Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 23

< 22 August	24 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Batychko

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

Non-notable bit-part actor with no in-depth coverage or evidence of major roles. Previous PROD was removed with the comment "see russian version for notability, can be expanded", but the Russian article appears to have identical content (it was written by the same editor) and uses the same two unreliable sources. --DAJF (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but one of the productions the subject has appeared in are redlinks and none of them appear to be major roles. Edward321 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For time being I am gonna have to agree with the nom. If anyone can come up with more reliable sources with info, I'll gladly change to keep. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The trend of the discussion is towards keep as sources have been added. Sandstein 05:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones

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

Delete. Non-notable product. We are in dire need of a prescriptive notability guideline for products so that these AfD's can be resolved easier. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into an article on the product line. That's the practical guideline that we have been using for most product articles, except the famous ones. Alan, any argument why that would not be suitable? DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of a specific product notability guideline we to have to resort to the general notability guidelines and the "spirit" of what the community wants to include in WP. Historic AfDs, the call by Jimmy Wales to improve the articles we already have (rather than creating stacks of new ones), the maintenance burden on a possible reducing number of experienced editors, and the need to be vigilant about SPAM by stealth are all reasons to take a hard line on product articles. I would like to see a prescriptive product notability guideline that can be used as a basis for speedy deletions. We already have such tools for biographical articles, by way of example, and it allows articles to be promptly speedily deleted. This saves the a lot of administration time for editors since there is no PRODing and AfDing, and no time wasted on building an article that may eventually be deleted.

The prescriptive notability guidelines currently in use may have developed because of the dearth of articles that didn't sort of fit in with WP. For instance being human WP editors naturally wrote a lot of bio articles leading to the creation of a whole series of prescriptive notability guidelines for such articles. The same thing should happen with products. While articles on, for example, the Apple IIe, Ford Cortina, iPod, Raleigh Twenty etc may be notable, but an article on the Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones is far less notable. It may be easy to have all manner of product articles referenced from trade publications and product reviews and so they will meet the general notability guideline but should they be included in WP?

So to answer your question DDG, an article on an Avaya product line is a little better than articles on the individual products, but my preference is that the Avaya article itself is devoted to their products (as recommended at WP:PRODUCT). At present the product section is a list with a template normally used as a footer jammed in it as it is at present. It should be rewitten in prose and the template removed.

I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Strictly Merge all-related to something like Avaya products: I ~~would vote keep~~ due to its notability in academic textbooks and being one-of-the largest unique voice manufacturer holding multiple awards, but multiple article have already been kept. I do believe their tone is promotional, and a large merge would be really helpful. You'll find a fun list here of tons of Avaya products that needs to be included. This AfD kept 4 more articles this week :/ ~ AdvertAdam^talk 09:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

helpful? it would amount to rejecting the possibility of providing information infavor of a mere listing. A mere listing is not encyclopedic when information is available to do more than that. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, delete, delete~~ (Changing to Weak Keep, see below) Trivial article with no significant independent references; Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Energy Saver. It is absolutely ridiculous that every single item manufactured by Avaya has its own article at wikipedia, some of them mere catalog listings like this, others incredible bloated technical manuals like Avaya Unified Communications Management. In my opinion every item in that Avaya template should be deleted (without a redirect) in a mass housecleaning, and the various product lines should get a simple mention or at most a paragraph at Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% of this is sales material / product catalog information. Once that is deleted there is no article to discuss. Also no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the product satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a catalog. And notability is not temporary. If all present gadgets for sale by big companies deserve articles, then so would every gadget EVER offered for sale, and we could have tens of thousands of articles about every individual model of cylinder phonograph, mimeograph machine, slide rule, kerosene lamp, or buggy whip ever offered for sale, (and I'm talking models, not generic devices or manufacturers) with no ref but a catalog or ad. Edison (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, don't you realize the suggestion is to merge individual projects. Nobody is suggesting ythis particular red herring. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alan said "I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP" -- I can only say I would like us to do just the opposite, and reaffirm the policy that we have appropriate articles and articles sections o every notable product, present and past, with the distinction between articles and sections depending on their importance. That's what an encyclopedia does, it provides information appropriate to wthe subjects that are worth readers looking for them. A catalog is different, it focuses on what the companies would lik eto sell, and their sales arguments--such material does not belong in Wikipedia. I find it very strange that to argue that there is some class of subjects which, notable or not, should not be covered in principle. I consider that straight-out bias. Alan's argument is, as he admits, contrary to policy: it amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT, and the argument and all arguments based on it should be ignored. I might as usefully argue that I think there is too much coverage of wrestlers in the world, and we should omit it. If necessary I scould add it just reproduces the promotional hype. And everyone could thus argue for omission of their least favorite subject. That would be quite a change from the basic principle of NPOV, and fortunately no one AfD can accomplish that. All that an AfD like this can do is , with its characteristically semi-random results, is to give us erratic coverage instead of reasonable merges. Nobody is arguing to have an article on " every single item manufactured by Avaya " or any other company. What is being argued for is combination articles of product lines. If this product line is thought too narrow, merge with other deskphone lines of the company. I distrust arguments that don't accept such compromises. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep an article here it must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If such coverage can be found for some of these product lines, then an article on them could be justified. If not - not. Where is the independent reliable coverage on (for example) Avaya phones or Avaya routers? And if such coverage cannot be found, what is the argument for "combination articles of product lines"? If the product lines have not received such coverage, the only options are outright delete or merge to Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added independent reliable coverage and evaluation testing by several companies and the Committee on National Security Systems certification documentation for just one of the 12 different models in the 9600 Series, that this page should cover.

So why do you not delete these pages without ANY third party refs or citation documentation? Cisco 837, Cisco 1000, Cisco Valet Routers, Cisco Security Manager, Cisco SSG-6510, Cisco LocalDirector, Packet Tracer, Hicom 300, Macintosh Quadra 700, Color LaserWriter 12/600 PS, Personal LaserWriter NTR, and Personal LaserWriter 300 Please treat all pages equally. Geek2003 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) ~~— Geek2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

I have also created Maine_Army_National_Guard, Kentucky_Army_National_Guard, Trans_Canada_Microwave, etc, ect... Geek2003 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added references. I can see you are really trying and I appreciate that. However, they are neither significant nor independent. The "Tolly Group" citations are reports commissioned by Avaya - not independent. The government links merely confirm that the phones exist - not significant coverage. Significant coverage by independent reliable sources would mean something like: a review of the specific phone model (or of Avaya phones in general, if we are trying for a product line article as suggested by USER:DGG) by an industry periodical or general-interest publication; news reports (not press releases) about the phones; etc. Something showing that someone outside of the company itself feels that the product, or product line, is noteworthy. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF that you mentioned, those articles all have exactly the same problems - some are mere stubs - and it looks like it should all be deleted as well. Feel free to nominate them, or I may when I have more time next week. Some, such as Personal LaserWriter NTR, look like candidates for PROD since there is not even any assertion of notability. I see that most of these specific model number of product articles were created several years ago; possibly notability criteria were looser then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review my work. I have just included a book "Hacking exposed VoIP" This book has 52 pages dedicated to the testing of the 9600 series IP phones and the 4600 series IP phones, and they go through and test each of the UDP ports used and how it affects the security and functionality of the phone. Is this what you are looking for? Geek2003 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that is just about one particular aspect of the phone. If there multiple books about this model of phone and all aspects of the phone were discussed THEN there would be a better case for notability. I am sorry, but you are clutching at straws. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geek2003, you list products that also do not have third part refs (some of which have already been though a recent series of AfDs). You need to avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rest assured, now that you have listed them I will check them out for myself. Get ready for anther round of deletions everyone!! But seriously, WE NEED a prescriptive notability guideline for products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, bugger it!! This is all too much! I give up on all these product deletions. There are just TOOO many of them. It seems that there is an editor out there that is keen on Apple printers. It shows one of the the disadvantages of WP. Since it has developed organically and the New Pages Patrol etc cannot keep up with it WP ends up with all sorts of systemic bias. A WP editor likes Apple printers so we get too many articles on Apple printers. Someone likes Avaya and Nortel products so we get too many articles about them. There are too many computer geeks (I was one once) on WP so we get too much stuff about computer related stuff. WP is getting REAL BIG and it is getting REAL HARD to know if we are getting the right mix of article. There are valiant attempts to do this but it is happening at a higher level in the article importance hierarchy than at the level of individual products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't give up! We can do this! I just prodded all the black-and-white LaserWriter models - 18 of them - after inserting a mention of each of them into the article LaserWriter. If they stay prodded this could be a way of merging that information into a far more useful and encyclopedic format. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added citations several - significant and independent citations with in-depth review of the 9600 systems are now added to this page. Geek2003 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Weak keep based on the improvements made by Geek2003. The latest addition to the article consists of three reviews or articles by three different independent sources - Network World, Network Computing, and eWeek. Those are industry-specific sources rather than general interest, but at least they are independent reports written by staff at the sources. Also, the article has been modified so that it no longer reads like a catalog entry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
additional copy edit added more citations and content to increase WP:NOTABLE and improved encyclopedic value. Geek2003 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Lots of sources just applied and undiscussed. Let's get some more input before closing. BusterD (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the refs are not suitable ie. ~~blogs~~ and from Avaya themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News blog are allowed - WP:NEWSBLOG. Geek2003 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed blog refs and Avaya refs; added many more refs; now 24 good citations Geek2003 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good citations. 174.79.190.194 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good citations does not necessarily mean that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment History section added and now the page covers 15 different phone models, with 27 in-line citations. Geek2003 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The product satisfies WP:42 requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. If it does not explain exactly, in detail what is needed so I can improve it. Geek2003 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references that provide in depth reporting on this product. Bigtex 1 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 9600 series is a Notable Product . It is unique in its ability to support built in VPN. This is a first of a kind that could be deployed anywhere. Meets the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY

Keep 3 Network World citation;1 Tata Mcgraw Hill and a Journal Citation. The article is WP:Notable.Machismo500 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simply having suitable references is not the only requirement for a WP article. The topic must be notable in the long term, ie. notability is not temporary. An IP deskphone has as much long term reliability as a colour tv or a CB radio. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Prva HNL table

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

I PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." The PROD was contested and replaced with a merge tag. I still think the article should be deleted as it is non-notable (no significant coverage in independent reliable sources) and a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Another reason that it should not be merged is that it is sourced entirely to "Clas Glenning's website" (which looks like a fan source to me) and the only notable thing in the article, how many league titles each team has won, is already in Prva HNL. Jenks24 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this kind of table serves no purpose and violates a number of our guidelines (NOTSTATS, OR, LISTCRUFT). Not even worth merging IMO. Giant Snowman 00:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless statistic overload - these stats don't really even mean anything. Fails guidelines as per GiantSnowman. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are similar articles about the German, Spanish or English versions I see no reason why this should get deleted apart from WP:BIAS which WP:FOOTY famously suffers from.

RSSSF has the table up to the 2007-08 season here and another one listing final placings here (RSSSF is deemed a reliable source per this discussion dating from March 2009). Moreover, the table contains simple mathematical calculations which can easily be reproduced so it falls into the scope of WP:NOTOR.
Also, WP:NOTSTATS cited by the nominator says that forbids "excessive listings of statistics", defined as "long and sprawling lists of statistics" which "may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles - in addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". I don't think this table reduces the readability of anything and I think the explanatory text is sufficient (although it sure could be expanded further).
In addition, the WP:LISTCRUFT essay does not apply here either. That essay is about discouraging lists whose items are not standalone topics and both Prva HNL and each of the clubs are exactly that (standalone encyclopaedic topics, as defined by FOOTY's own guidelines). It also describes legitimate lists by saying that "The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." - and this is exactly what had happened with this list which started off as a section in Prva HNL. And anyway, even if LISTCRUFT applied, it would automatically apply to ALL articles in Category:All-time football league tables - and you yourself had agreed to keep the Spanish league version in its deletion discussion because "some kind of use of this table by the wider media". No LISTCRUFT or NOTSTATS arguments there, huh?
In conclusion, the nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BIAS (Jenks24 you don't get to decide what is the "only notable thing here"). Unless something other than misinterpretations of policies and guidelines can be provided I see no reason to delete this. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to drop the confrontational attitude – they don't help the points you're trying to make. Anyway, I'll address your points in the order you made them:
  This not a case of bias. You will notice from the histories of the three articles you mention that I have PRODed each of them in the last week or so.
  Thanks for finding the RSSSF reference. As you can see in the nom, I was not concerned that it was OR, but that is was referenced to an unreliable source and I agree RSSSF is reliable, so that concern is allayed. However, the RSSSF reference is not "significant coverage", so I fail to see how the table is notable.
  I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the "excessive listings of statistics" – I still feel it is excessive while you don't.
  Regarding LISTCRUFT, I have never cited that essay in any of these all-time tables discussions. It is an interesting essay, but I agree it's not really relevant to this discussion. I am glad that you brought up Category:All-time football league tables – it is impossible to see at the moment, but I have recently had about 25 or 30 articles that were in that category deleted (either via PROD or AfD), because I believe the arguments I outlined in the nom applied to all of them (I'll list them here if you like). The few that remain only do so because significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been provided, proving that they pass GNG. Regarding the specific AfD that you cite, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time La Liga table, you will note that I nominated that article and NOTSTATS was one of the main reasons. In that discussion, I agreed that a merge would be acceptable because significant coverage was shown.
  Regarding "Jenks24 you don't get to decide what is the 'only notable thing here' ", no, I am not the arbiter of notability, which is why we have AfDs – so we as a community can discuss our interpretations and find a consensus. By saying that how many league titles each team has won is the only notable thing in this table, what I meant was that the number of league titles in the Prva HNL is the only part of this table that I could find significant coverage for. I am always happy to see notable articles be kept and if you can provide significant coverage for this table, then I will be happy to agree to a merge as I did in the La Liga discussion and the Allsvenskan discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I was talking about bias I was referring to all the half-hearted Delete votes this AfD is obviously going to get, illustrated perfectly by GiantSnowman's input. Yes, I know you woke up one day and decided that a few dozen tables need to be removed and you nominated al of them. I also know that most of them did get deleted because nobody simply fives a fuck about tables of leagues they do not follow, which is altogether a pattern often seen in anything football-related around here - of course the Premier league or La Liga tables will NOT get deleted because voting editors from WP:FOOTY are biased, evidenced by the ongoing AfD of the Argentine Primera. This pattern is very familiar at WP:FOOTY - somebody invents a non-problem, than zealous editors in love with their third-level English club simply delete stuff from articles about clubs and leagues they regard as irrelevant, but when the time comes to apply the same criteria to their beloved leagues the "consensus" shifts and all of a sudden the stuff the same things that had been wholesale deleted a week ago is now allowed for English or Spanish clubs/players/leagues. So yeah, it IS a blatant case of WP:BIAS, evidenced by the attitude displayed in your sentence that "the only notable thing here" is whatever you (or 5 Englishmen) think it is. You say it's the job of the "community" to decide what is notable. Then why did you say that in the first place if you know better?
Regarding the GNG argument - I don't see it as being applicable here. What exactly do you need to prove GNG for any table? Do daily newspapers publish lists of Man United appearances? It is a fucking statistics table, and exactly the sort of thing people expect to find in an encyclopedia. There are literally hundreds of tables on Wikipedia, many of them featured lists, which have never been published in that form by any single media outlet. No, the newspapers in Croatia do not have a habit of publishing this table in this form but they do often talk about how many seasons a certain club spent in top level, how many times they finished as runners-up or how many top level games they played. And yes, it IS a simple mathematical operation of adding numbers, numbers needed can be found in individual season articles, which all exist on Wikipedia and which are all referenced from reliable sources, so this is not OR. And Kosm1fent below should read point 3 of WP:NOTSTATS before citing it in deletion discussions. Sorry, but this still reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Timbouctou (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I don't really follow soccer, I'm not English and I'm not a member of WP:FOOTY. I'm not really sure how to respond to all the accusations of bias and so on because, to be frank, a lot of didn't make much sense. It seems blatantly obvious to me that leagues like the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga are going to have more coverage because they are simply bigger leagues. Again, they are not being deleted because significant coverage has been shown – the same can't be said for this table, though I would be happy for you to prove me wrong instead getting worked up about bias.
  As to GNG, yes, I do find it relevant here, just like I find it relevant at every AfD. "Do daily newspapers publish lists of Man United appearances?" Not that I'm aware of, but many books do, hence the lists meets GNG.
  Regarding OR, I think it could technically be considered WP:SYNTH (a section of OR), but whether it's SYNTH or not doesn't really matter if it can't even be shown that the table passes GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said it once but it seems I need to say it again - the WP:GNG argument is inapplicable to tables like these. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of tables, many of which are FLs, which have never been published in the exact form as they appear on Wikipedia. Lists of heads of state, many lists of films, lists of buildings, lists of awards won by someone or something, lists of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game and many many more. This table shows historic results of sports clubs (entities which are notable themselves) in a top level national competition (which is also notable itself). Each season tables have been published in copious sources and I fail to see how simply adding or substracting numbers for a cumulative table is somehow beyond our editing capabilities in the interest of this project. Regards. Timbouctou (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree that GNG is irrelevant. I didn't want to say it before when you kept mentioning other articles, but you seem to be persisting with this path, so: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Regarding List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game, most of the sources for that article are offline, so I can't tell if the table was published in a similar format to the one found in the article or not. But that too is irrelevant – the reason that article is notable is because you can find copious references discussing who was the first, second, third, etc. goalkeeper to score in the NHL. Can you provide any references, in English or Croatian, that discuss this table (or sections of this table)? A few sources along the lines of "and with that win, <insert team> moves to first (or third or 11th) on the all-time Prva HNL table" would be enough to show GNG, in my opinion. I have honestly looked for sources and been unable to find any, but you are obviously more knowledgable about this league, so if you could find some that would be great. Jenks24 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time La Liga table, both fail WP:NOTSTATS, but the La Liga one was saved from deletion because it had significant media coverage in third-party media sources, so it passed WP:GNG. This table, however, does not. Even though RSSSF is considered a reliable source, the fact that the table goes until the 2007-08 season, and, in order to update the table, you need to make quite a lot of calculations that cannot be easily reproduced (unlike what Timbouctou says), makes it WP:OR and thus fails WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Khan

