Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 31

< 30 August	1 September >

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. Courcelles 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edvin Kanka Ćudić

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

Nothing in the article indicates what makes this person notable. There are no reliable sources for a BLP. I first submitted a prod blp tag, which was removed by the article's originator, so I decided to go with a db-bio tag, which was removed by a brand new editor with no other edits, who claims this person is important in his country. That's possible, but there's nothing here which says what makes him important. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~No assertion of notability is even made in the article, so CSD A7 should apply.~~ Safiel (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ The sources added by the article creator consist of a Facebook entry, a Twitter entry and two entries that are either blog posts or editorials. Still no reliable sources to establish notability and still no credible assertion of notability made. Safiel (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy delete because he was described as a prominent journalist and actor. I don't think it matters if the article hangs around for a week! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources to establish this person as a notable journalist. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While somewhat better sourced, still no indication that this article passes WP:Notability. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 22-year old journalist, article created by new editor, no claim to notability. Also pretty poorly written. Deletion will cause no harm in this case.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:N. This entry reads like a résumé or a CV. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:48, 7 September 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 E-Verify. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everify

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

Article lacks reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written and the article doesn't indicate eVerify's notability, but it's a requirement imposed on US employers by the US government to use eVerify to validate prospective employees' right to work in the US. See [1]. I can see, though, why the deletion process was begun, based upon the article as it is now written. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Redirect to E-Verify. This article is not about the US government service. It is spam for a background check service. The redirect was replaced with this article and should be reverted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E-Verify. That's what I created the page for in 2008 and it could have been reverted since the page was created by an anonymous editor and seems to meet Advertising CSD. If reverting becomes a problem then a semi-protect might be necessary at some point. gren グレン 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E-Verify per Gren and Whpq, and keep an eye on the page to make sure it doesn't get spammed again. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Redirect to E-Verify --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:51, 7 September 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 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecko Manufacturing

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

Article lacks reliable third party sources and it appears to fail the Organization notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Ecko Unlimited. Truthsort (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - my preference would be a redirect to Mark Ecko who at least does have some significant coverage, for example [2]. The Ecko Unlimited link is a redirect to Eckō, which is basically unsourced and should probably also be redirected to Mark Ecko. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another brand with a "sex sells" advertising campaign, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:27, 8 September 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. Overwhelming consensus here that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Zeigdel

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Google search does not bring up significant coverage in reliable sources, only catalogue entries and booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the entirety of Talk:Tim Zeigdel was copied into this discussion. Referencing the talk page from here is fine, but copying it is pointless and confusing. And also based on the heat level of the talk page discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil in the discussions. This applies to everybody – new editors and established editors alike. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this author to establish that the general inclusion guidelines are met or that the specific guidelines for authors are met. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling suggests they don't exist. Fails to state any reason why the subject is notable. (Simply writing some number of books doesn't do it.) The article appears to be WP:AUTO for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the author has published works in the cited catalogues, that does not indicate notability. Wikipedia does not exist to echo library catalogues but to provide additional, verifiable info. Searching for additional information on this author turns up nothing of substance and I cannot help noticing that the page creator Rotewriter is also the name of the publishing house for this author (Rote Writer Publishing House), thereby violating WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:COI RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did an exhaustive search on this author and read many articles, columns and excerpts. I learned he writes commentary and has a column linked to these websites www.rotewriter.com and timzeigdel.com. He seems to have had a politcial past. He's worked in television and cinema with work on a six part mini-series called 'Northern Town' and the movie 'Whisper'. What makes me think he is notable is aside from his written work which would wow the likes of Aleister Crowley, is why he writes. He experienced, endured ECT, Electroconvulsive Therapy or Shock Treatment some twenty, maybe twenty-five years ago. It's why he writes... to remember. It's as important to him and necessary as insulin is to a diabetic or a wheelchair to a paraplegic. After watching the video on this website ect-canada.ca and reading his written work--I believe with certainty he is notable.

P.S. I've seen what Wikipedia has passed as notable among many musicians and artists; be it writer, rapper or actor. Many are not even fit to be known let alone be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahadabra (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Abrahadabra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete Non-notable author, self-published; Tim Zeigdel uses the pen name Rote Writer® which is also the name of his publishing house [3]. RoteWriter is also the name of the author of this article, so evident WP:Conflict of interest. The level of invective from an IP on the talk page is appalling and could almost serve as another reason to delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls far short of our notability guidelines. bobrayner (talk) 21:37, 6 September 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 Stockholm syndrome. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding

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

Procedural nomination. Per this DRV, the last AfD for this article is too old to comfortably be considered consensus on the issue. As seen here, the previous deletion rationale may no longer apply, though the article has not been updated to reflect this. lifebaka++ 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Stockholm syndrome: this is quite clearly simply a particular evolutionary explanation of the psychological processes behind the Stockholm syndrome. In order to comply with NPOV the evolutionary explanation needs to be discussed together with its competing explanative frameworks - this is obviously best done at Stockholm syndrome which is by far the most common name for this particular psychological phenomenon - the fact that Evolutionary psychologists apparently call the phenomenon by a different name is irrelevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge to Stockholm syndrome: Maunus is entirely incorrect and has an axe to grind for reasons unrelated to this article (although we can safely assume Hanlon's razor applies). Slartibartfastibast (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a concept is mentioned in sources does not establish notability - sources have to be about the concept, not just mention it in passing as all of these sources do. Please refrain from casting aspersions regarding the motivations of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is stuff like this always a struggle?: It's really weird. Do people actually think this isn't a real thing; or are we just waiting for psychologists to accept it? They don't seem to take kindly to the idea that humans evolved. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Stockholm syndrome#Evolutionary explanations. That paragraph already contains the germ of this idea and could be expanded. I think information about this concept could be added to Bride kidnapping also. Slartibartfast, it would help if you could frame your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to reality, sorry :( Slartibartfastibast (talk) 12:28, 7 September 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) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sholars

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

A non-notable football coach for barely notable European leagues. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything about him on google news or google news archive. Standard google search brings up his own or affiliated sites such as his personal web site, his facebook page, his twitter page, his flicker photostream, and his linkedin page. None of these constitute independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. the links to the TCU web site relate to his brother, not to him. I don't speak German and can't evaluate the German language sources cited. If someone can verify that these sources are reliable, independent and contain significant non-trivial coverage of Sholars (not just passing references in team coverage), I'll reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Using Google Translate, the significant coverage in the article is limited to [4] and [5]. The rest of the sources are either trivial mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage of job changes. Not finding much in English searches online. I deleted the mention of his brother, which was not supported in the sources cited.—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl and Bagumba. User:EuroNews should also probably check out WP:OWN.--Giants27(T|C) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT Delete" We Feel that these attacks are simply Vandalism.

