_Love_&_War#Track_listing. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Than Love (Amerie song)

[edit]
More Than Love (Amerie song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NMUSIC. no charts, no awards, no proper release date, not properly sourced, insufficient independent coverage (other than blogs), no critical reception etc. therefore should not have its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Smeezingtons

[edit]
The Smeezingtons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a poorly written list with little context other than stating the obvious. There is no information about the group/producers themselves and it is not properly sourced. I think the creation of this article is premature. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's not grounds for deletion; that's grounds for expansion. The Smeezingtons are notable but the article needs to demonstrate this much more clearly. 118.95.13.139 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Of Girls

[edit]
Panic Of Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Unreleased album per WP:CRYSTAL and insufficient 3rd party coverage to allow it to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:N -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. The information can still be used as a base for the page when it comes out. Just pluck it from the history or work on a draft copy in your user namespace (post something on my talk if you want more information on that). -Rushyo Talk 01:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

There's a link on the band's officail website saying "Panic of Girls: Coming Soon." Band members have written about the release. The artwork is complete and on the web. Does WP:CRYSTAL apply? Listor1989 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment - there is nothing wrong with patience. Wikipedia will still be here when the album becomes a reality. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 17 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ToonSeum

[edit]
The ToonSeum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable museum. It claims to be the third cartoon museum in the US, but being third is not itself notable. It has hosted notable exhibits and guests, but this does not convey notability. None of the staff or leaders are notable. A search online for citations reveals mostly press releases with only regional coverage besides. This means it has not accomplished any national recognition or significance like the other two. It was created by someone calling themselves "Toonseum," leading to obvious WP:COI issues. An attempt at PROD was contested by a single-use account. Dragoneer (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There is substantial recurring local coverage including the major dailies ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]) as well as coverage in the New York Times ([54]). -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fifth link you provide is about the exhibit, not the museum. The NYT article is about KickStarter and does not provide info on the museum beyond it having a couple exhibits and needing money, so that's arguably trivial coverage. Dragoneer (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect to the NYT article, I agree that coverage is a bit tangential, but it more than just a mere mention. It needs to be considered as part of the whole body of coverage. As for the fifth link being about the exhibit and not the museum, a cartoon museum can and should be noted for the exhibitions that it curates. This is not a case of WP:INHERITED as exhibiting cartoon works is the museum's reason for existence. As such, the coverage about the exhibit does help establish the notability of the museum. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the sources Whpq found should be incorporated, but it did seem to attract some coverage. I also agree with Whpq's reasoning concerning the importance of notable exhibits. Huon (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Toss the NYT source. It's not really about the ToonSeum, and if anything seems to confirm non-notability by claiming their fundraising effort amounted to a rather pitiful $465. Still, I feel that notability has been established by the other sources, even if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 17 May 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.
  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1863809/bio
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_17&oldid=1142222623"