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

Kickboxing promotion that did of couple of minor K-1 events and two independent events before folding. The article has no independent sources and there appears to be nothing significant about their events. Jakejr (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the two independent events The Khan promoted and neither one has reliable sources that show there is any coverage beyond routine sports result reporting.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other K-1 stuff. Doesn't meet WP:GNG (good sources), or WP:SPORTSEVENT (particular importance) MadCow257 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There's no evidence the events or the promoter meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Day (album)

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

This article is nominated the 2nd time. The previous discussion was bundled with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace & Charm" discussion, and the results was no consensus. However, the majority of discussion was about "Grace & Charm" rather than "Big Day". To me it was unfair that this article was overlooked. As I previously reasoned, this article has no notability established, and it doesn't look good enough to be "Kept". Gh87 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Topher385 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Key Generation Via Wireless Channel Characterization

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

This appears to be a essay comprised at least partly of original research and written in such a manner that the general audience Wikipedia is supposed to be written for would have a hard time understanding it. I previously declined a speedy deletion for patent nonsense as I don't believe it meets that standard despite the density of the language. Page creator has been mostly unresponsive to talk comments and has removed a proposed deletion (along with various valid maintenance templates) without comment or improvements. While it is possible that the topic is notable the article as written now seems unsalvageable. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an expert in not only cryptography, but specifically cryptographic protocols, I find myself scratching my head as I read this article. It's clearly some form of Key agreement but I can't determine what problem it's trying to solve. It's currently written as a scientific article aimed at experts in its esoteric domain. Without a careful reading of the background research, it would be difficult to determine notability. The article so far has failed to assert notability. It's sad to crush a new editor, but I don't see how to salvage this article. Skippydo (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Skippydo, do you know any other editors that are at least knowledgable if not experts in this area? I'd like to assist in this situation but this is far from my expertise. The only way I can think to help is to garner more opinions from experts but don't even know where to start looking. I see it's been mentioned at WikiProject Cryptography but that's it. OlYeller^Talktome 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, I don't know of any other editors which have claimed this area of knowledge. Masoudg, the author, might be able to help us better assess the situation, but I suspect he doesn't understand our concerns or what's currently happening to the article. Skippydo (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem it is trying to address according to the article is that of the requirement of a trusted third party and the computational burden of public-key cryptography. However, as an unauthenticated key agreement mechanism it has the same problem of man-in-the-middle attacks as unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman, and an authentication infrastructure in the form of a trusted third party (or preshared keys) would still be required. Not sure why the suggested solution should be more practical, hence. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; appears to be a mixture of non-notable and original research. Secret key generation from broadcast signals which is immune to local eavesdroppers? Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be foolish. Secret key generation based on mutual (private) information sources in the presence of adversaries is precisely what this topic is trying to solve. Nageh (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete; The author has been asked twice why the page should not be deleted, his primary response was:

"1- I am an expert in the area and this article is a part of my PhD research. 2- Prior to the creation of this article, the topic "wireless secret key generation" was not included in Wikipedia search. 3- This method has become quite popular and is in the great interest of many scholars. 4- I fixed the coding problems."

1- Original research is not allowed per Wikipedia policy.

2- "Wireless secret key generation" itself appears to lack sufficient notability to be a Wikipedia article, let alone a sub specialization of the field. Furthermore it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to include every conceivable search, but to include info that has "mass" appeal.

3- A topic that is of interest to only scholars, regardless of how many, is clearly not of high notoriety.

4- The coding problem is not the main issue being addressed with this article, its correction is almost irrelevant.

- I would edit this article if I could; however, many of the terms used in the article are of such a technical nature that one would need to be an expert in the field to attempt to edit it without changing the intended meaning. Since this article is apparently part of his thesis ("The article is part of my PhD research"), the author is clearly not unbiased and is likely unwilling or unable to sufficiently modify the article and since it is likely no one else could properly edit his original research, I believe the article should be deleted. Legion211 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a bit hesitant. While the article as it stands is not suitable I am unwilling to immediately disregard the topic as being non-notable. I posted some thoughts on the article's talk page under section Main problems, maybe others would like to comment. Nageh (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fairly obvious BLP1E. There may be a case to be made for some information being inserted in other related articles, but there is no case to be made for a BLP existing about this issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Midei

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

WP:BLP1E This person is only widely know for his overuse of a surgical procedure. Unfortunately health care professionals are disciplined regularly, and this is not encyclopedic content even if it did catch the fancy of a news media in this case. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In an article about doctors allegedly overusing coronary stents, the NYT article calls him "a Baltimore cardiologist, Dr. Mark Midei." That hardly sounds as if he were notable at the time he got into the news as a stent-overusing posterboy (he and many of his patients say, as a scapegoat). Wikipedia is not a wall of shame for non-public-figure people. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with FloNight and Sharktopus. Based on the findings last month by the Maryland Medical Board in revoking his license, Midei appears to have engaged in wrongful conduct. But Wikipedia's function is not to serve as the modern town square where criminals (or violators of ethical rules) are marched out for public humiliation. I don't think there's a sufficient showing of notability beyond the stent scandal. For that reason, and despite the wide coverage given to the stent scandal, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that WP:BLP1E should apply. Cbl62 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I'm the author.) Due to the wide coverage of the stent scandal, why not rename instead of delete? Jesanj (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I considered renaming the article instead of starting an Afd discussion. But decided that in this instance I did not think that renamning the article would correct the BLP concerns in the article since the article is written as a biography. Additionally, I'm not convinced that the events surrounding his rate of using the sents, and his loss of medical privileges would warrant a standalone article. Instead, I think that the material would be more appropriate in a more general article that discusses rates of surgical treatment of patients using stents, or maybe one on the overuse of medical procedures in general. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not consider renaming instead of delete? And is this really one event? On December 14, 2010, The Baltimore Sun published an article titled Timeline: Mark Midei and the stents case. From my reading of the timeline, which mentions Midei has also sued the hospital, I'm don't know why WP:BLP1E should apply. Do timelines typically get published for single events? I don't think so. Even if the consensus is that WPBLP1E should apply, it states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate". Does anyone dispute that this "scandal" is significant or that the individual's role is substantial and well documented? It appears the stent scandal and its fallout, for lack of a better name—which has significant coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the United States Senate Committee on Finance, and national news sources—is notable, possibly in addition to Midei. Jesanj (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Coronary stent has a section on controversy about overuse of stents. Perhaps some of these news articles could be referenced there. The focus should be the newsworthy topic -- overuse of stents -- not the particular case and identity of one doctor involved. My knowledge of this case is from reading the NYT article and the Wikipedia article, but Midei does not sound like a hideous villain or monster. He implanted a lot of needed stents because he became a specialist in that area, and others contend that eventually he implanted stents that were not needed as well. The article makes a big deal that Midei on one particular day inserted 30 stents. I don't know about stents but specialist cataract surgeons accomplish each individual surgery very quickly because they have a big professional team that preps each patient beforehand and then cares for the patient again once the surgery ends. The NYT article points out there were other surgeons from bigger hospitals who did more stents than Midei. Is it a crime by Midei that in a big city like Balitmore one of its hospitals, and one of the surgeons in one of its hospitals, became known as the best person for doing stents, so that one person does a lot of stent work for a lot of hospitals? $Sharktopus$ ^talk 13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope I'm wrong to entertain the possibility mentions of a "wall of shame" or a "hideous villain or monster" are subtle insinuations this page is an attack page. My thinking is that this sensational language is not helping further the discussion. I think the Cleveland Clinic quote is crucial to the article because this doctor makes it clear many others are/have likely practiced medicine in Midei's fashion. As for the 30 stents in a day, the WSJ is the one that said it could set a record for Abbott. It appears the Senate Finance Committee's investigation is the ultimate source for this detail that other sources have picked up on it. Do you think the article is undue with it's focus? If so, here's a recent quote from this week's Lancet. "In one of the most outstanding of recent cases, Mark Midei, who worked at St Joseph Medical Center of Towson, MD, had his licence revoked in July by the Maryland Board of Physicians, after he implanted 30 stents in a single day in 2008 ... the Baltimore Sun, which broke the story about Midei and campaigned against unnecessary stent procedures. Apart from Midei, there are cases of improper physician practice under investigation in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas." doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61317-2 So how is it one event to have become known for overusing one procedure multiple times in one's career, leading to complex legal and career issues? In the opinion of the Lancet, Midei is an "most outstanding" example for one issue, not an event, as the title of the article is "US physicians urge end to unnecessary stent operations". They even include a picture of Midei in their piece. But even if the consensus is that Midei is known for "one event" (though I haven't seen any rationale on this), WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate". Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I am not intending to imply anything evil about the article, or to deny the good faith of the article's creator. Instead, I would point out that a non-notable person who gets mentioned in the context of one newsworthy story is exactly the kind of person WP:BLP1E was designed to cover. One reason for that policy is exactly that it is almost impossible to create a non-negative article about a non-notable person known only for one embarrassing involvement in a major news story, no matter how well-meaning and sincere the article creator might be. I was only vaguely familiar with this policy myself, but I learned about it after seeing the discomfort of several editors expressed at WT:DYK. Without knowing about that policy, I can absolutely imagine myself doing what Jesanj had done, seeing a person's name mentioned in a bunch of news stories and creating a bio for the person thus mentioned. I hope Jesanj will continue to create interesting well-written articles on many topics related to his/her interests. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, the WP:BLP1E is intended to correct for precisely this type of media coverage about an otherwise non-notable person. The flurry of media coverage is all about "one" narrow aspect of this persons life, and does not reflect a lifetime of accomplishments or a highly significant single event that would general warrant someone having national media exposure. This is a news story, rather than something that warrants an encyclopedia entry. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - JAMA, The Lancet and the Journal of Public Health Policy do not typically all mention unencyclopedic news, in my opinion. Above you mentioned "I think that the material would be more appropriate in a more general article that discusses rates of surgical treatment of patients using stents, or maybe one on the overuse of medical procedures in general". Perhaps this general approach is right. But there are already two lines about stenting at overutilization. I agree that this issue needs expanding at coronary stent. But the Lancet introduces their article this way: "A recent medical scandal in Maryland has drawn attention to the widespread problem of overstenting in the USA and left doctors' regulators searching for answers." WP:1E says, "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident." The "medical scandal in Maryland" is at least a minor event. The article Overstenting in the United States might deserve creating too, as covering the issue at coronary stent might overwhelm that article. Jesanj (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Lancet article mentions Midei's name 11 times, more than my quote above suggests. Jesanj (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the coverage in newspapers and medical journals isn't a "narrow aspect" of Midei's life. It's about how he made a living, and how that came under scrutiny. Jesanj (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus either for or against the retention of this article, both based on a headcount and considering the apparent change of scope during the AfD. Also, most participants on both sides of the issue are people who I remember as having been involved in nationalist disputes related to historic conflicts in Eastern Europe including issues related to the Baltic states. I do not believe a meaningful community consensus can emerge on that basis. Sandstein 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic

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

The article covers something thast simply is not notable. It suffers from quite a few issues, but first and foremost, there is next to no scholarly discourse on the actual subject, apart from the standard brief news reporting. The actual resolution may warrant at most a line in Occupation of the Baltic States, but as a stand alone article, within an encyclopaedic setting the notability just isn't there, demonstrated by the lack of sourcing to independent, reliable sources. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not here to repeat the text of every resolution of every legislature in the world. Unless there is substantial third party coverage of the resolution, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless per nominator unless coverage is found MadCow257 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to make the comment as well, that I placed the issue tags on the article, and also placed info on the talk page. It was after doing this, that I searched for sources which would give it encyclopaedic notability (rather than WP:NOTNEWS) and failed to find anything of substance that would have stopped me from putting this up at AfD. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would put more stock in deletion requests if they were not initiated by editors with a history of appearing to be antagonistic to Baltic topics. I would troll WP to delete articles which are only dear to Russophiles, but I can't be that petty. (These are my perceptions only, I am sure the nomination was done in good faith, but as we know, appearances count.) I'll see what I can turn up in the press, this will be around for debate for a few days at least. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Apparently (it only took one Google search) there was widespread coverage of the U.S. resolution in the Latvian press (I'd have to reach out to other editors for the press in the other Baltic states), for example: "Kongress lūdz ASV prezidentu un valsts sekretāri aicināt Krievijas Federācijas valdību atzīt, ka padomju okupācija Latvijā, Igaunijā un Lietuvā saskaņā ar Molotova-Ribentropa paktu turpmāko 51 gadu bija nelikumīga,” teikts apstiprinātajā dokumentā.", that is (reverse translating), "According to the resolution passed, 'The Congress requests that the President of the U.S. Secretary of State invite the leadership of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and during the subsequent 51 years was illegal.'" Rather makes this look more like an attempt to delete content on Wikipedia which relates to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states and the Russian Federation continuing to maintain otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call to get out the Congressional vote: "Rezolucija ne tikai uzsver Latvijas panakumus Latvijas nacijas veidosana, tautsaimniecibas atjaunosana un cilveku tiesibu lauka, bet ari parada Krievijas meginajumus vilkt Latviju and parejas Baltijas valstis atpakal Krievijas ietekmes sfaira, meginot tas atskelt no rietumiem. Rezolucija teikts, ka Baltijas valstis ir pardzivojusas tragisku Padomju Savienibas okupaciju. Rezolucija tiek ari pieminetas Igaunija un Lietuva." This continues to be a critical issue in Russian-Baltic relations: "The resolution not only emphasizes Latvian accomplishments in the establishment of the Latvian nation, resurrection of civil life and civil rights, but also calls out Russia's attempts to pull Latvia and the other Baltic states back into the Russian sphere of influence, attempting to cut them off from the West. The resolution states that the Baltic states have survived tragic Soviet occupation. The resolution also mentions Estonia and Latvia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Tellingly, the Russian press reported the story with the lead that the U.S. Congress is telling Russia to recognize occupation of the Baltic States, for example, here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: The article appears to have changed from an article on a U.S. resolution to an article on a national anniversary during the course of this AfD. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article in question has be renamed and expanded, and the !votes above are related to the old article. The re-scoped article is about a series of events that occurred during 2008 that spanned geographical area per WP:GEOSCOPE receiving contiuous indepth coverage during the celebration per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH, hence is notable. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:NOTNEWS, which is Wikipedia policy, says, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " In this case I cannot see how a scattering of references in Pravda and Latvian newspapers qualifies the resolution as "newsworthy". I don't even know if any of those sources could even be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You comment, as this AfD, is now irrelevant since the article name has been changed and expanded in scope. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have added "a scattering of references in Pravda and Latvian newspapers". How does this overcome WP:NOTNEWS? TFD (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the modified article? I've not added any references from Pravda, so I don't know what you are on about. You appear to be mis-applying WP:NOTNEWS which is related to current events as they are unfolding. This article is about a series of events that occurred during 2008 that spanned geographical area per WP:GEOSCOPE receiving contiuous indepth coverage during the celebration per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH. A bias against non-english language sources is not a valid criteria for deletion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. It is not prejudice against non-English sources, just that if an event occurs in an English-speaking country and is not covered by the English-speaking news then it is not notable. I am sure that if an event occurred in Latvia but was ignored by Latvian newspapers then it probably would also be non-notable. TFD (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go, since these events were covered by Latvian newspapers by your own critera you should change your vote to keep. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logical fallacy and you know it. (Igny (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as an inaccurate description of a non-notable event. (Igny (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. If 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade (or the 2008, or the 2009 ones) doesn't run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS (which I don't think it does), then neither does this. Article already has secondary sources in it, and a 90th anniversary is obviously notable if it is celebrated within a country, and covered in the country's (and neighbors') sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)" -- if one peruses the article they will see that ALL articles are from around the time of the event, meaning that this is routine news reporting. How is the 90th anniversary any more notable than the actual independence of Latvia, which I don't believe we have an article on? Or the 80th anniversary, is that any more notable than the 90th? This anniversary, whilst great for Latvia, is simply not notable for an encyclopaedia. Such things are more suited to wikinews, and this is especially noted since the article has not been edited in any major way since the first edit. A small film showing in a small theatre in Moscow, which likely had an attendance of a few dozen, isn't really a notable event. All these localised, small non-notable events, lumped together don't make the overall subject notable. Hence why this was brought here in the first place (even allowing for the supposed change of focus of the article). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate Perl