The Articles´ claim of Notability is CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY VIABLE REFERENCES FROM THE COUNTRIES of Said Accomplishments. ALSO Sir. Your comment regarding Greg Sholars is False... He is an EIGHT TIME NCAA DIV. I ALL-AMERICAN Sprinter for TCU, He is Also a 4 Time NCAA Div. I National Champion and a member of TCU´s Hall of Fame. This is CLEARLY STATED in the No. 10 Reference, as are All other Facts in the Article Supported by Viable References — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: EuroNews (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VANDNOT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*~~"DO NOT DELETE"~~ http://www.hunderttausend.de/artikel/dec78102-9487-4707-a028-62c2d38d8095.htm http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/sport/sportmix/regional/Sportmix-Regional-Neuer-Coach-f-252-r-die-Stampers;art165758,2383611 http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12487673505014&rubrik=50 http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12471161955014&rubrik=501416

These references where found in less than 5 minutes on Google.com They are Not Personal pages (incidentally Mr. Mike Sholars Facebook page is Private, so the above statement is False). Needless to say, because his career has been entirely in Europe, Any Search engine ending DOT COM shall be somewhat Bias... attempt using :DE , :DK, :NO , :LU or .SE — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only !vote once please. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for EuroNews. In reviewing your edit history, I note that every edit you have made to wikipedia (nearly 200 in all) starting in 2009 has either been to the Mike Sholars article or to add information about Mike Sholars to other articles. In order for us to understand your perspective, can you clarify whether you have any connection to the subject of the article? You are, of course, under no obligation to provide this information, but the information may be helpful in evaluating your input. Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*~~DO NOT DELETE~~ User CB162. Although I do not have a personal relationship with the Sholars family, I Do Know Dr. Angela Sholars King, who is Michael (Mike) and Gregory (Greg) Sholars Sister. I have followed both of their careers since they where in High School in Texas. Football is a pretty big sport down there, especially when a player runs the 100 meteres in 10.3 seconds or less. This is why I am involved, because I know 100% that this article is supported by Viable References. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop !voting multiple times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The essay describing bare notability of a subject and caveats of having a relationship with the subject would be helpful for you to consider.—Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football is indeed a big deal in Texas. It draws extensive media coverage. Which is why the complete absence of even one mention of Mike Sholars in google news and google news archives hits seems to indicate that even in football-loving Texas, Mike Sholars did not achieve the required level of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir... The Article Covers Mr. Mike Sholars´ as A HEAD COACH IN EUROPE ... THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your prior statement that "I have followed both of their careers since they where in High School in Texas. Football is a pretty big sport down there, especially when a player runs the 100 meteres in 10.3 seconds or less. This is why I am involved ..." In reply to that, I simply observed that nothing in that Texas football or track experience appears to support a claim of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Has Not Been Deleted... PLEASE REFRAME From Deleting ANY Portions, thus allowing a Fair Assesment (User:EuroNews) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but we can't allow copyright violations to remain. The "Youth" section of the article was copied verbatim from "Mike Sholars Bio" here. We cannot allow that to remain for any period of time. Please be aware that restoring such copyvio material is a serious infraction. Cbl62 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation EuroNew's edits have the same (mis)-capitalization style as http://mikesholars.webs.com/bio.htm. I think it's safe to say he is the author of the site. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the more important issue is following Wikipedia policies.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 1 September 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. Borderline between keep and no consensus here, it would be nice if more sources were added so we can avoid having this discussion again in four months. Courcelles 00:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Amy Fitzpatrick

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

Standard missing persons case with no notability. Dmol (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:VICTIM. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not fail WP:VICTIM, per coverage. and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in my opinion to any article as Wikipedia IS in fact built on news. Without news no article about any person would have been made. Most wikipedia articles are sourced with news-sites material. Anyway notable disappearance article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also when searching on Amy Fitzpatrick and Amy Fitzpatrick disappearance I recieved 4 340 000 hits on Google.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where did you get those figures. "Amy Fitzpatrick" + "disappearance" gets about 90 hits. AF in quotes gets only 40,000, and most are not about the same person. All this is not relevant as google hits are specifically excluded from notability --Dmol (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)criteria.--Dmol (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Only because i find it notable and backed with reliable sources. Now, why i said weak? Because the article needs to worked on. Example: Format the references. The prose is okay. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage appears to be international and persistent. There are about 600 GHits using the name in quotes and either the word "disappearance" or "missing"; of those GHits a number are of substance. BTW - Jivesh, a poorly written article is not a valid reason to delete an article, in addition, neither are poorly formatted references. Rather than making those comments, it is probably a better alternative to edit the article to a level of quality that is consistent with Wikipedia standards. My best to you... reddogsix (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is international and persistent about the coverage. One of the reasons I listed this for deletion is that it does not have significant coverage. The first two refs are family sites set up for her. The third is a standard news item from Ireland, which considering she is Irish is hardly suprising. Forth is a typical follow-up from Sky, (also common in Ireland although based in the UK) and the fifth is an English language news outlet in Spain that mentions the ransom. There's nothing international, nor persistent in these.--Dmol (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ireland --> Spain: Doesn't more than one country indicate international coverage? Regardless of the language, one country = local coverage, two or more = international. As far as persistent goes, the Euro Weekly news outlet lists over 35 instances of articles that mention the individual. In addition, one must not only look at the references included in the article, but all existing references. If one reviews individual GHits (not just the numbers) there appears enough of substance to support the article. reddogsix (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's substantial enough coverage as in the past, which is no endorsement that she was notable during her life. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never made any claim that she was notable in her life. My claim was that there is no evidence of notability about this case. If you have "substantial coverage" please add it to the article, because it's not there at the moment.--Dmol (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "substantial enough" -- see WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 8 September 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 Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Corre (professional wrestling)

No sources, unencyclopedic tone and overall not a terribly notable group. It's funny that about 8 months ago, I was firmly on the opposite side of this article's previous discussion for deletion. But the point is the "Corre" section of Wade Barrett's article aptly sums up every notable thing the group did. There's really nothing else to add and trying to do so is just beating a dead horse. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I feel the issues raised by the AfD were aptly handled and I'm satisfied with the result of the article. I therefore would like to withdraw my AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge (changed vote (see below):Regretful keep) Redirect to Wade Barrett as he is the most notable of the group --Christianandjericho (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were supposed to be equal. Deely1 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However he formed the group and was the only one to win a singles title --ChristianandJericho (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, he and Ezekiel formed it together and having a title doesn't make you a leader. Deely1 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seeing that this is the entire point of this AfD. You're throwing around source-less conjecture. Show your sources that state Barrett and Jackson formed the group together. Articles on Wikipedia have to have a standard of verifiability and notability. Otherwise you're simply making speculations. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 16:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even watch the show? If you did, then you'd know how the group was formed and wouldn't be asking for references. Deely1 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, once again, you completely miss the point. I do watch the show, but that's irrelevant once again. You have to establish notability in the article. Just because I know how the group formed and what they did doesn't mean that everyone is immediately going to. The point of Wikipedia is to inform and educate about notable topics. If an article's subject cannot show its notability then it does not need to be on Wikipedia.

Another thing, I noticed what you said about listing references and looked at the article. You're also not realizing that you need to provide non-trivial reliable sources. PWTorch and all those wrestling 'insider' websites do not qualify as reliable sources and YouTube videos most definitely do not. All those sources aren't going to hold up in weighing the importance of the article. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then Antoshi how about this. You delete all the references, find them yourself and tell us that the article is now notable enough. Deely1 02:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote for deletion still stands tall --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, ChristianandJericho? You have yet to explain your reasons for choosing to delete. Also, Antoshi, pwtorch.com is a reliable source. I have also expanded the article to talk more about Gabriel's and Slater's exploits, which the Wade Barrett article doesn't cover. Starship.paint (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I really don't care about the corre article, I actually helped a little on the page, hell

Keep BUT rename to just The Corre because nothing else is named The Corre (however by vote to delete Air Boom still stands --ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree. This group won the tag team championships once AND the intercontinental title. Just because you personally don't think they're "notable" doesn't mean they haven't accomplished something big. I do understand they're like The Nexus, but that doesn't change their accomplishments. One thing I DO agree, however, is that this article needs sources and that people need to edit it to sound more professional, but just because of it's tone, it shouldn't be considered to be deleted unless you give it a sufficient time to be edited. Important groups, whether the article sounds encyclopedic or not, need to be recorded. --Srsrox (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I think or don't think is irrelevant; that's the point of this page – there needs to be a consensus. It's been an article for two weeks. An article's lifespan is irrelevant as well. Unless the subject in question has reliable sources right now, it does not need to be on Wikipedia. There does not need to be a "wait period" or a "trial run" for an article, especially when it has NO sources. The group has one two championships in their 6-month run. So? Does that make this this an "important" group, like you say, to warrant its own article? If that's so, where are the sources to accurately confirm that it IS an important group? There aren't, and that's the problem. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to demonstrate WP:notability (which is not based on one person's subjective opinion). BTW, I removed a "good article" class from the article's talk page. No article may be rated as a good article unless it's been though a GA review and passed - which is not possible with no sources. LadyofShalott 02:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure the coverage is mostly about group rather than the individual members (having spot checked some, but by no means all, of the added references), but I'll withdraw my delete vote. LadyofShalott 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group were together for months, and held three championship belts at once. They had plenty of promos and storylines. Keep it. Deely1 08:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Without references, I could question the very existence of The Corre, let alone notability. Reference it, (heavily), and I will happily reverse my position. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced it. Is that good enough? Or should I reference anything else? Take a look at it, if you are still keen on deleting the article. The article isn't very long so I don't think there isn't any more to be referenced, but if the article was kept, I'd be more than happy to enlarge it. Deely1 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable stable. Josh (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you guys hold off on deleting this while I find suitable references, I will be working on this. Starship.paint (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed all the referencing, although I might still add some prose. Starship.paint (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in the processes of editing this article but I believe I have found enough reliable secondary sources to justify this article's notability. I will keep adding references but it is likely that the publishers of the sources will remain the same. The sources are f4wonline.com, slam.canoe.ca, pwtorch.com, wrestleview.com, onlineworldofwrestling.com and cagematch.de. I will add to this list here if I find other sources as well. I think since there is adequate coverage we should Keep the article. I invite anyone who has made a prior decision to reconsider their decision on the basis of new sources. Starship.paint (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all current prose with proper references to reliable secondary sources. Starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 27 references, it appears to now easily pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 3 September 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. And here's a little something

Plip!

for the quality (or lack thereof) of the nomination statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Drew

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

Is Drew notable enough? RDN1F (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meet WP:PROF #1. Her work on self-determination and East Timor has been used by a number of researchers and academics. nableezy - 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nableezy. I'd also like to note that this article was nominated for deletion 3 minutes after being created (with references). I'm impressed at the nominator's ability to do a search of the numerous papers that cite Drew's work, thoroughly analyze them, decide that they weren't important enough, and finish the nomination within that time. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No case for deletion is given, and none is evident from the article itself. Zero^talk 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 11, 7, 2, 2, 2. Totally inadequate for WP:prof#C1. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- doesn't get close to WP:PROF: very low citations, virtually no news coverage, no significant positions. Her publishing record (as seen on her SOAS web page, here) is abysmal -- I'm surprised she still has a job. The "keep" arguments above are lamentably unpersuasive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a solid academic, but as yet no evidence of any impact. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I see she doesn't not meet WP:PROF.Didn't found any significant news coverage of her also.--Shrike (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Not a single one of the keep arguments actually talk about why the article should be kept, it just explains my original case for deletion's inadequacy, which is not an acceptable argument to keep an article RDN1F (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, ONE of them does RDN1F (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. Her articles at Google Scholar have not been cited enough to demonstrate a significant impact on her field. Her position at the university is "lecturer" which doesn't sound like it conveys notability in its own right. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "lecturer" in the UK is a regular academic position similar to "assistant professor" in the USA. Zero^talk 07:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's more or less what I thought. "Assistant professor" is not a generally notable position either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I dont really mind if this article is deleted. Somebody made this name a red-link so I made an article on what I could find. If it goes back to not being a link that is a happy ending as far as I am concerned. But her work on East Timor has been cited by others. Not as much as papers in technical areas, but the number of citations is not low by humanities standards. Either way, Ive added what I can find, if somebody else want to keep looking then great, but Im not sure there is much more out there. nableezy - 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her spare publication record might not get her fired, but it shows her lack of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps notable in the future, but not yet. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per foregoing deletion arguments. Seems more like a résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:38, 8 September 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. Just FYI, userfication is only a valid option if the creator or some other user specifically requests it be placed in their userspace. Would be happy to fulfill any such request that should come my way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men from Nowhere