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

This is a how-to book for computer programmers learning Perl. There are many such books. The article lacks even one reliable secondary source WP:RS to establish notability WP:N as required by WP:GNG. Googling, I could not find reviews or other non-trivial mentions. Msnicki (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I seem to remember in earlier discussion about book series a consensus that if some number of the series are notable, then it makes sense to keep them all. In this case, I think Learning Perl and Mastering Perl are both notable, so for completeness we should also have this page. However, I have been unable to find this discussion, thus the weakness of the keep. Another possibility would be to merge the three and redirect the individual titles, although I can't think of a ood name for the merged page. Francis Bond (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every book deserves its own page on Amazon, not Wikipedia. The article gives no indication that the book is particularly notable, even among Perl enthusiasts. Bella the Ball (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As we found out in other O'Reilly AfDs, they are experts at collecting reviews on their books. The O'Reilly page for this one lists none, so it's fair to assume nothing significant exists. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the problem with finding secondary sources for this book is that its title changed a few years ago: Learning Perl Objects, References & Modules (the original title) was very well received when it was published in 2003, and is an important book for Perl programmers, especially those on the learning curve. I've added referenced reviews from Perl Journal, Linux Journal and Slashdot. It's surprising that O'Reilly haven't linked to these reviews on their product page since, as FuFoFuEd notes, they are normally very good at that sort of thing. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the publisher had kept the same title and same authors, I'd agree, those reviews would establish notability. But it's not the same title and same authors and without a citation to connect the two books, I don't think these reviews count. Btw, I think the over-long quotes you added were inappropriate: The make the article read like an advertisement and the length is such that they probably violate fair use. Consequently, I've left the citations (identifying them as reviews of the original book) and deleted the quotes. Msnicki (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the similarity of the the tables of contents of those two books, I'm willing to trust Gurt on his claim that this is a rebranded edition of LPOR&M. I don't get your comment about the change of authors? Only a third author (who was also a co-author for one of the editions of Learning Perl together with the other two) was added. Wether quoing the reviews is fair use would depend on the length of the original reviews and the quotations. The Slashdot quotation seems overly long and should have been paraphrased. The other two seem acceptable to me (unless the original review was only two or three sentences.) —Ruud 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to get? One book had two authors, the other has three. 2 != 3. And my objection to the lengthy review quotes was BOTH that such long quotes raised fair use issues AND that the result read like an advertisement. Msnicki (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you weren't being serious here. There's a huge difference between a book having three totally difference authors vs. an additional being added in a new edition. This isn't uncommon, Introduction to Algorithms springs to mind. —Ruud 16:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Okay, I did find the link between the editions on the copyright page of the book on Amazon. But still, given the change in title and authorship, I'm not sure reviews of the first edition count unless we change the title of the article here on WP to match the original title of the book (which may explain the way the opening sentence use to read.) Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about trimming down the review quotes: a quote that short is OK under fair-use, but it did look a bit promo in the article (doubled it in size, looking at that diff again), so the short summary plus refs is more appropriate, thanks. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reviews provided by Gurt Posh. —Ruud 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work catching the re-title. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to La Liga. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time La Liga table

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." and I stand by that, though I will expand further. Though the article is referenced, in my opinion it is non-notable due to the fact that it has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. More importantly, I feel the article is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS because it will only ever be a table of statistics. Jenks24 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This table is a publication made by the official governing body of this competition (Liga de Fútbol Profesional) and it's not original reasearch (it's referenced the source from the website of the official governing body) like other all-time league tables. This table is published every year by a lot of spanish magazines^[1]^[2] and is very popular in Spanish football fans. I don't think it's correctly by Wikipedia to intend to delete pages massively according to aplicate some rules so strictly, this can cause obstruction to this lovely project. I purpose the restablishment of other all-time leagues tables deleted. Best regards from Spain, tot-futbol (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2011 (CEST)

- Just to clarify, I never said this article was original research. Jenks24 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is notable and is of historical importance (at least here in Spain). These tables are very interesting, in my opinion and it would be a pity to delete them. It has taken a long time and work for users during these last years. How would you feel if they tell you that all the work you have done during these last years is going to disappear? I frankly oppose the deletion of these articles and those tables who have been deleted should be recovered. Qampunen (talk) 0:08, 24 August 2011 (CEST)

Keep or Merge into La Liga article. This table provides a good amount of information about one of the top football leagues in the world. This is just one of many reliable sources which provide coverage of the all-time table. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I can't read Spanish, I will take your word for it that that article is about the all-time table. I guess I would be content with a merge, though I still feel this does not warrant a stand-alone article per WP:NOTSTATS. Jenks24 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't read Spanish, but I can use Google Translate. The article is about the rivalry between two of Spain's most popular and successful clubs and addresses their positions in the All-time La Liga table (Clasificación histórica de la Liga) at the time (it's interesting how Valencia has done so much better than its nearest rivals since 1993). Jogurney (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a follow up, I did a search of El Mundo Deportivo's archives and found dozens of instances of articles which reference or provide coverage of this table. Surely it is notable if one Spanish-language publication has provided so much coverage of it (and surely plenty of other Spanish-language publications have as well). Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to La Liga. I have made my feelings about these kind of tables very clear in a number of AfDs now, and the only reason I am !voting 'merge' rather than 'delete' is because of Jogurney's research which shows some kind of use of this table by the wider media, and not just a bunch of staticians. Giant Snowman 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The table is about one of the most notable leagues in the world and allows the reader to see who has been the best sides in Spain (other then the obvious two) over 80 years of league history, and who has played in the league at all. The intro however could do with a bit of expansion, even a list should still have some prose. Calistemon (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to La Liga, which is where people will be looking for the info to begin with. Bella the Ball (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge , per Bella, to the obvious place where people will look or the information: the article on the League. There's no point in chopping out a section of an article that is intrinsically very closely connected to the main article. But the argument that it should be deleted because it only goes to 2007/8 is nonsense--we don't delete articles for being incomplete. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but who argued that the article should be deleted because it only goes to the 2007–08 season? Looking over the discussion, I can't see anyone say that and the article is actually accurate up to the 2010–11 season (and has been since before I sent this article to AfD). Jenks24 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alundark

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

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. No released albums, no coverage in reliable sources indicating that WP:GNG is met. Previously speedied. Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete without any released albums, this band is clearly not notable. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, not notable and has been speedy deleted before. Looks no different from that version. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No claim to of importance or crediblity. Singularity42 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, not notable. Rcsprinter (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysing e-commerce web sites

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

Some weird crossover between WP:NOTSOAPBOX and "not Wikiversity". Either way, non-encyclopedic essay material. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete weird is the right word. i'd say something about WP:NOTTWILIGHTZONE but unfortunately, that's not always the case. probably WP:NOTMANUAL is applicable here. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was just made today, but is bulleted essay w/ no sources MadCow257 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a bad machine translation of a sales brochure. The designed web sites for the organization should give a very much of facilities to its users. The below are some of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)

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

The article/list does not convey the significance of having a posthumous number one, especially for only one chart from one country. It just points out that this person died then he/she had a number-one single in the UK. Nothing about an artist who reached number one shortly after death or one who reached number one 10 years afterwards. It's a trivial intersection, not any different than having such lists as number ones by a solo artist who was previously in a group/band or artists who reached number one after getting married, all of which could be sourced in a similar manner, but equally unimportant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of the list seems to be notable to me but the list would be improved by referencing this aspect. Since the list is currently at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)/archive1 I have commented there suggesting such references as this. I am not wanting to edit the list at this particular time in its development. The notability of the intersection with UK is a highly subjective matter but intersection with country is very commonly used, to my mind helpfully. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of a notable topic with clear inclusion criteria. Was a former DYK entry too, and the FL candidate adds strength to the article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a policy reason to say keep, but to ignore the policies: It is interesting information which people may want to lookup or which people may find out about incidentally while browsing Wikipedia. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep since article is at FLC. Not a trivial intersection per Thincat. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite focused topic and likely notable and verifiable. Dzlife (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a perfectly likely intersection to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. At least after the article has been improved during the AfD. Bxzooo is however reminded that they do not own the article and may not make contributions to it that are promotional or not verifiable through independent published sources. Sandstein 05:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Adler

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

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

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

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

Vanity article authored by the subject. (completing nomination for IP editor - not voting at this time) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, omg, she thinks we have to know about her nannying. Not notable - no significant coverage in reliable sources, no other notability standards met. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do know that she'll be reading your comments. Not meaning that as a threat towards you, but as a gentle reminder that one should be more cautious (and delicate) when discussing BLP related things. Killiondude (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment point taken, even though not addressed to me. perhaps WP:YOURSELF is relevant, esp: Note that anything you submit will be edited mercilessly by others. Many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community. surely if WP:BLP applies to project space, so does this warning. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killiondude - I don't think we'd hesitate to condemn this kind of trivial detail in a non-vanity article, and vanity articles by non-notable people trying to use Wikipedia as a resume service are not the thing to be giving preferential treatment to - but, likewise, point taken. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete although i have to say that i think this should be preserved as an object lesson in how not to write a wikipedia article about yourself (like don't list worldcat on your resume) or, failing that, as some kind of weird performance art. my favorite bit: Upon discovering that he was merely a con artist who was drawing her into literary fraud, she contacted former CIA agent turned journalist, Frank Snepp... anyway, clearly fails all notability standards. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is obviously full of tripe. However, per Wp:author, does she have notability? Among her (mostly over the top) references, I see 17 works in the Library of Congress [1], a collection at the University of Minnesota [2]... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment unfortunately, as impressive as the LOC sounds, and as great a library as it is, its holdings are possibly the worst of any library in the u.s. for purposes of arguing notability. the LOC gets copies of every book published under copyright in the country, and they hang on to about half of them. also, i'm dubious of any library-holdings based argument for notability of authors, since libraries have books in their collections for all kinds of reasons, e.g. as primary sources for researchers studying genres, and notability of author in such cases isn't considered by the library. a university library quite close to me (top 20, research I) has crates of Tijuana bibles and white supremacist handbills in its collection. the objects themselves are notable. almost certainly their authors are not. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While I don't disagree, these appear to be published children's books which is what gives me pause. It's not a field I have much experience in and I don't feel that I'm knowledgeable enough to say that she's not notable in it. OTOH, the page is in dire need of a purge at the very least. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a note here at WikiProject Children's literature in case they would like to weigh in. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment that is an excellent move. good thinking. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom it may concern at Wikipedia,
My name is Ron Rosenbaum. I'm a journalist, essayist and author of (among others) <Explaining Hitler>, <The Shakespeare Wars>, <The Secret Parts of Fortune> and most recently <How the End Begins:The Road to a Nuclear World war III>. The first 3 from Random House, the most recent from Simon&Schuster. My work has appeared in <The New York Times> magazine (eight cover stories), <Harper's>, <The New Yorker>, <the New York Observer> among other periodicals. I am currently a cultural columnist for Slate.

Peggy Ann Adler told me there was a Wikipedia debate about her "notabiity". I've known her and her notable skills and intergrity for nearly a decade. I basically would say that in the murky gray world of fact and fiction, and the penumbra of paranaoia that afflicts so many contentious subjects today, Peggy Adler is one of the few researchers who has the stringency, tenacity and skepticism to bring clarity to to these matters, rather than add confusion.

She was the one, for instance who led me through a long trail of people and circumstances to arrange the first-ever videotaping of the Skull and Bones Initiation ritual, which was subsequently broadcast on ABC Nightly News and which I wrote about in the New York Observer and other outlets. She also had the persistence and skills to track down some important tax, real estate and corporation name-changing by the Skull and Bones shell corporation, as well as trace the links of Skull and Bones members to intelligence agencies.

To me she is not only notable but a valuable asset to the journalistic community.

Yours truly, Ron Rosenbaum, 66.65.185.174 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.185.174 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your testimonial, Ron. Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, we have to go by what other people have already reported about subjects, rather than speaking from our own knowledge. Can you provide WP:Reliable sources that back up the statements you've made above? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler

Dear Sarek, When you say you rely on "other people" for your info, I'm puzzzled. Wouldn't I count as "other people". I have first hand knowledge of everything I described about Peggy Adler and everything is googlable as well. Do I need to provide urls, take a lie detector test? Please advise. Ron Rosenbaum 66.65.185.174 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, we need WP:Reliable sources, as are defined at that link, for all our information, but more especially for living people.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [edit]

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler Sarek, http://www.observer.com/2001/04/at-skull-and-bones-bushs-secret-club-initiates-ream-gore-2/ you'l note Peggy Adler named herein. Ron Rosenbaum 66.65.185.174 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Bxzooo 14:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Keep - The article needs work, this is true. I've pared down some of the stuff that I didn't see proper third party refs for. But there are multiple references out there. Not all of the sources listed in my previous sentence have significant coverage of her, but enough sources with "mild" coverage should suffice. Note that in her first marriage she was Peggy Adler-Walsh and some of her work is attributed to her as Peggy Alder-Robohm. (Hopefully there is no confusion when looking at sources.) Killiondude (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning this way, and I've done some minor editing myself. However, it doesn't help that Bxzooo keeps "fluffing it up". I have removed some of the more obvious non-notable/uncitable entries (nannying and little league stuff). IMO, this is like (and please excuse the example, but I've just watched Rat Race (film) again) someone editing the Klaus Barbie page to go into great detail about his love/work in ballroom dance. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Courant source, those seem pretty trivial... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with you, Roscelese but I must concede that the Congressional Record and Newsweek are also valid sources (see her page). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "Congressional Record" just a reprint of the Newsweek article? (And I do still think that the mention of here there is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.) If it were the Congressional Record, that would be a primary source anyway, and thus not useful for establishing notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here's about what the congressional record is good for, or even this (not that there's anything wrong with the cause, it's just, like, not that hard to end up in the congressional record). the sources ought to stand or fall on their own merits, and whether or not some congressman read them into the record strikes me as completely irrelevant to anything. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we throw out the Congressional Record, Courant + Newsweek = 2. That's usually the bar for notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two is technically "multiple," but I don't think it's really in the spirit of a guideline whose purpose is to determine who is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I also, as I've stated, think the coverage in Newsweek is a trivial mention that does not confer notability.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps everyone is already aware of it, but Bxzooo has self-identified as Peggy Ann Adler: User_talk:Bxzooo#copyright — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article took a bit of sleuthing to figure out whether the subject is notable, because the self-written page does a lot to make her sound like a major figure in world historic events. The section on Butch Cassidy sounds on close reading like a glorious college internship or first job: sell tickets for a movie at Yale, arrange logistics for a party, meet Paul Newman - not something for which she received notable coverage, nor is there sourcing. The lioness illustration is very nice, but there is no demonstration that she has received notable attention as an illustrator (no significant press coverage, no expositions in important museums (or anywhere?)). So the case for this article comes down to her work as a private investigator. She has provided good sources, and even a journalist's testimonial on this page, that she did diligent investigative work following the trail of a conspiracy theory that had some Congressional interest and some press coverage. Kudos, but that doesn't elevate her to the standard of notability required for a bio on Wikipedia. Being quoted in an article, even being interviewed on television once or twice, does not make you the subject of the article. If we started writing pages about every journalist's sources, Wikipedia would extend to infinity. I mean, this ain't Deep Throat. So the article clearly fails notability on the movie and illustration sections, and also fails on the private investigator section once you figure out that the cited sources quote her, but are not about her. Bella the Ball (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just saw the article's Talk Page. Not sure what to make of all that: "We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline." Bella the Ball (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does have a "Forest Gump" feel to it. That's why I'm so conflicted as to keep it or toss it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been covered by some reliable sources, as indicated by Killiondude above; also, coverage at [3]. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as author and investigator, but certainly needs some editing to remove fluff. I've started. I DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC) and finished. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm beginning to be persuaded that this is notable. After all, according to various articles on Wikipedia, Peggy Adler answered Hollywood's call to become a major player in the release of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. She once held the august-sounding position of Vice-President of something called NameBase. She is one of the notable people who once lived in Bayside, Queens. She is a notable resident of Clinton, Connecticut, and wrote a story that appears on the town's website. She was one of the major authors published by the John Day Company. And she is one of a few notable alumni of Bayside High School and Bennington College. In fact, her reputation on Wikipedia is spreading like kudzu, thanks to the diligence of Bxzooo, who (follow the bouncing ball) moved her talk page to Peggy Adler, saying, "Peggy Adler is my name. I used Bxzooo as a user name when I was creating the article. Now that it is completed, I want it to appear under the true name of its subject." We can be pretty sure that she once shook the hand of someone who shook the hand of Barack Obama, and she's at most two degrees from Kevin Bacon. With all that evidence, she has increasingly convincing notable notability. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck (but not edited) the comment above. It's a one day old account which has *only* commented on Articles of Deletion, and this stinks of wp:sockpuppetry. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i was wondering about this too, although looking at the contribs of the acct i couldn't figure out cui bono. also interesting in context (see 5th name on list) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think DGG did an excellent job of making this article not so prima facie risible, but nevertheless, I still don't think that there is much evidence of notability. the only section that has information supported by reliable secondary sources is Peggy_Adler#Investigations. no one has produced any evidence that any of her books are notable, nor that the fact that she wrote the books is notable, nor that she's notable for having written the books. likewise for her small town community involvement. i was thinking for a while about supporting a merge of that one section to the October surprise conspiracy theory article, but, on reading that article, it became clear that merging this material there would harm that article by lowering the average import of the material. i guess that the point of this is that i'd like to thank DGG for his serious and incisive editing, but state clearly that i think we still have a sow's ear on our hands. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. Has shown a lot of improvement since nomination. Many authors become more notable as journalists than authors of fiction. Needs more references which I think can be found. Dzlife (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In fact, Kevin Bacon’s sister, Elinor (Lini) was my first semester roommate during my Freshman year at Bennington College in 1959. I am sorry that so many of you do not believe that I have done what was in my bio, as originally written. I can assure you that everything that was said there was an accurate account of my almost 70 years on this earth. What do I have to do to prove this to you?

As it is, the list of books in which I was either referenced and/or am the subject has been removed by someone, though at least, for now, they can be accessed via the reference list at Namebase, which is, its self, a Wikipedia page. Actually, wouldn’t being cited in that many books that are published by highly reputable companies make someone as notable, if not more so, than someone merely cited in newspapers and/or magazine articles? Both of which, I have also been, as is witnessed by some of the references that, hopefully, remain.

Additionally, someone removed the fact that I wrote the two “Adler Books of Puzzles and Riddles”. And at ages 20 and 21 no less. My bio now merely says that I illustrated them. How many authors are published by mainstream, New York publishers (not vanity presses) at that age? And the reviews in the “New York Times”, “The Horn Book” and the “Library Journal” were excellent. I do have hard copies of a few, but not all. Everything I illustrated for the Humane Society of the United States, the list of which has also been deleted from my bio, has my name on it as the illustrator. I can scan and upload these to you.

Back in the 1950s and 60s – even into the 70s, there were no PCs and most certainly, there was no Internet. Even into the 80s, newspapers still used line-type setters, because reporters, editors and the like wrote everything with a typewriter. Thus, much is not preserved from those days, other than what was saved in scrapbooks and/or family albums. I do, though have proof of just about everything that I have done and am willing to scan it and upload it to you. There is a 3" volume containing everything regarding the three days of events that I coordinated for 20th Century Fox, in connection with their World Premiere of “Butch Cassidy”, including a letter, to me, from Jonas Rosenfield, Jr., then VP and head of publicity for Fox, thanking me for my work on the Premiere. I can unframe the subpoena that I received from the U. S. House of Representatives and scan it as well.