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

Prod denied. The film has not received any notable secondary coverage or reviews. It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have a stand-alone article and it seems there is no viable redirect options as no notable individual was involved in the film. BOVINEBOY2008 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and failure of WP:NF. I hope the author User:Laurent510 is not himself the filmmaker "Laurent Malaquais". I have suggested on his talk page that he study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU.[6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy --Trevj (talk) 10:00, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Young Farmers

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

not WP:NOTABLE organization Geek2003 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. This interview says that the Young Farmer Contest or "Young Farmer of the Year" contest airs on New Zealand TV. Looking at sources about winners of the competition, I saw that the winner is a big deal in New Zealand. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as strong as it once was, but still an important club/competition in New Zealand. Finals are aired on television, major prizes awarded and just competing is a great thing to have on your CV. Mores sources if needed [14] [15] [16] [17]. AIRcorn (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes notability requirements at WP:ORG - finals of its annual contest are shown annually on TVNZ (which in itself constitutes significant coverage in secondary sources, i.e., the primary criterion). Even the regional finals are now screened digitally by TVNZ (see [18]). Grutness...wha? 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ challenged content must be attributed to reliable 3rd party published sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Geek2003 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are all third party and all attribute to the topics notability. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators cannot cast a !vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment The sources sited are not inline citations within the article, and I was not able to find them. I tagged the page earlier this month to identify the page did not have any 3rd party citations before I requested to have it deleted.Geek2003 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try looking for some? That would have been a far more sensible thing to do than rush straight to AfD... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page first. Put the inline citations in the page and I will change my vote.Geek2003 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not used as a forum to improve articles. A quick google search is enough to establish the fact that sources exists and there is a degree of notability. It is churlish to change you vote only once the changes that you have requested are made. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's get this straight, Geek2003 - you tagged the page for deletion as non-notable, rather than checking whether it was notable? Hardly an appropriate thing to do... in future, if you think that there are problems with an article which may make it worthy of deletion, check. This is standard practice, as explained at WP:BEFORE, section B2. That there are easy to find sources is clear by the simple fact that a dozen have been pointed out in this deletion discussion. Section C3 is also relevant - adding a clean-up tag is a more appropriate thing to do than a direct nomination for deletion. Yes, you did add a clean-up tag, but it was there for less than 48 hours before this nomination - hardly an appropriate length of time. The whole of section D is also relevant, and it is clear that you completely skipped this part of the process (even a cursory glance at google books and google news throws up plenty of secondary sources relating to NZYF). To press ahead with an AfD when it is clear that a combination of cleanup tags and addition of easily found sources is more appropriate is simply wasting everyone's time. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, I agree that this is a complete waste of time. We are all volunteers here and we have limited time and there is a HUGE backload of work that needs doing but here we are fighting what appears to be a personal vendetta (or maybe an editor that does not realise how WP works). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Geek2003, please tell me this is not a vendetta due to my mass deletion requests for the Avaya product articles. I am having trouble assuming good faith here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. But since you bring up good faith could you please in the future tag the pages first?Geek2003 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to give myself a hard time in the cyber world. Hey, it is bad enough in the real world!! Please rememeber that we are volunteers here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable per WP:ORG and surely that trumps WP:NOTABLE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not a great fan of Young Farmers Clubs, this looks pretty notable to me and meets the criteria for notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ambivalent about YFC but I try not to let my own opinion get in the way of WP editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/*Startled splutter*/ Keep! - AfD is not the place to force stub expansion. The article is patently "in progress" and it covers a national organisation of significance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the group was established in 1927 and that New Zealand is an agricultural country should have been tippers that this is a poor nomination. The sources showing do suck, admittedly. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit more to make it a little less sucky :) Grutness...wha? 11:21, 7 September 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 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Gill

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICAN or WP:NOTNEWS Arbor8 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has gotten a little more widespread coverage than most first-time congressional candidates, but still, not notable. All the coverage is about his candidacy, not about HIM. And no wonder: he is just 24 and still in law school, so he hasn't had much time to develop notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. Subject is not notable on his own, but he is related to a notable topic. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected politician, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems like article is used as political promotion, WP is not a soapbox. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 8 September 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 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Margovsky

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

Notability is not shown in the article since April 2009. See also User talk:Gregorymargovsky (presumably self promotion, two earlier versions were deleted by speedy deletion; the present version was re-created by another user which is not interested however in any other articles.) ActUpRussia (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling fails to turn anything useful. In addition, the article fails to state any reason why the individual might be notable. Msnicki (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medo Abowarda

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling turns up nothing useful. Article appears to be autobiographical WP:AUTO WP:SPA WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the references are from the company website, which doesn't have an article either. -- Luke (Talk) 20:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources for this person. Also searching for this company and the software turned up nothing either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do they use the 26 letter alphabet we do over there? How is his name spelled in Egyptian? Does Google news archive include sources in that language? Someone can ask the guy if he has been interviewed or covered anywhere. Dream Focus 16:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are included from the Medosoft Corporation website and from other sources as well, information in this article verified, name in Arabic was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.240.37 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.15.240.37 (talk) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Medo3337 (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medo3337. Msnicki (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references (aside from the first-party sources) only pertains to the subject's product and not on the subject himself (not to mention those links are software download sites). Also the two "product review" links are blocked by Trend Micro. E Wing (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is inconceivable that any notable currently active IT professional would have such a complete lack of coverage on the Internet: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The company and the owner are not located in Egypt, the company is not Egyptian nor Arabian which is the main reason you won't find information by searching about the person in Arabic language.

There are also no sources found by searching for the subject's name in English, the language of his web site, as shown by the links in the nomination statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The Corporation itself verify that the information here is true through the webpage http://www.medosoft.net/Medo/bio.php which appears one of the references.
~~Keep~~ - The Corporation and the software products are well covered over the internet through hundreds of websites, search for "Medosoft Inventory" and "Auto Capture PC". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.252.73 (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Please !vote only once. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24.15.252.73 has been blocked for being an obvious sockpuppet. Dream Focus 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is the owner of a known company, the company itself verify that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.244.194 (talk) — 24.15.244.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Purely self-promotion. References to own company website don't prove notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author of the article, Medo3337 (talk · contribs), has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts and a one-week hard block placed on the IP range 24.15.240.0/20 used by his sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medo3337. Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 8 September 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) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Detection Auto Configuration

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

Delete. Non-notable technology - even more so in the long term. Also, it consists of technical detail that is not suitable for WP -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep but consider merging with similar technology. ?"technical details"? I see one modest paragraph of very basic description, them inimum amount necessary to even say what the subject is. Wikipedia is an encylopeia that includes technology, and so necessarily will include the description of that technology. Too general for an advertisement, but for an encyclopedia perhaps it shouldbe esxpanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avaya - as should probably be done with the dozen other articles about individual protocols produced by Avaya, none of which appear to be individually notable. They are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page, for the convenience of any would-be redirector. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see, in some cases, redirecting a product to the company but this is a feature of a product. Too far removed for me to go with you on this. --Kvng (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd? Last article I tried that on the edits were reverted. -- Geek2003 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. We wait for an administrator to come along and make the decision - which will be based on consensus, and at this point the consensus isn't evident. However, we can put some of the information into the target article while we're waiting for consensus. That would be just a sentence or two, not all the detail currently in the article. For an example, see how the various articles on individual models of LaserWriter (LaserWriter II, LaserWriter IISC, etc.) were merged into the article LaserWriter. I agree with others here that the best target article might not be Avaya but rather a new article about the line of products, for example Avaya routers and switches or Avaya telephones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But if no one steps up to start an article with more appropriate scope, do we just delete all these little turds that could be used to help build the new article? --Kvng (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact LaserWriter II was initially created as a redirect. Talk:LaserWriter correctly shows that the decisions for both 'LaserWriter Pro 810' and 'LaserWriter Pro 600' were merge. However, there was in fact little content to merge in these cases! Please refer to discussion linked to below. --Trevj (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable feature of some probably non-notable Avaya products. --Kvng (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re:How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Discussion on AfD guidelines for articles containing content unlikely to be merged. Trevj (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally agree with Alan Liefting. No redirect is needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 8 September 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 Avaya. Deleted first, and redirected. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya FAST Stacking

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

Delete. Non-notable technology consisting of technical detain not suitable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep but consider merging with similar technology. what "technical details"? I see one modest paragraph of . basic specifications. Too general even for an advertisement, but the correctamount of detail for an encyclopedia--or perhaps it might be esxpanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant DeleteUserfy for lack of encyclopedic technical detail. This article would be suitable for inclusion if only it contained some content that actually explained what the technology was, did and how it achieved it. "You turn it on by pressing a button" isn't good enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am just a volunteer and editing/adding content as fast as I can to these AfD requests, and other pages, but when users like Alan Liefting, selects many (as many as 8) AfDs pages in a single day [[19]] it is very hard to do a good job cleaning up and citing all of them at once, I have asked that he tag them with the appropriate tag and give an appropriate time for the page to be fixed instead of AfDing pages as the first action. I don't think he is trying to drive editors away, but this disruptive action could cause them to get very frustrated about adding content. I read the Wikipedia CEO was asking for us to get more editors[[20]], my opinion is that these actions have the opposite affect. Geek2003 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not adding tags to them because the articles you are creating should not even be on WP. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia not a product catalogue. Yes, WP does need more editors but it needs editors that help to build an encyclopaedia not ones that add SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge backlog of more important work to be done on WP then creating articles about all sorts of Avaya products. You are skewing the WP coverage of technology by adding these articles. It is a sort of SPAMing by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree absolutely with you over this principle, although I do agree with your conclusions in this case.

We cover Pokemon in infamous depth. This is not because Pokemon are especially noteworthy, but because we have no shortage of space to store their coverage. We also have navigation and categorization methods adequate that these articles aren't "in the way" of more worthy articles. For both of these reasons the "too skewed towards" argument for a topic is specious. Mostly though, we collected Pokemon articles for the simple reason that editor effort was available to write them - not my effort, not your effort, but some editors saw them as personally sufficiently interesting to do the legwork. Avaya is a similar case in point. I have nothing like enough interest in Avaya to write these articles, but Geek2003 evidently does, so good luck to him. We do not have any sort of "quota" of Avaya articles, that once filled limits our capacity for more.

That said, we still apply our quality standards to Avaya articles, same as others. They must be notable. I would also claim that they should be of adequate quality. My !votes to delete (and probably the majority of them too) is on this basis alone - If an article can't communicate some encyclopedic content about some worthily notable topic, then we shouldn't have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avaya - as should probably be done with the dozen other articles about individual protocols produced by Avaya, none of which appears to be individually notable. They are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page, for the convenience of any would-be redirector. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd? Last article I tried that on the edits were reverted. -- Geek2003 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First we let the AfD run its course, then we decide. The point is that major changes to an article during AfD have a risk of disrupting the AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly oppose the idea of redirection to Avaya. Who is going to traverse that redirect path and be happy about where they ended up? It would even be better if a redirect went to Router theory/Principles of capacity stacking That's the principle that someone will be looking for if they come searching for an explanation of Avaya FAST technology.

I'm reluctant to delete this article. It's a good topic, we should cover it. However the current article has no useful content.