Just tell me what I have to do to prove to you that I have done everything that my original bio stated and I will provide it to you. In fact, there is much more to what I have accomplished, for which I also have verifiable proof, that I did not include in the bio. No, I am not Forrest Gump, as someone alluded. Just a mom and a grandma who has had the opportunity to do some really unusual, many fascinating and at times, fun things, between 1942 and the present.

Peggy Adler/user:bxzooo Bxzooo 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

comment dear ms. adler: as a writer, investigator, etc, you are probably familiar with the distinction between primary and secondary sources. the problem that the people here who have a problem with your article have is not that the information in it is untrue. i doubt that anyone thinks that any of it is false. the problem is that every statement in a wikipedia article should be verifiable by an independent and secondary source which is third-party in the sense that it wasn't written by the subject of it (there are some minor exceptions to this principle for biographic information, but i don't think that they're relevant here). thus the fact that you have a letter from a vp at fox thanking you for some stuff you did is not a sufficient reason for that stuff to be in wikipedia. that is a primary source concerning your activities. if you want to put the line in about the stuff you did for fox, it needs to have been written about in a reliable and fact-checked source and then cited to that source in the article. if you have reviews for the books you've published, i suggest that you try citing them as references for the existence and notability of your books, rather than the books' entries in the LOC catalog, as, believe me, it's not that meaningful to have written a book that's in a library. very likely some of the people you're talking to here have done so themselves. what's meaningful is that the books you've written have been discussed by third parties. there is no expectation on wikipedia that sources have to be available online or easily accessible (although NYT articles from forever are through academic databases), so if you could just use your library of clippings to reference statements to reliable sources, i think that you might have a better chance of rescuing your article than if you keep trying variations on the argument from repetition. it would probably be quite useful if you were to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources this article as well, from which most of the points i've made are summarized. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment on my comment: i'm sorry for putting this here, since it probably belongs on the user's talk page. i was just worried that she wouldn't see it there. if someone wants to move it out of here and over there, it's totally fine with me. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply Thanks for your information. I thought that most, if not all, of my reference points were third party sources, such as links to the actual newspaper and magaizine articles in which my name appears. Also the link to Namebase which seems to have referenced, for professional researchers, the books in which my name appears. If there are any that are not third party verification, let me know which and I will do my best to supply the necessary information. As for "Butch Cassidy", a person doing the work I did over a period of months would not be mentioned in any of the press. Just the celebs & round-the-world press who came to New Haven for the Premiere and seminars -- whom I sheparded for the three day event. I have all of the daily updates from Fox as to who would be attending. But although these are filed in the 3" volume I mentioned earlier, I did not maintain the envelopes, addressed to me at my home in New Haven, in which they arrived -- never thinking that I would ever have to provide proof of this fantastic, once in a lifetime experience. In fact, Fox, post Premiere, mailed me every proof sheet their people shot during the multiple, multi day events. Also the original TV news film footage was given to me by our CT/ABC affiliate, now known as WTNH. You say I can quote book reviews. Do I then need to scan & upload them for verification? And where? To Wikipedia? Or Wikimedia? I have reviews for some, but not all, of the books I authored. All are excellent. Some publishers, such as John Day, send them to their authors. Others do not. For my educational background, would scanning the pages with my name from the Bayside HS and Bennington College Alumni Directories be considered third party sources? I'm willing to do whatever any/all of you think will be necessary. I just hope that you will give the same scrutiny to others folks bios as well. I have seen and read more than a few, currently at Wikipedia, that have little or no verification and have no flags. I am willing to work with all of you, if all of you can supply me with constructive input.

Regards, Peggy Adler/User=Bxzooo Bxzooo 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

sigh Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret, accepta aqua, lavit manus coram turba dicens: “ Innocens ego sum a sanguine hoc; vos videritis! ”. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, that's not helpful at all.
Peggy, primary sources are not helpful in this situation. That includes letters and info directly from Fox or your high school directory. We need secondary sources. Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, i knew it wasn't, but i couldn't help myself. i won't do it again. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply How else does someone prove that they attended and/or graduated from any school, college or university if a hard cover, bound, alumni directory cannot be used as a source? Your name cannot be in one if you were not a student there. Also, my name has legally been Peggy Ann Adler since 1952, so please do not remove that info from under my photo. Margaret Ann Adler "ceased to exist" when I was in the 6th grade. Both can be there, but not just the one on my birth certificate -- which is not what is on my driver's license, voter registration and all other legal documents. Also -- FYI, I do not include my month and day of birth, because that would leave me wide open to identity theft. But I do not want my age speculated -- or understated. I will be 70 in the early part of 2012. So just having 1942 or early 1942 would be sufficient and accurate. Hope I'm signing off correctly. Each time it says that my post is unsigned, so I try a new way each time -- but I always include who I am.

Best Wishes, Peggy Adler| bxzooo Bxzooo 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Hi Sarek, What is a reliable source for my change of name when I was in the 6th grade? Report cards? My diploma? Driver's license sans date of birth? This info was originally in the text and someone removed it and put it under my photo. After that, I just tried to keep the info accurate, since that's what this dialogue is all about. Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

reply When I was the document researcher for Frank Snepp’s “Village Voice” four article series on the October Surprise, I had to transport hundreds of documents to New York City, to the Voice’ offices to go through the tedious but necessary fact check process with their fact checkers and attorney(s). The process for the lengthiest of the articles, “October Surmise”, took over a week. And every fact check point had to have a document that was a primary source document (correspondence; documents received under the Freedom of Information Act; Invoices; audio tapes of conversations; diaries; flight logs; telexes; calendar entries (i.e. Day-timer); real estate records; deeds; contracts; tax returns; credit card receipts; etc.), unless the reference in the article was to what a secondary or tertiary source had to say about the primary source, in which case, the secondary or tertiary source was allowed. Otherwise, it was not. So I am saddened that Wikipedia does not seem to accept primary source material for verification, as original source documents are the only ones that can be counted upon for accuracy. Otherwise, you are depending upon someone’s interpretation/analysis of the document and this may be misleading. Especially if the person doing the interpretation/analysis, whether a journalist, politician, prosecutor, academic, or otherwise, has an agenda. Today, before Hurricane Irene hits Shorline Connecticut, I will start to scan documents that can prove what was written in my original bio, including my 6th grade report card from P.S. 41 in Bayside, Queens, New York City, dated September 1952, which states my name as Margaret Adler and my 7th grade report card, dated September 1953 which states that my name is Peggy Adler; book reviews; articles that refer to: my attendance at Bennington College; my work at the Bronx Zoo; my marriage to Jeremy Walsh; my recognition in New Haven as an author and illustrator of children’s books; and other verification data. Hopefully, this will be proof enough to restore most,, if not all, of the text that was removed . If I can find any document from the attorney who facilitated the name change, I will scan that as well. I will continue to scan over the next days (and weeks,, if necessary) and then send the scans, as file attachments, to Killiondude for him to decided how best to deal with them. More later.

Best Wishes, Peggy Adler User|Bxzooo Bxzooo 16:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs) Keep - The article is very well-sourced - I think we can safely say that this woman meets the General Notability Guideline. But please, to those participants who are related to the subject, sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~), and save poor SineBot some work. Inter change able|talk to me 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with user:Interchangeable, now that the tripe has been removed from the article that it more than meets minimal notability.

I would also like to remind user:Bxzooo that Wikipedia is not a blog or a Facebook page... and that you need to read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Bombardment and especially Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. If you want specific help, please write to me on my talk page, or the Talk:Peggy Adler page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Adler contacted me because Hurricane Irene has rendered her incapable of continuing to support her submission of the Wikipedia article about her. Because of Irene, she lost Internet service last Saturday evening and all power on Sunday morning. Her house and the whole town of Clinton is expected to be without power for three to ten more days. She is functioning with a cell phone that has to be charged in her car and with batteries and flashlights. She has been rendered incommunicado and has been unable to continue submitting to you items from the extensive material that provides documentation of her history. These include: • Proof of change of name from Margaret Adler to Peggy Adler in the sixth grade • Book reviews of her published books •A myriad of newspaper articles which will verify all the jobs that were listed in the article as she originally submitted it • Many more items yet to be scanned. Vinestogo (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Peggy is alright in this time of crisis for many areas on the East coast. It is more than understandable that she's unable to participate in this discussion; it's not (completely) dependent on her involvement, in fact.
However, as I've told Peggy at least once, none of that information needs to be scanned. One must also keep in mind that we can only take information from reliable, third party sources (not primary sources). Killiondude (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lanzillotta

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

An actor. Has been in two 13-minute short films, a 3-minute stop motion short and bit parts in nine episodes of different TV shows. Thus he fails WP:ENTERTAINER. I'm unable to find any reliable sources. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated by the nominator, only television roles appear to be bit/extra roles, and there is no coverage of these or his short film roles in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find any notable links supporting the article.SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sorry for Party Rocking. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Party Rocking (song)

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

fails WP:NSONGS. random album track. completely unreferenced. no charting (ref for the charting claim didnt exist), no third party coverage. doesn't deserve an article. Mister sparky (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd include the charting the article would be deleted anyways, it's always like that... -- SpongePappy (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

charting in 1 place is just 1 aspect of the criteria. it fails in all the others. it's a random album track that doesn't deserve it's own article. Mister sparky (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album. The song charted rather low and is unlikely to expand beyond a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hate to have to say this, but if "Sexy and I Know It" (which charted even higher) doesn't have its own article, then this one shouldn't either. If one has its own article, then they both should. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could make that article, but as soon as it's made, someone wants to delete it again :( -- $pongeP@ppy (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because they are just random album tracks that don't deserve their own articles. there's just not enough info to warrant it. if they are confirmed by official sources to be future singles then they could be kept. Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The single cover says it all. If it didn't have a cover then it wouldn't be a single. P.S. If you think the cover is fake, it can't be fake cause NOBODY could fake such a cover ;) -- L-M-F-A-O-! (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album per Hammer. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Jack

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

Seemingly unsigned band. No coverage beyond band's own website, local music blog, facebook and myspace. Fails WP:BAND. PROD removed without explanation. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not find any sources of note MadCow257 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The band managed to get a showcase on the first Friday of every month". Where? Reading backwards, maybe some cafe somewhere on Planet Earth. And then someone left the band and they stopped playing, leaving nary an MP3 to be downloaded. Can't this be a speedy? Bella the Ball (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Virginia earthquake

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

Sent to AFD under WP:NOTNEWS. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there are so many sources its no even funny. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Virginia Seismic Zone, this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant seismic event ever recorded in the zone. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion was re-opened after being speedily closed, per this comment on my talk page. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: One of the most historically significant seismic events on the East Coast, in fact not a stronger quake in Virginia since late 19th century. Massive notability. Hello32020 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Earthquake is notable in that it is comparable to larger quakes in VA history (i.e. 5.9 1897 Giles quake). This magnitude of quake is rare on the east coast. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a speedy keep, to be honest. Yes, the coverage of this is significant and diverse enough. It's not really a major earthquake by any standard, but it took place in an area rare for quakes and had considerable power. ceranthor 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage by reliable sourcesMechaChrist (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been confirmed by the USGS and multiple reliable sources and was felt over a wide area from South Carolina to Toronto, Canada. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per everyone above. —Terrence and Phillip 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- more than just an average news story. Earthquake felt from the Carolinas all the way north to Connecticut is hardly your typical, trivial, every day happening. (besides, it got me out of work two hours early :) Umbralcorax (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as it was a record event for the region. Felt over the entire eastern US. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep and a big trout slap for the guy who started this thing! Wefihe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this earthquake may not be "large" by geologic standards, it's size relative to its location and the impact it had (and continues to have, as of 2011.08.23 16:55 EDT) in the United States' economic and political corridor makes it a significant event. It should also be noted that an article for another earthquake of similar size, situated in a location not known for "major" earthquakes, has existed on WP for a long time without controversy, and with much less media coverage: see the article for the 1998 Pymatuning earthquake, if you want a comparison. Adams kevin (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and SMH!. Ok, can we please stop wasting energy in this discussion and let the article continue its organic improvement? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I placed on here solely for the criterion that news needs to have a lasting impact to be considered notable. Now I will not deny that this is an unusual event and that it was witnessed by literally millions, but then, the same could be said for a particularly good Aurora Borealis. Can you all honestly say at this point this will have a lasting impact? Googlemeister (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article, this breaks records. — Joseph Fox 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As soon as I heard the news elsewhere, I began to search Wikipedia for the article. WP is the place with the largest number of hard-nosed editors to report, review, & update an event without the hype, errors, etc. Would hate to lose that option on this and similar articles. Combine that with the number of people affected, and "Notability" is reached for me. RayBirks (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the exact same thing. My vote is Strong Keep. A very unusual circumstance for this part of the US, and even Canada. Tinton5 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. First thing I did after feeling the quake was open two fresh tabs in my browser, one to search the Internet for relevant news, the other to see what was posted on WP. Adams kevin (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to keep this discussion open. Gigs (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's ridiculous to put this up for deletion just hours after it happened. An earthquake that shakes half the east coast is somehow non notable? --George100 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close this meritless AfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - We have a strong precedent for this: 2008 Illinois earthquake, a far weaker earthquake in a zone where strong earthquakes are uncommon. They are even less common in Virginia. -- Veggy (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Waste of AfD. What's next, AfD for the New York Mets? --Dekabreak101 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there's a good argument to be made that their current season is more catastrophic than this earthquake... SS451 (talk)

Someone hasn't been paying attention to the Houston Astros. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Iftikhar

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

Non-notable journalist, written by single-purpose editor, likely autobio. Sources cited are merely to the subject's own publications; not a single source that is actually about him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from this minor mention here. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be an attempt here to fake notability where little exists. Gigs (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At least that's the consensus among contributors who do not appear to have a conflict of interest. Sandstein 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adminsoft Accounts

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

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

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

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

Article failed at Articles for creation and was moved into main space by the article creator anyway. Non notable software. references are either user written or on a download site. Book is self-published. Vague claim to "received acknowledgement" from IAB has been expanded since Prod notice added, but does not seem to be anything significant. noq (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

s

Objections:

Originally the article was moved to AfD because the creator was not established with enough edits elsewhere. The page of course needed a look at it. And was cleaned, hence moved to the main area. The editor who may have made a personal objective to remove the article has produced vague arguments! Even than the creator has cleaned up objectively the page further.
Like TurboCash or GNU in Wikipedia, it is not unusual for Adminsoft Accounts to be included here. The basis of the remark about dismissing it as ‘non notable' software DOES NOT have any concrete and established rules to adjudge as such. There are thousands of satisfied users internationally using the software, and the honest figure has beed given on the page which is much more than any of other software in Wikipedia has done. These figure can be verified by any independent audits if someone is prepared to pay for it. If the software is usd by users all over the world, and the tax regimes don't have a problem, it cannot be dismissed as a vague notion that it is a 'non-notable' software. Has the individual who has made this remark tried it? What is his or her background qualifications in this matter?
A remark about the book as a self-publication is also wrong. It is published by the publishers Skylark Publications UK which legally files tax returns in the UK. It has been publishing since 1970 and has published many hundred renowned poets over the decades. Thepublishing portal for the cost effectiveness used for the Print-on-Demand is not a self-publication as misguided information gven by the editor. Sktlark publications is registered l, like all major publishers, at Lighthouse Source for the similar arrangement as well. It has no interest whatsoever in Adminsoft. Original editor's remark creates a real false impression.
The IAB is a significant international body recognised and delivering education qualifications including at the universities, and to dismiss its statement which they issed after significant checks (where it has been also shown in the book by Skylark Publications UK how examination criteria are met through the use of the paper by this software)makes the objection by the said editor unsound and uinvalid.Instead this situation only makes the software more notable against many software, including the Wiki-isted TurboCash less important. The body such as IAB when makes an authorised acknowledgement fo any type, they do not do it lightly, and issue them casually!
Reviews of the most software are user oriented unless the magazines do the features. But where does the success of software come from? Not the users?

Objectively speaking, with the points substantiated, it is expected that the objections are not subjective, and the page is moved back to the main area by someone reasonable.

Y C Narker (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rejected at AfC - just because you then had enough edits to be able to move it into mainspace does not make it a wise thing to do. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because a similar product has an article does not mean this one should and the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether this is notable. It is not up to Wikipedia to pay for audits to establish the truth of the numbers. If that does not exist then the claim cannot be supported. Whether I have tried the software or not is immaterial - notability needs to be verified by independent WP:reliable sources. The book is published by Skylark - who list one of the two editors as Yogesh Patel - who is the author of the book. Skylark produce a small number of books - almost all written by the two editors. Sounds like self publishing to me. The significance of the IAB is not in question - what is in question is what "received acknowledgement" means and if that is published anywhere other than in the book. Where else is it "acknowledged"? Please read WP:GNG, WP:verifiability and WP:reliable sources - then ask yourself if this meets the requirements. noq (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The sourcing in the article do not represent reliable sources and the closest thing I could find was this passing mention in The Hindu]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC

I was glad to find more details about Adminsoft Accounts at Wikipedia. Having recently switched from TAS after many years of using it successfully, I was not sure; but it came highly recommended, free, and with the assurance of the IAB and many users successfully using it worldwide. To my surprise, I found the software to be extra-ordinary with many new helpful features it offered. I actually feel more in control of my bookkeeping than with other software I have used. Hence, it was quite informative to find more about it at Wikipedia to explore it further, though I am dismayed at the negative comments expressed here while I have come to know differently. J Piper Jempiper (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Jempiper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - This discussion is about whether an article on Adminsoft Accounts on wikipedia should exist based on our inclusion guidelines. It is not a discussion on the merits of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reliable source is the acknowledgement by the IAB. To remain unbiased, education bodies like IAB do not publish acknowledgements. Book is an independent source and the right place for its inclusion. The book is not self-published by the Adminsoft Accounts. Author (a Society of Author member verifiable through their portal) nor the publishers (A UK registered company verifiable at Neilsen’s portal) look part of Adminsoft Accounts. Reliable source is also the published material ISBN 978-0-9560840-2-6 as per the guidelines. The book looks with a reliable publication process Neisen Bookdata and available through all bookshops and publishing channels including Amazon. The author through the searches looks authoritative in relation to the subject, through his qualifications in the subject - all in the public domain. The search also reveals he trains people, is a registered UK training provider (UKRLP: 10033957)again verifiable through the government portal. The reliability and verifiable position indicates the article meets the criteria for the inclusion in WikipediaSJBSun (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Can you provide a reference where the IAB "acknowledged" it other than the book itself? What does "acknowledged" mean in this context - Google has no hits for "IAB acknowledgement" so is this something unique to this book. An ISBN number is no indication of notability. Nielson bookdata is no better than an ISBN number. It just shows it was published not that it is reliable or notable. Neither I nor google knows what UKPRN: 10033957 means. noq (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' As the developer of Adminsoft Accounts I had no intention of participating in the Wikipedia article. But looking through the comments here, I feel that I need to correct some misunderstandings. The book ‘Free Accounting with Free Software’ was written by Yogesh Patel, not me. The book is an introduction to accounting, suitable for accounts students up to IAB Level 3 Diploma. Other than writing a book based around Adminsoft Accounts, Yogesh nor Skylark Publications UK have any interest in the software or the company that distributes it (Adminsoft Ltd. registered in England). Yogesh worked closely with the IAB (International Association of Book-keepers) while writing the book (which includes an IAB test paper), and as such the book contains an acknowledgement from the IAB, this acknowledgement also refers to the software.