This article, starting from scratch, should explain what "FAST stacking" is. What it achieves (bundled bandwidth), how it does it (bundling many physical channels into one virtual channel), how Avaya do it, and how Avaya's approach fits into the environment of many vendors and standards. It must answer the questions whether this is proprietary or based on existing standards, and whether it can talk to other non-Avaya routers remotely and still deliver the feature, possibly indicating Cisco et al's own brandnames for the same techniques. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before it does all of that, it has to pass the notability test. Where is the significant coverage from multiple reliable sources demonstrating that the system is notable - and providing reliable sourcing for all the information you think should be in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may surprise you, as much as it surprised me when you informed me of WP:RS, that there's an extensive trade press out there, devoted to networking products like this. Please don't pretend that you actually believe there aren't sources to support this, rather than it simply being a poor article that hasn't yet made use of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is coverage in the trade press (but not the general-interest press) sufficient to establish notability? Because all kinds of trivia gets covered in the trade press but does not belong on Wikipedia due to lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above question - is coverage in trade magazines sufficient to establish notability? - here. The best answer I got was a quote from WP:CORP, which is speaking about corporations rather than products ~~(unfortunately there is no notability guideline for products)~~: "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." This suggests that if a particular trade magazine is of "limited interest and circulation," its reporting would not be sufficient to establish notability. Of course, some trade magazines are of such major circulation and broad scope that they would qualify as sources - because they are not of "limited interest and circulation". Wired comes to mind. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, there is a notability guide for products. It is at WP:PRODUCT. It pretty well spells out why this article should not exist. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a technology, it's a particular company's product. And there's nothing informative in there even about their product....everything in there is superficial features about their product. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. So this should go for 2 reasons. 100% sales, and no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see scope here for a notable article on a product. However, and as the article name suggests, this shouldn't be an article on the product, the Avaya ERS 5500 (which oddly, passed AfD quite easily), but rather on the technology of bandwidth bundling, as implemented by Avaya. That's an interesting and encyclopedic topic - I might even want to read that. The ERS 5500 article though, that can only very rarely become more than a parts list made from recycled press releasese. IMHO, only if products show or gain some technical or cultural significance beyond their mere existence and spec list should we have those: iPhone, yes; a new colour of iPod case, no. Like the Avaya phone articles, I support an article on the new 1100 range because they're doing interesting new things, but not on listing models one-by-one.

We don't yet have a useful article on FAST, so I'd like to see this userfied until we do. Or else delete it - it's no loss. In the long term though, I would like to see an article that explains what "FAST" means. The notability of FAST has nothing to do with WP:PRODUCT guidelines, it's not a product. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Avaya ERS 5500. I'm getting a whole lot of nothing searching the usual places for evidence of general notability. --Kvng (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour going the other way and replacing Avaya ERS 5500 with Avaya FAST Stacking. I think the specific article is too much of a product catalogue (which is not our task), but we ought to be able to produce a useful (and I care far more about that than mere notability) article on a topic of interest, that of capacity bundling. This topic may be hiding its references out there under a more general title, not this brand name. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, Andy, nothing is stopping you from creating this article about FAST you keep talking about. I hope you will just boldly do it. I personally think it could be an excellent article, and all these not-so-notable individual product pages could be redirected to it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the subject, which is why I want to read it, not write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with North8000. It's just product info that doesn't belong on WP (WP:NOT). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:59, 8 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Samuels

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

He has been shortlisted for (but never won) a couple of awards that look moderately important. But "Mark Samuels" "white hands" gets 0 hits in Google News. It seems nothing of substance has been written about him by independent sources, so it will be impossible for us to write a satisfactory biography. Fails WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked hard for sources for this as a part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue but only found bloggy-type sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n. Tooga - BØRK! 14:53, 7 September 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) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya IP Phone 1120

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

Delete. Non-notable product. Also, the article consists mainly of technical detail. WP should not be used a service manual. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep but consider merging. Anyone who could use this as a service manual must be relying on imagination entirely, for these are merely the most general specifications. Too general even for an advertisement, but the correct amount of detail for an encyclopedia But in the normal course of things, such products are better merged into product classes DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MILL. A single product like this has to be spectacularly original before it's notable for an individual article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do we go about merging this page into Avaya 1100 series IP phones so many devices are covered in a single page, as recommended by DGG above? Geek2003 (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and I doubt the worth of a merge of the contents. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - catalog description, just another product from the company. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:55, 5 September 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 per improvements during the AfD. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya IP Phone 1140E

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

Delete. Non-notable product. Also, the article consist mainly of technical detail. WP should not be used a service manual. Not sure if this is relevant to the AfD but the article creator is blocked due to the use of sockpuppet accounts -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep but consider merging. Anyone who could use this as a service manual must be relying on imagination entirely, for these are merely the most general specifications. Too general even for an advertisement, but the reight amount of detail for an encyclopedia But in the normal course of things, such products are better merged into product classes DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't see eye to eye on the notability of product articles DGG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15,000 of these phones were the primary communication tools for all athletes and spectators at the 2010 Winter Olympics games. I have also added additional content and many new citations, and cleaned up the page.Geek2003 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There may have been 15,000 toasters, kettles, computers, stoves, fridges, washing machines, microwave ovens and heaters used by the athletes used as well. Shall we find out what those product were and create article for them? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment seems to be neither constructive nor relevant to the discussion. Due to the wide range of functionality that is in process of being documented here this phone was selected for this special high visibility occasion which makes this product relevant interesting and notable. Quite a bit more information is being added along with more references. iPadWanderer (Contribs) 22:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I generally assume good faith but I am very suspicious of a new editor who only edits Avaya related article and jumps in to Avaya related AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a WP:Notable product with interesting features. Additional content is being added to this page to make it informative. iPadWanderer (Contribs) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- iPadWanderer is a suspected sockpuppet of Geek2003. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not Geek2003, but it did look bad that a new user started editing and jumped into this discussion after creating the account, but remember school just started a few weeks ago here in the US and that is a time when many new accounts are created and activities increase. Geek2003 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New refs WP:NOTABLE. -- LES 953 (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As for WP:Articles for deletion/Avaya IP Phone 1120, this fails WP:MILL. It's a phone, there's lots of them. There's nothing significant or notable about this one model though. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understand WP:MILL but no information/argument provided why this phone is not more notable than others. This phone is more notable than most if no all the other that I have compared to remove the automatic dismissal argument without comparison to other more notable phones. This phone is much more notable than almost every one of the following phones, and most have been in existances for years without afd- requests. examples: Template:LG phones, Template:Motorola phones, Template:Nokia phones, Template:Nokia 3G, Template:IPhone, Template:Sony Ericsson phones, Template:Samsung phones, Template:Sharp Corporation. Geek2003 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep OK, you've sold me. I think this article now has enough detail to support a claim that this model of phone represents a significant evolution of the "business desk phone" to be worthy of encyclopedic inclusion.

This may well involve some merging into an "Avaya IP 1100 series phones" article, because the technology in the range could be notable, but individual models still wouldn't cut it for stand-alone articles.

I'm not impressed by article quality though. Typos and Weird Capitalisation abound. The article also has poor readability. It fails to set out a clear proposition as to why this phone represents a new step in phone development. Remember you're writing for a lay audience here: "Bluetooth" isn't enough, it has to explain that Bluetooth is a simple wireless protocol, it's used for ear beads, it's novel to do this in a wired business phone although it's long-established for commonplace mobiles, and that it allows user's own ear beads to be used, not just Avaya 1100 series beads, and whether they can all co-exist in an office full of the things (now that would be fun to watch). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to remove the weird capitalization. Geek2003 (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:V and WP:Notable product with the added Notable awards and installations with more citations and expanded further reading section. Geek2003 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I mostly favor merging these articles about an individual product into Avaya, but this one might be notable due to the award it won (or rather claimed to win - the link is to a Nortel PowerPoint, not to an independent source) and the few articles detailing its connection with the Olympics. If kept the article should be drastically cut down and all the how-to stuff deleted; Wikipedia is not a user's manual. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a product manual by any means. If I would want to know what the 1140e is all about this article would accomplish that. Bigtex 1 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has significantly improved and appears to be a WP:Notable product and has some innovative features, such as being able to take a Cell Phone Bluetooth headset adapter and use it with a VoIP phone. -- ManagementMan (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary – As an IT consumer of Wikipedia information however, not a contributor, IMHO diminishing content is detrimental to Wikipedia’s core principles (hardware and volunteerism are cheap and abundant) however mentoring is epidemically deficient. Intensifying coverage through article expansion and enhanced citations are critical to acceptance in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.193.127 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gillin

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Do we need a notability guideline for businesspeople? I think we do!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent reliable secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling suggests they don't exist. This article and the one on Paul Raden, another individual connected to Ecount, appear to have been created by an WP:SPA that may have a close connection WP:COI to the subjects for the purpose of WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Article's claims are padded, for example "is the recipient of multiple national and local awards including Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year" - sounds pretty good until you click on the link and find that it was a LOCAL Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year award (Greater Philadelphia) and was one of ten such awards given out in Philadelphia that year. The New York Times link does not mention him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 6 September 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 B._P._Paquette#Filmmaking. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous Rudy S.

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

Unreleased independent film of questionable notability. No IMDB page, Google search shows only 91 unique results - mostly primary sources and social media. Fails WP:NFF. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schmidt, you're right. I agree a redirect is a better option. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the film is sourcable as being complete and having screened,[21] WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable. And to the nominator, the Find sources above show 886 unique results, rather than 91, but google hits are always problematic when being used in deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll check the link I provided above, the number of unique results stands at 89 now. However, following your version of the link, I only get 81 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth debating. See WP:GHITS. At best it currently merits only its sourced mention in the director's article. That's why a redirect of a reasonable search term will suffice for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for a short while to the filmmaker's article at B. P. Paquette#Filmmaking. Makes no nevermind that it does not "yet" have an IMDB page, as the film is competed and has screened,[22] and the film's production IS getting some minor coverage and is thus verifiable.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] The redirect can be reverted and the film article expanded and further sourced upon wider festival screening and greater coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 1 September 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. If there's an article to be written that doesn't have these issues, then that's fine. This one doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali Nagpal

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

This is an interesting case - I'm not sure if she's notable or not, but it raises some serious BLP issues so I want to bring it here. This is an Indian model who was found years after her alleged fame, living on the streets and addicted to drugs. I can't find any indication that she was really well known at all before this incident, or even particularly successful - there are zero news articles in google news prior that mention her name. It seems like the press only started caring about her later, because her story was dramatic, and then possibly attributed to her success that she never really had. So basically there's relatively little that can go in her biography beyond a few negative facts about her being addicted to drugs and homeless. There was a very successful movie Fashion made a few years back that very closely mirrors her story, and is pretty much (to an outside observer) obviously about her life, but the director has (for whatever reason) denied that this is true. So a redirect might not be appropriate. This article has been deleted once before as an unsourced attack page, and once as a copyvio (that's why I'm the only contributor in this history, and I'm nominating it for deletion - the copyvio was getting restored by an IP, so I just deleted it and left the prior stub.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per BLP, borderline A7 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A7 does not apply here! She is very notable. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Fashion (film) While her story and her notability is not enough to do an article on her, the director of this film can hardly give an interview in which this film is discussed without having to answer the "Geetanjali Nagpal" question. This is even sourced in the existing article. Hence, a merger of the few lines of info and redirect into the article on the film provides us with encyclopedic information on a controversy surrounding the film. This is not A7 at all. --Cerejota (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the person is very notable. But as the nom pointed out there is very little information about her which can be used to write a neutral BLP. Its better not to have a highly negative BLP focusing on her addiction issues. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're unlikely to find pre-2000 news sources online for Indian newspapers, so coverage of her career will have to be scrounged from offline sources. I see one piece in The Independent that could be used for biographical coverage. Most other sources (all very reliable) are about "finding & rehabilitating her" or about the movie that's "not inspired by her": The Times of India -- [30], [31], [32]; The Hindu-- [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]; Other RS: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Given the inability to unearth any significant sources for biographical information prior to this incident, I'm hesitant to opine as a keep for this BLP. But if someone can find such sources (other than the "she was sleeping under the table during a shoot" type reminiscences) we might be able to build an article. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 1 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central (subnational entity)

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

Is this really needed? —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: somehow this discussion slipped through the cracks