I am puzzled at the assertion the software is ‘non-notable’. It is in use by thousands of people across with World. It has been downloaded over 70,000 times. A rather large file that contains a log of each download is available to back up this claim if required, at no cost. Obviously not as successful as a product such as GNU, but not bad for a one man company with no marketing budget whatsoever. The references provided in the article do not look like download sites to me (another comment I can’t understand). But I agree they do appear to be brief reviews written by users of the software. But surely the users are the best qualified to publish a review? They have to live with the software. On that subject, user feedback is available here: http://www.adminsoftware.biz/customercomments.html If necessary all of them can be supported by copies of the relevant emails.

Finally, although I read a lot of articles in Wikipedia, I’m not really familiar with the procedures and regulations involved in publishing them. But surely something like Adminsoft Accounts, which is a successful and free accounts package, available for anyone to use, is in tune with Wikipedia itself? Thank you. Mike Towle

Comment The book is published by the author - that makes it self-published and as a consequence of questionable reliability. As for notability - read WP:ORG and we need that backed up by independent WP:reliable sources. The two reviews included are from a user posted site and from place77 which has a prominent "Download Adminsoft accounts free from place77.com" notice at the bottom of the review. Please read the notability and reliable sources links for more information. noq (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is unlikely to provide a reliable source. Interesting that you identify the article creator as being the author of the book. noq (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry. I can't seem to locate any reliable sources. The passing mention in the Hindu is nice but trivial. As far as I can tell, Skylark is a vanity press founded/edited by the same author of the book. I spent time looking through back versions of the International Accounting Bulletin as that would appear to have been an impressive endorsement, but apparently we're talking about some bookkeeping organization which shares the same initials. I'm also disappointed by the forum posting soliciting support I ran across, but judging by the traffic there, this is likely not a great concern. Are there any other sources I'm missing? It seems like a neat project, and we have a very low threshold for inclusion here for software, but I'm just not seeing it at the moment. Kuru (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book has no connection to the software company. Self-published describes the majority of publications today. I am personally an expert in this field, and have been recognized as such by being asked to be a speaker at developer conferences.Tuvia613 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Trust me I'm a doctor" type statements do not meet the WP:verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. noq (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement We are writing to refute any discrediting statements appearing here about our business, and to clarify that Skylark Publications UK is an independent ompany filing its tax returns in the UK with representation in India. Our production comes from a variety of sources including Lightning Source with its global distribution channels in the USA, UK, and Australia through their many distributing partners listed on their website, including Ingram and Barnes & Noble. As a small press, we also use any other channels including Lulu, and printers in villages and towns in India as a cost-effective solution for distribution, but we are not a self-publishing or a vanity publishing solution. Our advisory panel includes Lord Dholakia, Lord Parekh and Debjani Chatterjee, MBE and contribute to our Word Masala imprint. If one of our authors also happens to be a partner in the business, then we cannot ignore the extra potential revenue, we will use the author ourselves. However, this does not give the right to anyone to damage our commercial interest, and brand us as a self-publisher, and undermine our other authors and the forthcoming publishing programme. We have never taken any money from any of our authors, poets or artists. We view it very seriously. We have no desire to be on Wikipedia nor is it where we seek any ‘notability’. Like any book publishers we accept that the criticism of any of our published work will have critics for it or against it, and in the process of selection of MSS our own editors will have different opinions too. Our book project, Free Accounting with Free Software, is well researched and developed with advice from the IAB, allowing us to publish and work through their examination material and test papers. Accept if you will, but do not indulge in damaging our reputation branding us as publishers offering a self-publishing solution, directly or indirectly. We have noticed that the editors have already deleted one comment from this discussion. Please do not delete this comment. Thank you. Baku Rangoonwala, Skylark Publications UKSkylark Publications UK (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

’’’ Page Creator’s note’’’ This page was written with an honest intention for people to find some more information along with TurboCash and GNU in Wikipedia , and thus enrich the pool. The discussion has slipped in to bringing independent references and sources in to disrepute as a main focus, which was not my purpose. Therefore, before any more damaging comments to third parties are added here, to protect them, sadly, I recommend to one of the administrator to close the discussion, whatever Wikipedia decides. Please do not remove this comment either.Y C Narker (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again I feel I have to enter a comment here. I have received a rather distressed email from Yogesh Patel regarding the aspersions cast on his book, and the publishing company Skylark Publications UK in certain contributions to this discussion which have been utterly reckless with regard to the feelings and reputations of the people/organisations they seem intent on trashing. If you don’t know what sort of publisher Skylark Publications UK is, then ask! Don’t jump to wild (and wildly incorrect) conclusions. What happened to the ‘assume good faith’ that you’re supposed to practice? That’s part of Wikipedia’s guidelines too.

Anyway, regarding references that seem to be so important to you guys, I had a look this morning and found four references to articles either all about Adminsoft Accounts, or where Adminsoft Accounts was part of the discussion. Unfortunately, each URL appears to be on Wikipedia's black list, it says 'due to spaming'. Being an unregistered user I can't set Wikipedia to allow access to these links, so have put them on this page: www.adminsoftware.biz/links.html I also found a paragraph about the software in a book called 'Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible' by Steve Monas.

Mike Towle, developer of Adminsoft Accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.177.238 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to be find sources that are both notable and third-party, no news coverage according to Google News as well as the archives. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Deletion I’ve finally found time to read the guidelines in Wikipedia regarding the contribution of articles.

The fundamental question here is whether Adminsoft Accounts is notable. It is notable if it has “received significant coverage in reliable sources…” (General notability guideline). ‘Significant coverage’ does not mean there already has to be dozens of articles published about the topic, it simply means “that sources address the subject directly in detail…..” and “coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic…” (General notability guideline). There is one published book (Free Accounting with Free Software by Yogesh Patel, published by Skylark Publications UK) that is based around Adminsoft Accounts, and another published book (Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible by Steve Monas published by iUniverse) that contains some details about the software (the main topic being about business start ups). Are these books reliable sources?

In the case of “Free Accounting with Free Software”, this was written as a tutorial on basic accounting, based around Adminsoft Accounts. The author Yogesh Patel (who has accounting qualifications, FIAB) worked with the IAB to ensure the book would be suitable for students taking the IAB level 3 Diploma. The book carries an IAB examination paper, and an official acknowledgement: “Together with the related software, Adminsoft, this book is acknowledged by the IAB and IAAP to be a useful and cost effective tool in the pursuit of efficient financial management.”. So this book was written by someone qualified in the subject, in co-operation with an organisation of unquestionable credentials. As a source, it could not be any more reliable. The author is a partner/shareholder in the company that published it, Skylark Publications UK. But he could hardly use another publisher, what would that say about the company to it’s existing and future authors?

The book “Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible” by Steve Monas is published by iUniverse. They are a self publishing company, although the book is available through several mainstream, outlets, including Amazon. However, under Wikipedia guidelines self publishing can be acceptable where the author is an established expert in the field. Steve Monas is a successful serial entrepreneur in the publishing, video, music and film industries. It is quite common these days for many authoritative authors to publish their own works. As pointed out by one comment on this page.

So both books appear to be reliable, under Wikipedia’s own guidelines. Making Adminsoft Accounts a notable product. If you still have doubts, I draw your attention to Wikipedia’s guideline about using common sense. I quote: “Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.” I mention this because Adminsoft Accounts is becoming very successful (if necessary, verifiable by way of the download log file). It is in use by tens of thousands of small businesses across the world. Without wanting to sound like I’m selling the product, it is easy to use, fully featured, and free. Which is making it invaluable to a great many small businesses, including many in developing countries. As it is so useful to so many people, and it helps maintain some sort of balance between the offerings of the large software companies and the far smaller companies like Adminsoft, it is surely in the interests of Wikipedia that the article remain.

Mike Towle, developer of Adminsoft Accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.177.238 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. obvious way to handle it--more useful together than split. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America

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

Does not appear to be notable (passing mention in two of the sources). Neutrality concerns, too. bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does not enjoy the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for a stand-alone article, so the best solution would be to redirect to a section of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (though I am not sure if the best section would be "2007 trial" or "2008 retrial"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to individual section in Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Google books and web searches found multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, so I disagree with the nominator's assertion that is only has passing mention in two sources. Still, I feel that this is better handled as a section in that article, mainly for practical reasons. Marokwitz (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Marokwitz - although it needs a good deal of clean up too. Poyani (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Aliens

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

Article on sports team does not have multiple independent, reliable sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to justify a standalone article per WP:GNG. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH for an organization. WP:NOTADVERTISING for this team seems applicable. The article has been tagged for notability for a month and only one trivial mention in an independent source has been found. The article was on a coach did not even take the job on the team, and WP:CORPDEPTH says to discount "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel." Proposal to merge with general ABA article was not accepted by a keep proponent. The ABA is a second-tier basketball league with minimal independent coverage outside of company press releases. While the league might be notable, the teams are not automatically notable as evidenced by the lack of coverage in his case. —Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, merging sounds like a good idea...spare us the incivility and we'd be willing to talk. Tom Danson (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice has been placed at previous discussion Talk:American Basketball Association (2000–present)#Merge expansion team articles as well as any prior participants not already in this AfD —Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. What do you have against the Aliens, who have been more active in the community than various other teams you turn a blind eye to? Why is this the only AfD I'm seeing here??? Why do you want to tear down the house while it's still being built? Tom Danson (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a strong argument. Please present source that support the notability of this article. Based on the consensus here, we can determine how to proceed with any ABA team articles with similar circumstances as this one. Also, I do not understand your advising a "Strong Keep" when you earlier said "merge" was a good idea above. —Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my first choice...but I'd rather merge it than delete it. Tom Danson (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My theory on this is without third party coverage, the Atlanta Aliens (and honestly a good portion of ABA teams) are not notable. Simply paying $10,000 to buy a "team" from the ABA, does not impart notability. A Google News search only comes up with 1 mention of the Atlanta Aliens and that is a passing mention because their initial head coach has joined the Moncton team of the National Basketball League of Canada. I would say once there is third party coverage, the team does not pass WP:GNG and therefore fails the notability test. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If it hits the court then create it. But until then we generally don't create articles for potential franchises. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the team has been named as a franchise, it wouldn't be crystal balling. For sport franchises, (example) an article about a proposed NFL team in Los Angeles would be crystal balling since no such team has been officially announced, only rumored and suggested outside of their league. Of course, lack of actual news about this team is the real problem with the article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A franchise being a "product" of the league, CRYSTAL does say "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." With the ABA track record, it can't be assumed this team will ever play games until it happens (and some independent source covers it)—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a couple of small news releases to do with the organisation of this team (have added a couple of references). It is obvious that there will be many more in the very near future. For the sake of a couple of months it seems pointless to delete or merge it. I recommend keeping this article about a team that is clearly supported by the American Basketball Association. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this league in particular names about 20 expansion teams every year and only about 2 actually end up playing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. OurSportsCentral.com no longer covers the ABA "due in part to its inability to publish and play a schedule and the transitory nature of many of its teams."

The press releases added are not independent as they are generated by the company or people hired by the company. This would also apply to the advertisement for cheerleader tryouts.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if they actually play some games ans start garnering coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Aid Project

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

fails WP:ORG, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. article has no independent sources as it stands, and i could find none in books nor news searchs. contested prod, no reason given by editor removing template. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Not a notable organization. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing third-party on Google, Google News and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with leave to speedy renominate if someone wishes to do so in good faith. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsy Davy

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

Wikipedia is not a who dated who site, nor is it a tabloid speculation machine. As a student, she has no notability for a wikipedia article.. Arnoldxmidnight (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability other than being photographed with a prince on occasion. Pjw89 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete she is known for sleeping with a man Franticjay (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comment the above three editors appear to be one and the same person. This is due to their sole editing being to these three articles:- Prince Harry of Wales, Florence Brudenell-Bruce and Chelsy Davy (see their contribution histories for evidence).Richard Harvey (talk)
- And all three have now been blocked as sockpuppets. May I humbly suggest that this AfD is no longer valid, that previous community consensus be restored and this discussion is speedily closed as keep? Claviere (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the coverage clearly meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Whatever you think about the subject of the article, she is notable by Wikipedia's standards, the article is well sourced and there are no policy grounds I can see to delete it. There is clear community consensus to keep this article (cf previous AfD debates) Claviere (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No notability whatsoever. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, if I may. Notability is defined in the guidelines for general notability. Maybe I am misreading them, but the article appears to meet the criteria laid out there. Could you expand on your assessment of notability a little and tell us how the article fails to meet GNG? Many thanks, Claviere (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the above posters the subject has been covered for one issue which fails part one of the GNG guidlines "Significant coverage". Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above posters, meaning the three blocked sockpuppet accounts? That aside, "significant coverage" means "means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (from GNG). I'd argue that articles such as [4] and [5] are significant coverage in major media sources and are both sources for the article. There are other sources there too. Just a though, Claviere (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; appears to be notable. People can attract coverage by independent sources in many different ways - through a relationship, through a crime, through setting a new world record for self-abuse, through discovering a cure for cancer, I don't care - it's the substantial coverage by independent sources which we care about. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete didn't they break up a few years ago? Why else does she have a profile? Koo Stark was an actress and had bands named after her. From the looks of it, the question of deletion has been brought up three times. Perhaps there is a reason. And Claviere, you seem so adamant about keeping her profile up - perhaps you are Chelsy Davy herself? Iamsam56 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC) striking returning sock puppet comments --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I am not Chelsy Davy. This is a debate, which means we ask each other questions and try to establish how the article does or does not meet Wikipedia's policies. Something I note you have not even attempted to do. I am not adamant that keeping this article, I am adamant that we reach consensus based on policy. Claviere (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to defective nomination which states no valid basis for deletion. A student can be notable if they meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Thai Premier League table

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." and I stand by that, although I will give a further rationale. Firstly, the article, which consists of three short sentences and a table, is completely unreferenced and looks like it is probably original research. Secondly, as it is a table of statistics, and that is all it will ever be, I feel it is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Lastly, it is non-notable because there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing this "all-time" table. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this kind of table serves no purpose and violates a number of our guidelines (NOTSTATS, OR, LISTCRUFT). Giant Snowman 00:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless statistic overload - these stats don't really even mean anything. Fails guidelines as per GiantSnowman. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete unreferenced, should go. Calistemon (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contested the PROD because the prior AfD was closed early, and may or may not apply because it discussed a league from a lower(?) national level. I have no opinion against deleting the article. And then there's All-time FA Premier League table, which is likely to be disputed. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions

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

This article is original research based on the opinion of the editor who added it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current text: Scriptures of Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam has similar names or very close names to that of Hindu Gods and Godessess.
Brahma
Hindu God Brahma's name is very close to Abraham in the Bible.

I can't see this going anywhere worthwhile. Original research into idiosyncratic false etymologies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy-Delete~~: ~~WP:OR~~ and WP:FRINGE --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to just two comparisons: Brahma to Abrahman and the dependent Saraswati to Sarah. Maybe a "Abrahman = Brahma" Theory article. Egyptian and Greek deities are not Abrahamic in nature. There doesn't seem to any other Hindu deity compared to Abrahmanic figures. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title is far too broad, but theories identifying Abraham and Brahma, while fringe, may attain to a certain level of notability. For example, Godfrey Higgins writes in his Anacalypsis: "The likeness between Abraham and Brahma, and between their wives and histories, was observed by Dr. Hyde. Indeed it is so marked, that to miss observing it is impossible. [...] This doctrine is supported by the Arabian historians, who contend that Brahma and Abraham, their ancestor, are the same person." Anacalypsis, p. 396. The Dr. Hyde referred to is Thomas Hyde, and the observation referred to is found in his Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum, p. 31. --Lambiam 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks to User Lambiam. I have incorporated his above research in the article page and clearly now the notability of subject has been established and not an Original Research as contended by the person who seek for the article's deletion. Thanks.Jethwarp (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: Fruther, here is a google search for books relating to Brahma and Abraham [6] and the result is for you to see. You can find so many books covering the topic.Jethwarp (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it certainly can't be kept under the current title. Currently, much of the article is about the similarity between the names of Abraham and Brahma. The article needs to be rewritten and renamed if it has any hope of becoming encyclopedic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added further info to the article. As I progress I find there are lot of research and info available on the subject. Further, I agree with User Ryan Vesey that it needs to be re named. But I am yet to find a suitable title for it. Perhaps, naming my baby was much easier :). However, others can help!!Jethwarp (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over nine thousand book results to go through, but at a glance I say enough people have compared Abraham and Brahma to make it notable. Needs to be renamed. Perhaps Comparisons between similar figures from different religious Dream Focus 03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the best name I could come to was Hindu Gods in comparative mythology similar on lines with Jesus in comparative mythology.Jethwarp (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the gender-unbiased Hindu deities in comparative mythology would be better. Parts of the mythology part of the Proto-Indo-European religion, the popular parallels between Greek divinities and Hindu ones can be incorporated in it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm going to leave my official vote as Rename and Rewrite (the rewrite has already begun). I support Hindu deities in comparative mythology.~~ Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the comments below, I am reinstating my opinion that this article should be deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless and until [reliable] modern secondary sources can be found that give "significant coverage" to assessing these claims. Outdated 17th and 18th century sources, [patently unreliable fringe and/or self-published sources] and sources that give the topic (or in a number of cases some related topic) mere passing mention, are not sufficient. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unpdate !vote slightly to take account of sources such as Gardiner(2007) & Murdoch(2009). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research, POV, unscholarly, generally confused, nonnotable, and very unwikilike. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although fringe theories can be notable, it's usually because they either (A) were historically important, like Flat Earth theory, or (B) represent a current documentable view of a certain group. This article seems compiled from unrelated sources who find similarities of names. I don't see any particular theory articulated; there's no explanation of the underlying methodology, and no critique from modern scientific linguistics. Nor is it framed by how ancient etymologies reflect theological beliefs or perceived historical relationships that are culturally meaningful but not fact-based. I agree with that it's inherently synth and OR. (There is a line of legitimate scholarly inquiry on how the Indo-European tradition may interact with the Semitic tradition among eastern Mediterranean cultures, but I see no evidence of that here.) If a particular topic such as "Brahma and Abraham" is notable, then a better-defined article should focus on that. I'd like to post a notice of this AfD at WikiProject Religion, in case there are informed perspectives I'm missing. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. although it is so far off in the fringe zone that I doubt it will make a difference in the world. To the author: this is syntactic analysis at best and Phonetic form matching in reality buddy. Don't read too much into it. What is next? A theory that Abraham's favorite secret meal was "ham sandwich?" But this type of article just makes Wikipedia look too far off, so let us avoid it. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of short references to the similarity of names, found mostly in a couple of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources (ie. not current and very possibly discredited scholarship) and self-published books (don't cite Lulu, guys!) do not a topic make. Also, if you compare the current version with previous versions, the article is growing to include more and more irrelevant material as it goes along, so this isn't going anywhere good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently covers a wide variety of unrelated theories, many of which seem fringe and none of which but the Abraham/Brahma comparison actually concern the Abrahamic relations. Two thirds would have to be removed if this was supposed to be on-topic. The "similar names" theme is rather unlikely to ever lead to a good article anyway. Huon (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wiki is an encyclopadeia, on one hand some argued this was an Original Research. Now when it has been established it is not so. People are arguing these are views of eighteenth - nineteenth century. This view does not hold any ground, as it is clearly established that the notable historians of earlier century have done research and found similarities between Brahma and Abraham and Saraswati and Sarah. There, are many recent historians also who have backed the views of earlier historians and mentioned in their book. But citing them would again start argument that are they notable enough ??? This is like sticking to one's POV. Further, recent studies by Muslim scholar book published in 1997 [7] also mention same.Jethwarp (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have those saying delete read any of the book results? [8] The Jews influenced other groups, whose religions added on parts from theirs. The doctor then quotes another researcher who states the names of Abraham and Brahma are probably unrelated, but they both have a similar meaning, and list how these two religious figures have a lot in common. The story of Moses is told in other groups as well. Moses appears in the history of Bacchus, who was called Mises by the Egyptians instead of Moses. Their names mean about the same thing. Both were born in Egypt, passed through the Red Sea on dry ground, were lawgivers, and Misis was picked up in a box that floated on the water while Moses was in little boat made of reeds, Misis struck a rock to make wine gush forth while Moses did that to make the stone give water. Dream Focus 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That book is self-published (Stellar House is the personal publishing house of Acharya S, the author), so it's not really evidence for anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He quotes this information from other books though. Have to get to those sources then. Anyone know how to best filter through the 9 thousand book results to find some reliable ones? Dream Focus 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try an advanced search with "university" in the publisher. I'm not opposed to pulling out a topic for a better-defined article, as I said above, and there are (again) legitimate ways to look at cultural interactions between Indo-European and Semitic traditions. I'm just not seeing any indications that the topic as indicated by the current title has any basis. Here's a source, for instance, that has a scholarly perspective on the "Brahma and Abraham" business: it views this as a matter of intellectual history right or wrong, and not as a notion that can be promulgated with a straight face. "Notion" being the right word, since Madame Blavatsky dilates on it in The Secret Doctrine.[9] In other words, "Brahma and Abraham" may be a topic of esotericism, but needs to be framed with caution historically, not as if it represents something that has scholarly cred. The trouble is, sober sources like this one (which thoroughly discredits the frivolity of the etymologizing) or this one or this one deal with this only in passing, not enough to generate an article. That Voltaire seems to have regarded Abraham as "a corruption of the Hindu Brahma" as an aspect of his anti-Semitism[10] is enormously interesting, however, and indicates that a little article focused just on that might be feasible. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that this is a lunatic fringe assertion is correct - regardless of 9,000 book hits. If you search 9-legged Martians who like Martini you may get a few hits too. I just tried this and was surprised. So that means very little. One can not find 3 solid books by 3 solid 20th century academics which say this. The fact remains that there is no "solid scholarship" today to support this. And remember that this is a "major statement" and had it been true, would make it to the major newspapers next week. If this had been true, pursuing it would have been a sure way to get tenure and many younger academics would have published on it - even if to criticize it. But they do not. It is not even worthy of scholarly criticism. That is why the article has to grasp at 19th century straws and self-published hallucinations. It is a waste of editor time to discuss this, when so much more work remains to be done to fix the rest of the articles (on worthy and notable encyclopedic topics) that need help. History2007 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be 9,000 results, but most of them are irrelevant; they include occurrences of "Brahma" in proximity to authors named "Abraham," for instance. Although fringe movements can be notable as matters of intellectual history), I would just note again that I'm not seeing RS that deal with this substantially enough to support an article. The article lacks any framing to indicate that this is a fringe topic or part of the history of esotericism. It's so misleading that it really should be deleted immediately; it damages WP's credibility. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Hinduism by Steven J. Rosen. That is where the original sources come from. Is that considered a reliable source? Dream Focus 10:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which university does Rosen teach in? Is he the head of a department somewhere? But he also wrote an interesting diet book, I see: Diet for Transcendence: Vegetarianism and the World Religions... so at least that part is useful. Was Brahma a vegetarian, but Abraham was not? ... just kidding... Enough said, I will not watch this page anymore. History2007 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Hinduism, Rosen's book is probably a reliable source. On Judaism or comparative mythology, probably not so much. Anyway, Rosen concludes: "Though perhaps coincidental there is enough material here to warrant further investigation." (p. 13) So basically he acknowledges that he's speculating. I am not aware that this further investigation has been done. Huon (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is highly unlikely that Essential Hinduism is a reliable source on Hinduism. It is obvious from the article that Steven J. Rosen, also called Satyaraja Dasa, is a Hindu convertite highly active in ISKCON, the Krishna movement. The work is likely to be confessional, as are most or all of the author's works. Even the title sounds confessional. It is a classic fringe science phenomenon that long-discarded speculations are said to be "worth looking into". Of cource further investigations have not been done—no need to investigate obvious nonsense that flies in the face of sound scholarship.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholars routinely compare and contrast different faiths and cultures. This article seems like someone picked a bunch of those and made it into a thesis. The overall conclusion, and the basis for the article, is original research and probably cannot be fixed. Will Beback talk 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a coatrack article which combines assertions from various unrelated sources to advance a universal position which none of those sources individually supports. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The epitome of WP:OR.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Irrelevant speculation, synthesis and fringe. Quack etymology. Poor sources from 200 years ago cobbled together with unscholarly SPS's to give the impression that this "theory" is more widely accepted than it is. There may have indeed been some indirect influence of Hinduism on Judaism (through Mesopotamian religions), and vice versa. And there may indeed have been some serious scholarly research done on the topic. But the content of this article is pure fringe and nonsense. There is nothing worth saving or expanding upon. Delete the article. If later on someone wants to write a serious article based on reliable scholarly sources, they can start from scratch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suggestions that gods from various cultures can be linked to characters in the Bible are a part of the Christian syncretism tradition, which claims that 'pagan' gods are corrupted memories of Biblical patriarchs. This was later inverted by several writers in the late 1900s to create the reverse position - that biblical figures are derived from ancient pagan dieties. There a numerous authors who address these issues from the mainstream to the way-out fringe, but there is no reason to single out Hindu gods. Relevant discussion should go in articles on sychretism, specific authors etc. Paul B (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. I've just had a quick look for relevant articles. Christian syncretism weirdly redirects to Folk Christianity. If there is an article on this tradition of thought, I don't know where it is! There may be a case for creating one, which would link the 18th century tradition of Jacob Bryant, William Jones to the early 20th century figures like Godfrey Higgins. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the arguments for keeping are not based on Wikipedia policy DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Turner Author/Performer

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

No indication that he meets the requirements of WP:Notability either as a magician or author. The sources on him that I have been able to find indicate that he typically books clubs, weddings and parties for his magic act. No indication that he has appeared on any major media. Unexplained PROD decline by an IP who likely is the page author. Delete. Safiel (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete For the person who has flagged this for delete, all you have to do is follow any link provided in the description (as reference of proof of authorship). Have you any background knowledge in this subject? He PUBLISHED a book with KENTON KNEPPER (That is one of the biggest names in the mentalism industry) Secondly he is currently working with a production company in regards to promoting a television series called the perceptionist. He performs INTERNATIONALLY and his well respected amongst his peers (just read the references also provided in the article). Also there is AN AUTHORS page in one of the LINKS in the article...Whoever flagged this should at least follow some of the links provided as reference. All the Ip addresses can be checked, and you can personally check mine (I also have no affiliation with Mr.Turner other than the fact I am a fan of his material). I also believe he has consulted for several of the best minds in the industry and DESERVES a place on wikipedia for his internet notoriety! Please learn more about the background and nature of a subject and person before flagging thanks.-----Rebecca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.205.89 (talk) 11:51, August 23, 2011 (UTC-5) — 2.28.205.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
P>S I think there has been some confusion haha you have found another magician named mr GEE (also named peter turner) SEARCH PETER TURNER MIND READER OR PETER TURNER MENTALIST (He is a mentalist NOT a magician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.205.89 (talk) 11:56, August 23, 2011 (UTC-5) — 2.28.205.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our guidelines on biographies of living persons, and authors and entertainers in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources; creator demonstrates in his comment that he is unfamiliar with the notability and RS guidelines (publishing - or PUBLISHING - a book does not make you notable, and internet forums are not reliable reviews). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notion that the subject is meets notability standards, as discussed above, is an example of magical thinking. Bella the Ball (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes. :) Yes. Definitely not notable. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can forums not be a reliable source? They are the peoples say and word (isn't that the same as wikipedia?), I am sorry but how many of you have published work? toured many countries performing a craft (I am not picking on anyone individually) Turner has lots of notoriety in magazines and on the web (doesn't internet notoriety count). He is a fantastic psychologist/behaviorist and has consulted for several of the best minds (also referencable)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airethementalist (talk • contribs) 06:18, August 30, 2011 (UTC-5) — Airethementalist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE - My name is Chris Lee 'international hypnotist appeared on several televisions shows'. I watched Peter Turner give a lecture to a couple of hundred magicians/performers and hypnotists back in 2009 he was fantastic. His literature on Dual reality and mentalism is some of the best I have EVER read, 'Wikipedia the peoples encyclopedia' If the people want this to stay I don't see the position some people are coming from. I admit the article needs cleaning up, which I shall take a look at as it is not incorrect but doesn't fully state what he does. He has worked and consulted for lots of people - me being one. His knowledge and fanbase in the industry is second to none - I am a 45 year old man, his knowledge far surpasses my own and I have done this professionally for 20 years - my background can be referenced. I think this should stay 30.08.11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisleehypnotist (talk • contribs) 06:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC-5) — Chrisleehypnotist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stay If anybody needs a referable source, http://www.daisybeckproductions.co.uk/ here is the production company Peter Turner is working with I am sure if you contact Paul Stead he would happily give reference. I am one of Turner's previous students and wish to remain anonymous as we had a disagreement. None the less fantastic performer and writer and should be allowed to stay. User:produce12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Produce12 (talk • contribs) 07:14, August 30, 2011 (UTC-5) — Produce12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rebecca here again, I emailed peter [email protected] . He has informed me the reason several videos/websites have been removed is because of an agreement he signed with a production company. @Chris Great edit (will round up some troops from the forums I think they might want to hear of this debate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.203.189 (talk) 07:25, August 30, 2011 (UTC-5) — 2.28.203.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

P>S I placed before some of the posts so people can see who is for and who is against as I noticed I had not done so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.203.189 (talk) 09:53, August 30, 2011 (UTC-5) — 2.28.203.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yashpal Singh Chauhan

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

No notability establsihed per WP:PEOPLE, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. Jethwarp (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The person was not even a Member of Parliament or Rajya Sabha. Just becasue he was member of BJP and contested election or was murdered does not make him notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.Jethwarp (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment he does appear as the subject of several newspaper articles though. We need to consider though if this is just a one event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is notable by manner of death only. No independent sources which mention this person. — Fιηεmαηη ^(talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pencast

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

non notable neologism used to market a product. noq (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination: non-notable neologism and coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. I've never seen the term used to describe anything outside the context of Livescribe products. Several Times (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's spam and makes no sense. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable spam. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desired Life Ministries

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

No references provided; no (reliable) sources found on web or news search. Organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. St Anselm (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any notable and third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This sounds like a small organisation whose mian function is to run a retreat (or ministry) centre - a sort of hotel or confernece centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheSSLstore

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

Article about a non-notable website apparently created for search engine optimization purposes. A Google News search only brings up press releases. MER-C 12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than to TheSSLstore ‎and related. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: ...a discount reseller of secure socket layer (SSL) certificates and PCI-DSS compliance tools.... The company has three divisions: Retail, Enterprise and Channel (which includes the Partner Subdivision and Affiliate Subdivision). Enterprise services larger organizations, and Channel services Web professionals promoting online and/or purchasing wholesale. Referenced only to internal sites and petty trade awards. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SafeTRIP

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

Non-notable ephemeral project. No significant independent sources covering the project, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This project describes the use of a new satellite bandwidth which is of interest to the consumer and research audience in the road transport area. As the project is relatively new, perhaps more time can be allowed for contributors to add to it. Ashweeni Beeharee (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are implying is that at this moment there is not enough that makes the subject notable, but it will be at some point in the future, if all goes as hoped for. However, WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability of the project, the companies involved in it and their key presence in the ITS sector makes it interesting to keep a page on SafeTRIP and its main results. About the previous remark of it being of "ephemeral" nature, the SafeTRIP project will last for 3-4 years, and will encourage a wide developer base to contribute software for the open platform being put in place, during the project execution and afterwards. Finally, the wiki has also been improved by including references to relevant publications and linking it to other pages. Guillermo Grau (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Guillermo Grau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If there are significant sources when the project finishes, you can re-create the article, although I doubt that will be possible because EU research projects like this one are hardly ever notable. Their results may be notable and the persons/companies/organizations involved, but not the projects themselves, of which there are thirteen to a dozen. --Crusio (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to hold a unhealthy bias towards EU projects (like this? what do you mean like this?) not ever being notable - which is a dangerous and unfair generic opinion. The project is already notable for being the only one to exploit a S-band satellite technology for vehicle that is readily applicable for mass deployment and application in terms of technology. The more time I was suggesting was to address what has been written so far in WP as it is not reflecting the notable work undertaken by the project. The project has strong links and involvement with the UN's ITU, NEARCTIS, etc.Ashweeni Beeharee (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, my "bias" is not just against EU projects, but almost any research project, be it EU, NSF, NIH, or other. It just happens so that EU projects seem to be the only ones for which people think they have to create articles. And I didn't say "never notable", I said "hardly ever", there may be exceptions, although i have yet to encounter them. --Crusio (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP highly helps in highlighting the R&D activities sponsorised by the SafeTRIP project in the domain of the communication technology and ITS, ensuring visibility to other researchers and stakeholders, and therefore leading to further improvements and exploitation of the results beyond the duration of the EU project. --Robecamp (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but WP is not for advertising, however lofty the goal. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to future re-creation or incorporation of material into the W Series article if the project outcome becomes a real world application with the Eutelsat W2A satellite. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Policy may say we should delete this but common sense says that editors have better things to do than debate, delete then recreate articles. We can afford to wait a few months or a year even and see how this develops. --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess this is a proposal to delete WP:AFD? WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm suggesting is that the best solution for this article is to put official policy on the back burner for a while. --Kvng (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU research project, described with unrealistic optimism about what they hope to achieve. Yes, the only way this is going to be kept is if official policy is scrapped. Wikipedia is not a free web host for dozens of inconsequential EU research projects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a remark: Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all (including the researcher), it could be interesting to have at least the definition of the project. It happens in my every day life that I am told about old projects which are of interest for me. Then if those projects are not active anymore, they could have stop their website and I am happy when I can find out some informations about them on wikipedia which is my first reference for verified informations. 194.214.173.64 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you problem, unfortunately, WP is not a directory... However, the EU has databases for projects like this one, I assume. --Crusio (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Abdul Samad Khan

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

No notability establsihed per WP:PEOPLE, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google, Google News and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An unfortunately common case - a newly-created sub-stub article, rapidly pushed to AfD, on someone from the British Raj who probably should meet WP:POLITICIAN. But the article is so sketchy that even reasonably certain identification of the subject may be difficult or impossible - made all the more difficult when, as in this case, the article title may well be inaccurate. Going by the one source given, the actual name may well be Nawab Muhammad Abdus Samad Khan, except that Nawab is quite likely actually a title rather than part of the name (and Khan may be as well). One might criticise the rapid AfD except that, if the article is just left, the creator rarely seems to return to improve the article - is the information possibly coming out of a century-old almanac, with little if any more detail than what goes into the articles? PWilkinson (talk) Comment added sometime on 20 or 21 August - apologies for forgetting to sign it at the time

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guideline. Further, the google search [11] gives name of person of Multan in Pakistan and not of Uttar Pradesh in India. Further, as commented by User PWilkinson the search for correct name Nawab Muhammad Abdus Samad Khan gives some scant [12] reference. But not notable enough to included in Wikipedia. Unless creator comes back with additional information and improves upon page within time limit.Jethwarp (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Eric L. Coggins Award

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

Article does not assert award's significance. Written in a way that seems to glorify Coggins. Possible COI with the writer. Rabbit fang 07:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article as it stands reads more as a bio of Sgt Coggins, sources like this and this show to me that the award is notable within the army itself as they report on winners of the award and consider ( in some circles) that even being nominated is an honor. In my opinion this meets our standards. As I said the article as it stands now reads more of a bio for Sgt Coggins and definitely needs cleanup like a more in depth history etc etc. An "origin" of the award can be given to Sgt Coggins and such. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree altogether with Pudge MclameO. So I did the rewriting & added his references, which need to be filled out more completely. The material was apparently copied from as US=PD source, but it should be given exactly DGG ( talk ) 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article fits correctly in the category on US military awards. It is the sort of information that makes Wikipedia a useful reference. Bella the Ball (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Atheist Party

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

Not yet notable as a political party per WP:ORG, especially as they've not even registered as a party yet; zero GNEWS hits, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe in the lowest of all possible bars at Wikipedia for the inclusion of pages on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections — regardless of ideology. That said, this unsourced piece about an organization "Founded: March 8, 2011" does not meet the minimum standard of actual, verifiable existence as a political organization. Thirty six state Facebook links don't cut it. This page is, in the final analysis, promotional in intent rather than historical in nature. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and per the article: just-formed group "...currently in the process of registering as an official party." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't care if the party was formed last Tuesday in someone's basement and has no real membership. I don't care if it has been active since 1066 and has 50 million members in 26 countries. If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it is notable. If it doesn't, it's not. This one doesn't. It's not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:ORG. Appears to have no - much less significant - coverage in reliable secondary sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strike this one down with a bolt of lightening, the organization has no notability yet. Come back when you elect a candidate, or at least get significant news coverage for trying. Bella the Ball (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this is an actual political party. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This AFD has been open since the 7th but not transcluded onto a log until the 23d. Still, I think it's been open long enough but if someone wants to knock this around some more then let me know and I'll reopen it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burru

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

Dictionaries say that Burru is not a music style (or drumming style as said in article), but a Aboriginal group. This article is mostly like a hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search of "Burru drumming" turns up many hits describing it as a drumming style. The nominator's reasoning is inaccurate and the claims of a "hoax" are completely unfounded. Peacock (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, sufficient sourcing. Also per PCock. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD started on August 7. The nominator apparently forgot to add this AfD to the daily log on that date. I added the relisted discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 23. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shata shloki Ramayana

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

This looks purely promotional, and I note that a link to the YouTube video is being added to other articles. I can find no sources to suggest notability. Probably eligible for speedy deletion but I'm being conservative. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete as above. Possible work of the You tube Swami. Non-notable. No RS found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Keep : Shata Shloki Ramayan is an ancient Hindu epic. I have added relevant citations and added further info. The article is not at all a promotional thing. Pl look in to article again before making further comments.Jethwarp (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are Ganapathi Sachchidananda's website, not a reliable source for the claim this is written by Valmiki or in the Ramayana. If reliable sources can be found for this then it should be included in those articles, but not as a separate article. Odd that it isn't mentioned in Google Books or Google Scholar at all, and only 354 hits on Google if is really part of the Ramayana. I note that I've found at least one IP today linking the YouTube video to an article. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted all references are linked to a "Sri Swamiji". No other Hindu guru/swami or even scholar seems to know of this work of Valmiki. Sri Swamiji has written a Gujarati and English book on the same. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of reliable sources on the topic, or any of the claims made (here or in the article) about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any userfy requests may be directed to my talk page. I am salting the article additionally for a month. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara

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

This unsourced article has no content. It contains no assertion of notability and does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The article has been recreated and speedily deleted four times. The latest speedy deletion and prod tags were removed without comment by suspected sockpuppet accounts (User:Amsanilkumar and User:Amsanilkumar77 then IP User:203.124.18.29. The article exists, still without substantive content or sources in userspace at User:Amsanilkumar/Inna_Muddanu. Claviere (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD-A1. My76Strat (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ there is now some content in the form of pictures and an infobox. Still no text, claim of importance or reference. I have restored the AFD notice on the article. The article editor removed it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since when do we keep articles because they have pictures and an infobox? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original reason for deletion was because tehre was no content, so now there is, however i will change my vot to userfy (which it is already and salt until the draft proves it self. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Does not receive significant coverage. Google searches yielded pages of similar names, but do not talk explicitly about the temple. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:IAR This article exists in the person's user page! He has repeatedly created this article and refuses to improve it. Why he thinks he should create a new article when I have explained to him that he can improve it here is beyond me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering that this has been repeatedly created, can the title get salted? If there is a genuine article in the making, it can be created in the userspace and moved later. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. While I would like to see some WP:SALT applied, the article creator is already making each new article with a different variation of the name, I doubt create protecting will be effective. It may just require application of CSD G4 to any future recreations. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a sourced lead section for context. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus for this DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 card spy

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

Not technically a CSD candidate and the author has contested that deletion so I'll bring it here. Plainly something made up one day. — Joseph Fox 07:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I know WP:GOOGLEHITS is an anti-argument, but seriously, this doesn't even get any Google hits. It's made up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unreference non-notable poker variant at best. looks to be a hoax[13] ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think I tried to speedy it as a hoax. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 18:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Even the nominator now agrees that the ship meets WP:GNG. No need to drag this out for a week.Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MV Ramsey

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

~~Run-of-the-mill cargo ship; no assertion of notability.~~ See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Notability_guideline_question Slashme (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails the notability guideline. It does appear in the clydebuilt ships database, but that doesn't make it notable. It is over 100 tons, but that doesn't make it notable either. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep; There's broader sourcing now and I think that's showing more notability. bobrayner (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm loathe to let this be deleted. The General Notability Guideline is just that - a guideline - and I don't think it can be applied as a brush to every topic. This is a ship which cost £150,000+ in an era when a new, three bedroom suburban house would cost £1000. It was a large construction project which took nearly year to complete, and the ship is still in use today. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the ship cost as much as 150 houses doesn't make it notable, unless that was unusually much or little for a ship of this type. The fact that it's still in use likewise doesn't make it notable, unless that's unusual or remarkable for a ship of this type. --Slashme (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By that logic, most WW1 destroyers are not notable, because they weren't unusual in the context of WW1 destroyers. Nearly all WW1 destroyers were unremarkable. Ditto Perseverance IV: one of three remaining barges of a group of eleven, which did nothing except ply the same route for 40+ years. In short, I'm thinking of it not as a ship, but as an engineering project. A project which cost the equivalent of £20m+ in today's money, the result of which has lasted a significant portion of the century. She was the last vessel custom-built built to serve the smaller ports of an entire country - a search at Books is enough to show that. I'll happily travel to the British Library and pull up more sources if necessary, but I think this is more than sufficient. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Run-of-the-mill is an essay, and the interpretation that articles on ships fall under it is just that, an interpretation. There are plenty of sources out there which could be used to expand the article - a small selection being Isle of Man Shipping: The Twilight Years, Ian H. Collard; Coastal Shipping of the Isle of Man 1946 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, Steam Packet 175: The Official Anniversary Book of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Miles Cowsill and John Hendy; Ferries of the Isle of Man 1945 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, So Strong and So Fair: Story of the Side-Loading Car Ferries of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company and Their People. by Richard Danielson; Ships of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Ken Hassell and Steven Dearden and Ferries of the Isle of Man: Past and Present, by Stan Basnett. These all attest to the widespread coverage of ships like these, and an enduring interest in them. Despite the GNG being invoked, no effort has been made to see whether the article passes it, statements like 'It does appear in the clydebuilt ships database, but that doesn't make it notable. It is over 100 tons, but that doesn't make it notable either.' are strawman arguments. Benea (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this specific ship discussed in depth in any of these works? You say there is interest in "ships like these". That's an argument for an article on this class of ship. The question here is: how much interest is there in this specific ship? So far, the article doesn't assert notability. --Slashme (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be some new meaning of "strawman" of whch I were hitherto unaware; those points directly addressed fallacies raised on the WikiProject Ships page. If the wider range of sources had been added earlier, we could have avoided this fuss. bobrayner (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG in light of Calvary's search and Benea's additions to the article. Haus^Talk 21:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as nominator): Things have changed since I nominated the article: there is now a perfectly reasonable assertion of notability. --Slashme (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The issue of such articles is clearly something which needs more detailed discussion, and AfD is probably not the best place to do this. (And there's clearly no consensus to do anything anyway, and good arguments made on both sides). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Korean origin

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which says that articles should be about things not words. A list of words selected by origin is really a mini-dictionary and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles of this type exist for dozens of different languages, and litter WP like bait for cranks who bloat them up with non-existent words. The whole lot of them should go, per WP:NAD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little evidence that many (almost any?) of these words have widespread English usage, making this list even more questionable than its cousins. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Should we have List of English words of French origin, or List of American-English words of British-English origin? Just because a list like this is short and such words are unusual, doesn't mean we should have an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ we do have List of English words of French origin, well, what can I say? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar list for jsut about any language under the sun. I'm for deleting the lot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As annoying as it may be for some, this is a very useful list for linguists which doesn't fit the current scope of wiktionary. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Perhaps those linguists can set up a website with lists of words from one language that originate in another? It's not something I'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? WP already does this... Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. Indiscriminate, unsourced, endless, etc. Neutrality^talk 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why delete instead of transwiki? - Talk:Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words MadCow257 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these lists would be great on Wiktionary.Borock (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some already are. Do they need to be in both places?--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator does not articulate any policy-based reason for deletion. NOTDICTIONARY is about individual words, not groups of words. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I would guess the Nom has not noticed Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin. very encyclopedic info. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's wonderful info. I just think it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary deals strictly with the meanings of words, a encyclopedia deals with lists of crossover points between languages. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries also contain information on the origin and usage of words, not just their meanings. An encyclopedia should have articles on the history of languages and their interrelationships. But lists of words are the very essence of dictionaries. Borock (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists show the interrelationship between languages, plainly, succinctly, all in 1 place. Add as much prose as you like to the encyclopedia, but it would all be deleted from a dictionary, as irrelevent to the meaning of the words. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent dictionary will include details of each word's etymology, including which language it originated from and when. This article offers nothing different than that. Some of these articles are already transwikied to Wikitionary - that's where they belong.---Pontificalibus (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even a most excellent dictionary will not show how many, what types, and groupings/areas of knowledge of loan words there are between any 2. Latin gives English many Legal terms... Arabic gives us a lot of foods and colours... German gives us a lot of science terms. Seperating it all, destroys the context of the crossover itself. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source saying "Korean gives us lots of X terms", or otherwise discussing the particular nature of Korean-origin English words and I'll agree that would be a reason to have an article on the subject English words of Korean origin, containing perhaps a link to a Wikitionary list.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, could be endless, indiscriminate etc... Also, Wikipedia isn't here to help out in the research field for students. True, it is helpful to some, but that is not the sole purpose. Things like this could just be googled if you really want an answer. There are entire sites devoted to the origin of words. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin; our long-standing lists of such things habve liong been considered encyclopedic. The deletion after Lists of English words of Italian origin was a horrible precedent, and needs to be rectified. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should nominate WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for deletion. Borock (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just bundle everything in the category Category:Lists_of_loanwords (as you seem to dislike many of them) and do them all at once, instead of 1 at a time, Vote-stacking the like minded from your last AFD to your next AFD Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the lists of words. It's just that they belong in a dictionary. I also like dictionaries. Borock (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the answer to my question, "What if you had lists of English words of Anglo-Saxon, French, Galic, Norse, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Native American, Chinese, Japanese origins, and so forth? Put them all together and what would you have?," is a dictionary. Borock (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what you are compleatly missing. Dictionaries dont have Lists of words! Encyclopedias have lists where 2 Notable topics intersect. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are lists of words, and in these days of modern technology, you can easily sort lists of words in other ways than the traditional alphabetical order, such as by language of origin for example. Having "two notable topics" associated with a list of words doesn't make it encyclopaedic. Are we to have List of English words that are nouns, or List of English words with the Latin-derived prefix "pro"?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ummm ... we do ...havent you noticed? We are an encyclopedia. List of collective nouns by subject A-H & List of Latin phrases (P) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - until there is a clear consensus change, which I have not seen here, the lists of words by origin does not violate either WP:LIST or WP:DICDEF. Such lists are so well-established that to deleted them with only a handful of "delete votes" would amount to changing policy by a tiny minority. Before this discussion is closed, we need many more Wikipedians' input, so please note that, closing admin. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with this point. It seems to me that this discussion is turning from talking about this Article, to talking about the Entire Category. IF that is the situation, then notices should be placed drawing in additional editors. IF that happens, I personally feel this AFD should also be re-examined. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is beyond what a simple dictionary would contain, thanks to the categorization. Francis Bond (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisations are arbitrary and serve no purpose.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pretty clearly a lexicography which emerging consensus seems to be defining as being outside the encyclopedia project. There is probably a place for this at some other Wiki, so it shouldn't be blown away without exploring those options — but to my mind this should be deleted here since Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrased another way: this is not a list with a valid navigational function. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Been deleted via AfD before, and while it's not identical to the version deleted previously it's definitely in a worse state now. — Joseph Fox 07:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never Give In

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

Unauthorized bootleg that was never released by the band. The band's management has previously stated that this "EP" does not exist officially and that if it IS out there, that it is a bootleg. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Togakure-ryū

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

This article has only one source and it's not independent. The martial art claims to go back 850 years, but the only evidence is a claim by the art's founder/reviver since the 1960s that he has a manuscript that is that ancient that describes the martial art. Except for the longevity claim, there is nothing else that shows this is a notable martial art and there are no independent sources that show this art has an 800 year history.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve refs and work towards NPOV: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Togakure-ryū&hl=en&prmd=ivns&biw=1280&bih=664&um=1&tbo=u&tbm=bks shows that the term has been referenced in many books and magazines. Seems to be notable enough. --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous references on Google Scholar that indicate notability. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Togakure-ryu&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that these are reliable, third-party references - they are too close to the subject field. jmcw (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources to indicate notability. However, entire sections of the article (like the ones on the manuscript and techniqes) have no sources and should either be sourced or deleted. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the new sources suggested in the AfD are not of sufficient scope or reliability to constitute significant coverage establishing notability. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Church (Australia)

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

Non-notable church. The only significant coverage I can find is [14]. Even this has as much about the interjector as the it does the subject. The rest of the linked newspaper article smells a bit like a press release. No in-depth widespread coverage. Fails WP:ORG. I have previously tagged for notability. Quality of text has deteriorated markedly in recent edits. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears on the List of the largest churches in Australia, but that is out of date, according to what's in this article. It's shrunk down to "ordinary size". It's got lots of programs, but there is no notability demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its appearing in some Wikipedia article has zero bearing on its notability, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also notability is not temporary. In no way are we publishing a list of things that are notable today, while deleting things that used to be notable. The problem is finding any reliable and independent sourcing for this church which is not run of the mill local paper coverage, or a community bulletin board. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A larger than average church, but the refs are directory listing of activities, or local government website, or local newspaper. These do not rise to satisfaction of WP:ORG. The church did "me-too" emulation of the Willow Creek model; no indication they did anything really innovative or with national or international effects. If the article is kept, the spammy praise of one family in the church, the Paynters, mentioned seven times in the article, including "2008 was a great year for the Paynter family as their son Michael released his long awaited singing career" should be corrected. It reads too much like like a Paynter Christmas letter archive. Edison (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly an attempt to sabotage this page was made with the edits made by 121.220.54.143. This person clearly added negative and opinionated conjecture to the page - both by repeatedly referencing the Paynter family (as per reason for deletion above) and by adding opinions about leadership failures, building and land set backs, copycat practices and inferring competition between pastors and churches - all of which are unnecessary in an article which should inform readers of facts. Similarly I have removed sections regarding leadership style and possible influence on the church due to their lack of relevance. This church clearly has a large influence on its local community given the number of local newspaper article on its programs - I think it should be kept based on its merit for an admittedly local group of people - particularly noting its programs available to the wider public of the area: theatre company (public profile), basketball association (public profile) and cafe (public) Singe.gill (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singe.gill (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Singe.gill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The editing mentioned above is so clearly in bad-faith, that I think the relevant principle is DENY. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please also discuss the notability of the subject, and not just the supposed bad-faith editing of someone. "DENY" is not a notability guideline. Goodfaith editors othere than the one noted have expressed doubts about the satisfaction of WP:ORG by this institution. Edison (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple of local press reports. It has clear local significance. To me the more global notability is likely to be from the church-planting in Papua New Guinea. Any chance of citations for that from PNG? Obviously there's plenty of scope for a clean up. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ORG says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." So more than local press reports is required. Edison (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My point is that there are probably reports in PNG given that four churches were started (as well as the ones we've found in Australia). Local reports in two countries makes the organization sufficiently international in impact in my books. --99of9 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment More than hand-waving assertions that "sources probably exist" is needed. Edison (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I have added a reference by the Digicel PNG Foundation documenting a partnership of theirs with Gateway for projects in Moitaka. Remember that English internet searches have a strong bias against finding news reports from PNG. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment And an article in Compassion Australia's magazine which mentions the work in Port Moresby and Goroko. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Edison. These sorts of "new wave" churches almost all make wild hand-waving assertions about their importance which are rarely able to be substantiated other than in their own publications. Orderinchaos 08:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. no substantial coverage to justify existence of article. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (Nom) Just a comment regarding the recent refs added for the Papua New Guinea operations of the church. 99of9 has claimed that these reports "make the organisation sufficiently international", in his or her view. Firstly, they are both promotional material from the two charities and would barely be reliable. They may help substantiate specific claims made, but they are still not adequate to demonstrate notability of the subject of the article which must have significant widespread coverage. The refs provided are passing mentions of the subject and not about the subject itself. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the phrase "must have significant widespread coverage" does not appear in WP:ORG, let me remind you of what does appear in that guideline:

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

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

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Which of these two standards do you think is missing? We have verified the international activities ("widespread"), and we have detailed coverage ("significant") from the local press. Sure, they're separate, but they add up to notability in my books (and the guideline IMO). --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) [P.S. For the avoidance of doubt: I have no conflict of interests with this organization, I had never heard of them before this AFD.][reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Naked

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

Self-relesed EPs from the band. No secondary sources. Only source cited is a DVD. Prod declined in September 2010 for no reason. All other EPs by BNL have been redirected or deleted, save for one which charted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this (or if I should start a talk page), but I would think that we would at least want to keep the Yellow Tape page, since it's notable for being an indie release that went platinum in Canada. (Of course, it would be helpful if someone more knowledgeable than me about Canadian music, platinum status, and so forth could cite that.) DeadpoolRP (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another reference, I can look into adding more. What is "Prod declined"? And to echo DeadpoolRP, Yellow Tape is the seminal album for one of the most popular music groups in Canadian history. They wouldn't of been without it. The information on all these pages is priceless, and I think historically relevant. I find it sad that pre-WP pop culture is often deemed WP:N, yet recent things that are news for a week and forgotten about the next, stay. --Juventas (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed The Yellow Tape from this discussion since it now has a valid assertation of notability (platinum sales in Canada). The other two still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the title — "Buck Naked" this would be a reasonable redirect to Nudity if the article doesn't deserve to exist. I have no opinions about keeping or deleting the other articles, and I have no opinion about whether or not "Buck Naked" should remain as an article about the present subject. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Marseilles 2004 World Qualification

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yikes, how many of these K-1 articles are there? Every single sporting event does not deserve its own WP article. Since there are virtually no independent sources on this event, it does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joe Wright#Anna Karenina. Will userfy in case any individual editor requests on my talk page. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Karenina (2012 film)

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

A search for sources turned up a lot of forums and blogs discussing this film, but I couldn't find any reliable sources establishing that principal photography has begun for this film, thereby failing WP:NFF. As always I am willing to withdraw if others have better luck at finding such sources. I also have no prejudice against a redirect to Adaptations of Anna Karenina until the criteria for a stand-alone article are met. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate if/when this film goes into production, per WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better choice for now perhaps per WP:FUTURE, is to Redirect to Joe Wright#Anna Karenina where this production is mentioned and properly sourced. It's getting coverage in far more than just blogs or forums.[15] Undelete in a few weeks or months when filming is more imminent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as suggested. Fails WP:NFF, so article shouldn't exist just yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As production becomes more imminent and coverage increases, an exception to NFF might be considered... but yes... WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the redirect idea. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but userfy at article creator User:Electric Storm89/Anna Karenina (2012 film) (optionally with NOINDEX). Redirect to director's page section until production (principal photography ) begins. --Lexein (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now with no problem undoing the redirect once filming is verified to have begun. Casting is a good sign, but let's be sure. After all, the remake of The Lone Ranger faltered even with a cast attached. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Band football

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

Wikipedia is not for madeup stuff. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 01:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable made-up sport. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 05:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, absolutely zero notability, likely violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry JackAttack808. I have no doubt that this game exists and that the band at your school plays it but all article subjects have to be verifiable. The article is unsourced and there is nothing on google that can be used to source this article. It may exist but anybody reading this article, most of whom are not from Peters Township, should be able to check the sources and verify for themselves that it exists. When I was a kid, me and my brother invented a game called "bounce ball" (a baseball like game played with a super-ball) and we played it with a few of the neighborhood kids. I know it existed because I made it up but if I tried to write an article about it, it would get deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Baseball Watcher 23:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been suggested that there may be coverage on her in Greek language sources. It would be helpful if someone fluent in Greek could do a search and examine them. However, for the time being this one's a toss up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark

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

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Notability is sometimes inherited because eminence, fame, prominence (and even notoriety) are sometimes functions of the family to which one belongs, and children of kings and members of royal families are examples par excellence. Theodora happens to belong to two such families -- and in the case of Greece, she also belongs to a dynasty which has climbed on and off the throne four times -- each of which was, at the time, declared to be final. FactStraight (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This actress at the beginning of her career simply doesn't seem to be notable (yet? I have no idea). She carries a (misleading) impressive title as a member of a Danish noble family, but that alone doesn't make her notable. There is a tiny amount of stupid royalty-watching reporting w.r.t. her, but per recent precedent [16][17] that doesn't really count. I haven't found anything substantial, but would be prepared to change my opinion if anyone finds substantial coverage as required by WP:GNG.
The redirect from Princess Theodora of Greece should also be deleted, or should be replaced by an article about her relative Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark (1906–1969) or a disambiguation page. Hans Adler 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FactStraight also looking her up under her Greek language name there are artilces on her showing up in sources showing up indicating notability. - dwc lr (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "per FactStraight also looking her up under her Greek language name there are artilces on her showing up in sources" – I don't understand this. Are you referring to a comment by FactStraight? If so, could you please give a precise pointer to it. It doesn't seem to be here or on the article talk page. If she were notable in Greece that would of course be sufficient, but I have seen no evidence that she is. Hans Adler 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks as if he meant to put a comma or period between the words per FactStraight and also. His comment makes sense that way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was shredded. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc-O-Matic

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

I'm unable to find anything that shows notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you look at the various results at Google Book search before nominating? There's a paragraph of coverage here and there by parties other than the company which markets the product. Edison (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this source, does just any piece of software get put in the book? I did consider this source, but I can't see all of it. I, personally do not think that a few paragraphs of cover show notability with not just these book sources, but a couple other ones that I found. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from this Microsoft forum link, which I don't believe would apply as notable on Wikipedia.SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no observable indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athlone School of Music

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

No indication of noteability through third party sources. School is closed, thus new third party sources are unlikely to appear.. Article is a stub that has not been significantly updated since its creation. Jtrainor (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; unlikely to become notable. --Slashme (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable while open so no chance of becoming notable now its closed. Snappy (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhirendra Verma

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of the 1936-born poet who taught at Allahabad from the apparently more famous literary figure who was a student at Allahabad who wrote a famous work in 1917-1922. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zB4n3MVozbUC&pg=PA1474&dq=%22Dhirendra+Verma%22&hl=en&ei=LPNSTp3LGurTiALuit3RDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Dhirendra%20Verma%22&f=false) Searches specifically for poets come up with little or nothing, but there's a clear confusion-of-names issue here that needs to be resolved. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn given retargeting as discussed below.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is one more famous and respected writer of Hindi also named Dhirendra Varma, who was born in 1897 and died in 1972. He has written many book on Hindi, dictionary, Brij bhasha, and the written by him are considered a milestone in Hindi language. However, this article seems about another Dhirendra Varma. He also seems notable enough considering the fact if he was editor of Dhramayug and Chancellor of Sagar University. But creator of page should give further citations and on line sources to back these facts.Jethwarp (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have done major edits and re write of page. The article is on famous Hindi writer and poet Dr. Dhirendra Verma. I verified with the names mentioned in original write up. The whole confusion was because the date of birth was mentioned year 1936. Please re look at article and I think it no longer falls under deletion policy. Jethwarp (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as modified by Jethwarp, as nom, if there really is only one figure with this name, which now appears to be the case, there was when I'd looked clearly enough evidence to establish notability. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent edits by Jethwarp establish clear notability. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to D (programming language). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GtkD

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

Very specialised bit of software with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to imagine a language binding being notable. MadCow257 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are other articles on language bindings, such as RGtk2. Cogiati (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could merge GtkD into the D programming language article? Cogiati (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to D (programming language): If this had just been a section of that article, no-one would seriously recommend a split.. --Slashme (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rum#History . Given that there appears to be some useful content here, but probably not enough for a stand alone article, this would appear to be the best course. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder Rum

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

Article is entirely speculation, original research, commercial promotion, or tangential and irrelevant to the topic. Not a single reference cited includes anything about the topic itself Mark Asread (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There clearly was such a drink (1, 2, 3) but it doesn't appear to have been referred to in depth under the name "gunpowder rum", and it seems there are many commercial products of that name these days that this article is perhaps intended to promote.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research finding this stuff, Gene93k. And fun to read about rum and gunpowder. The three sources you cite show it as a way of sealing a vow or showing loyalty to a rebellion, not as a beverage.

Here's my review of the entire contents of this article.

The section "Naval Uses of Gunpowder and Rum" has extensive information on the folkloric use of gunpowder to test alcohol proof for various spirits, but nothing specifically about Rum.

It then adds speculation about adding rum and gunpowder to drinking water as a preservative, using rum as a test of the burn rate of gunpowder, using rum and gunpowder to supposedly create create a waterproof fuse, using rum to clean gun barrels and using gunpowder "for sterilizing on ships when there was no alcohol to hand." Not one of these assertions are supported by any refrences or evidence, and some of these are patently ridiculous.

The section "Use and Reasons for Gunpowder in Beverages" begins with speculation that since one of the components of gunpowder (Sulfur) has been used as a preservative and another (Charcoal) has been used as a filtering agent for liquids "...Raw, over-proof rum, for example, could, in this manner, be made more palatable." The same section then speculates (again without any evidence) that gunpowder rum might have been accidentally created when used gunpowder barrels might have been used to store rum.

The next section, "Other Examples of Gunpowder and Rum in combination" mentions Haitian Voodoo uses of gunpowder and rum (not for beverage use). It then discusses the speculates (with no more prof than the words "It seems a fair supposition..." and "One can easily imagine...") that rum barrels might have been built with hidden compartments for smuggling gunpowder. :Finally it states (again with no citations or even examples) that "Gunpowder and rum were, in previous times, used in conjunction to create tattoos."

The penultimate section "Famous Users of Gunpowder Rum" claims that Blackbear the Pirate was a gunpowder rum consumer, apparently because "..He is sometimes depicted with his pigtails on fire like the fuses of a gun."

And finally, the section "Modern Examples of Gunpowder Rum" does mention a product that may, in fact, exist, "Smoke & Oakum's Gunpowder Rum" from New Zealand, but has no references to back this up.

The 5 references cited in the article are valid references to various topics (proof-strength testing, Rum in history, Blackbeard), none of which include Gunpowder Rum.

So there is nothing in this article that verifyably shows that gunpowder and rum were ever intentionally mixed together for beverage purposes before the Smith and Oakum's product. Maybe this article was posted by someone who wants to promote Smith and Oakum's product, or maybe it was created as a joke, but any claim of real, encyclopedic value for this page evaporates like spilled Rum on the deck of a sailing ship or fizzles into smoke like damp gunpowder. Mark Asread (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material is sufficient& the summary above is enough to show that. Some trimming is probably needed. If there are multiple related meanings, meaning, the article can cover them all.Checkingfoor other references, Google Books shows [18]. and [19] DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks, DGG, for finding those Google Book references. If the page stays around, We'll have to add them. I'm not sure, though how you concluded that the summary I wrote shows that the material in this article is sufficient. I think it shows that there's almost nothing on-topic from a reliable source (except the product mention). Here's my executive summary of my summary:

section 1: not about rum, unsourced speculation
- section 2: unsourced speculation, supposition, "imagine..."
- section 3: unsourced speculation
- section 4: product mention
- references: None having to do with "Gunpowder Rum."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It seems to me that all that is left is two sentences: "Rum mixed with gunpowder (and sometimes tobacco or graveyard dirt) has been used in voodoo ceremonies and to seal oaths" and "Smith and Oakum, a New Zealand Company, sells a rum flavored with gunpowder, tobacco, and chili." These could probably be placed into other articles.

Mark Asread (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rum#History There are certainly a few descriptions of this beverage in the above mentioned sources. DGG's even provided a source that went beyond a mere mention. That said, I'm not convinced this subject has enough in-depth content to merit its own articles. I think most of this information is more useful over on the main page for rum, specifically under the "History" header. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As my summary above shows, there are few or no verifiable pieces of information in this article that relate to anything called Gunpowder Rum other than the advertisement of Smoke and Oakum's product. There's not even any evidence that anyone ever referred to drinking something called "gunpowder rum." Most of the rest of the article is speculation, myths, irrelevancies , suppositions and bilge (this has gotten me in touch with my inner scurvy dog). The few flecks of verifiable information might be merged into Rum#History and maybe Haitian_Vodou. That said, I would love to try the Smoke and Oakum stuff (tobacco, chili and gunpowder!). Mark Asread (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. Matthew Liao

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

Junior academic, seems to have contributed own autobiography. Reads like a CV. Article is an orphan. Not notable 4er6ty8ui (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A GS h-index of 7 in pop philosophy. Probably not quite enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep based on the extremely impressive list of publication on worldcat. [20] h index is field-sensistive. This would be trivial for a biomedical scientist, but not in the humanities. The list of publication includes almost all of important journals in the subject. That so many first rate journals think his work important shows notability. If necessary, Ill meet GNG by showing that some of the citations to the articles discuss his work in substantial detail. I don't like to argue this way, because I think GNG is a little silly in this context, but as long as we have the rule, it's no worse than blind use of h index without considering whether it's applicable. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not dismissing your argument, but it's worth pointing out that at least 3/4 of the articles referenced in that worldcat search belong to other authors. Regarding the h-index, if nobody is citing his work it's almost irrelevant whether his work is in a high-quality journal or not.4er6ty8ui (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be on a successful career track at a good university, so I would bet in favor of his eventually passing WP:PROF, but I don't see evidence of it yet. The publication his article says he is most notable for, on the right of children to be loved, has only 14 citations in Google scholar, not enough to convince me of its impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't yet pass WP:PROF. --Slashme (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may one day be notable but he isn't notable right now. If/when he becomes notable the article can be recreated. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Leaders Entertainment

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Neelix (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, World Leaders Entertainment is a prominent production company with sufficient credits which includes television and motion picture projects for Cartoon Network both the network itself and their [adult swim] programming block, Warner Brothers, Miramax Films as well as commercial project for major corporations, Amtrak, General Mills, Kohler etc... TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - As stated in the notability guidelines I cite above, notability is not inherited; a company does not derive notability from the notability of the other companies with which it is associated; "if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." There is not a sufficient amount of reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that World Leaders Entertainment has received notice. Neelix (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia a very notable organization and company IMHO. 71.43.67.115 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Care to explain why, 71.42.67.115? I didn't see any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no assertion of notability in the article which shows how this isn't a run-of-the-mill production company. --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP or redirect to The Venture Bros., pretty much their only significant work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I landed at the "World Leaders Entertainment" article after reading something about the Venture Brothers and googling for the production company. This article was the perfect top hit. TJIC (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lawn mower. Although I've done a redirect here to Lawn mower, interested parties may explore the history link of the article and salvage/merge relevant portions into related articles, with appropriate reliable sources. In case any editor wishes the Redirect decision to be changed to Merge, please do mention the same on my talk page and it'll be done. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the lawn

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

Wikipedia is not the place for poorly referenced, original research essays that have been largely plagiarized from other websites Favoid (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously there are lawns, they have a history, and that history would be encyclopedic.

If this is a WP:COPYVIO, then we have ways to address that (and we don't do it through AfD).

If this is poorly referenced, or (which amounts to the same thing) it's original research, then we're all allowed to edit it and fix this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - That website probably started around July 24, 2008 (would have to see how the crawling works). Here is a historic version of wikipedia's page on the lawn mower from June 28, 2008. The website probably copied. MadCow257 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that basically the same information, with sources, exists at Lawn mower and I think should wait/clean up before doing a WP:CFORK, so I would now support a delete of this page. MadCow257 (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete as a fork of Lawn, which has a section on History. While a sub-page dedicated to history would be possible from there, this is marked by unverifiable assertions. Merge anything sourced and useful back to lawn and delete the rest. Carrite (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, there is NOTHING here that is sourced. Carrite (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we keep this, it should be moved to "history of the lawn mower", because that's what this article seems to be about. --Slashme (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more useful to keep it as "history of the lawn", but expand the coverage to match. The lawn has interesting history before the mechanical mower. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Salvage portions for articles lawn and lawn mower provided, references can be obtained. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lawn and Lawnmower. In general any article on a human cultural artifact will cover its history. BigJim707 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as last two). The articel is much more about the history of the lawn mower than about lawns. The origin of the reel mower ought to be explained. I understand that its precursor was an invention for sheering cloth, previously a skilled occupation undertaken with sheers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keke Palmer (album)

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

PROD deleted. Fails WP:NALBUMS. There is no significant coverage (actually no coverage at all) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no reference for the list of songs, no expected release date. Title looks to be generic - no title reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Wikipedia:TOOSOON applies here since there isn't very much information on the album. When I searched through Google (Google News as well) and Yahoo, the closest that came to being a mention was this.SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Like the editors above, I cannot find significant coverage for this upcoming release; does not meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Further, I can find no track listing or release date. Gongshow ^Talk 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Well, I'm a fan of Keke Palmer and I say we should keep this page on. Her fans need to know! Iluvselenagomez1234 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Guía As de La Liga 2012". As. 23 August 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
^ "Guía Marca de La Liga 2012". Marca. 23 August 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

[1] "Guía As de La Liga 2012". As. 23 August 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

[2] "Guía Marca de La Liga 2012". Marca. 23 August 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

[1]

[2]