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JaGa^talk 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another country-subdivision-by-direction article of little value similar to Category:Country subdivisions named for direction. --JaGa^talk 18:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. We have disambiguation pages for various entities with the same name (examples: Union County. Amazonas), I don't see why the fact that these divisions are named with a direction or location changes the fact that they are equally deserving of disambiguation. --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Central Region or Central Province is an appropriate title for a disambiguation page, since those are names that have been assigned to more than one place. "Central" by itself, however, is not the name of a place. Moreover, the title of this page makes it sound like "a central" is a type of entity, like a "county" or a "department," which is confusing and incorrect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After examining Central (disambiguation) this is probably the better location for this material, iff all the entries are moved over. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Nomination rational not based on any policy except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:INCOMPDAB? I was going to turn it into a redirect but realized that would be worthless since it's a highly unlikely search term. --JaGa^talk 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds good. AFD is a timesink and a Nomination Rationals that are Absolutely Useless make it even moreso. It is not for us to find & provide the reason something needs to go, that is the Nominators job. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, anything here that is ambiguous with "Central" should be included at Central (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bkonrad. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:49, 1 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Governance

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

Non-notable new journal, article creation highly premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Policy reasoning as per nom. I couldn't delete it per WP:PROD since it had already been deleted via that method. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Barnes

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

A weather producer and part-time on-air meteorologist at WTTG in Washington DC. Only notable moment came when he was covered in sea foam (ie. sewage) while doing an on-air broadcast of Hurricane Irene that made national news. This is a case of one event. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Barnes' on-scene coverage has tons of national news coverage. It's one of the top stories coming out of Hurricane Irene. CallawayRox (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)— CallawayRox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why add the spa notice? CallawayRox created the article, but its not his first set of edits, it portrays him in a bad light when it just seems he thought the "sea foam" guy was funny and popular enough to merit an article. Its not the first time we've had articles like this.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He has been editing Wikipedia for two years now [44], he just doesn't do it very often. Dream Focus 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. —SW— ^confer 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Notability hinges on a single event, his coverage of Hurricane Irene. —SW— ^confer 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is Barnes "a low-profile individual"? CallawayRox (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of lasting notability provided.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The smell of sea foam is loooong lasting, I heard.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about covering the event as Hurricane Irene sea foam video? CallawayRox (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's often used to get around BLP1E (english wikipedia has many "murder of X" articles even though other wikipedias typically don't do that silliness). The event is either sufficiently notable or not to have a standalone article, that's my view, either as a BLP or otherwise. If this article is deleted, it should be redirected to the TV station, and I would include a paragraph on the event both there and on the Hurricane Irene article (but the latter is so heavily edited, it may encounter a bit of resistance if more than a sentence).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More and more WP is rehashing media fluff and hype. Just because the media is repeating this over and over doesn't mean it is notable, it is just poor journalism! Fails WP:EVENT which states that events must have lasting effects or in-depth coverage (not repeats!). Since article has been renamed, deletion argument applies now to Hurricane Irene sea foam video. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 8 September 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 crux of the dispute here seems to boil down to whether or not Church on the Rock is a major religious movement and whether Kennedy is the equivalent of a bishop. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction that he is not. While Church on the Rock certainly appears to represent a lot of folks, it self-describes as non-denominational, therefore it would seem that comparisons to the Catholic or other major Christian sects power structures are invalid. As an aside I would add that the numerous accusations of bad faith present here have no place in this debate and were not considered when making this close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kennedy

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

Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as it did not contain any non-inherited notability claims. The article creator made an argument on the talk page for notability, so I agreed to remove the speedy and start an AfD. Unfortunately my research has not turned up significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for the article subject. The bulk of the citations on the current article are primary sources linked directly to organizations the subject is involved in, and do not establish notability. Other notability claims include, "He is friends with David Yonggi Cho" and "He is the father of Texas philanthropist and politician Lance Kennedy and a descendant of Republic of Texas politician John J. Kennedy." and "He sits on the board of governors of the S. Daniel Abraham Center of Strategic Dialogue" and that he performed a wedding for Chuck Norris. All of these claims are inherited notability claims (giving the benefit of the doubt that the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable - which is not entirely clear in some cases). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish the notability of these claims, with the one exception of perhaps being mentioned in Norris' autobiography (but I have not pulled the paper version to verify). Even if that is verified, it still is a rather weak claim of notability unless reported in a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It did include non-inherited nobility claims, you just fail to read them as they do not support your view. This is not a subjective position. There are quite a few significant mentions of the subject to establish notability as per reliable source. The bulk of the references are direct references from the subject; this is clear if one took the time to look at the articles instead of pontificating about them. The mentions of the subject's involvement and relationships with notable induviduals are referenced in significant publications (i.e. David Yonggi Cho) and included major contributions by the subject. All of these claims are non-inherited notability claims (the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable). The mentioning of the subject in Christianity Today, his leadership of a large and notable religious organization (one just has to search for Church on the Rock in Google to see the size and scope). His mentioning in Norris' autobiography is found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KNfwZWSnCSQC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=lawrence+kennedy+chuck+norris&source=bl&ots=joNpXIKbUF&sig=hmh5MpfGS-fy8BTrso7WiSaS1tQ&hl=en&ei=pnNeToLfBZKltwfc9fmlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false. In addition, the subject has founded a large charitable organization with many references in significant, independent sources, which ConcernedVancouverite has failed to mention. In my humble opinion, ConcernedVancouverite has not taken the time to look at the articles provided and is instead trying to justify his original claim of non-notoriety. Theseus1776 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition he is mentioned on Hartford Seminary's list of American megachurches: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cgi-bin/mega/db.pl?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*&sb=1 Theseus1776 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Some level of notability has been established by the sources provided, but I am undecided as to notaable Kennedy is. I would argue that the article is kept because the sources do seem to giv at least some level of notability. My persona decision could be swayed either way - I'd want to listen to further opinions and see whether any additional sources can be found. ItsZippy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course I have taken a look at the sources. I wouldn't have nominated if I hadn't. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you for the direct link to the Chuck Norris autobiography. That has helped me to realize that the Norris source is just passing references as well. The primary mention is on pages 201-202 and it basically just confirms that Pastor Kennedy did the wedding ceremony. It does not focus on Kennedy at all, and does little to establish notability. It makes a bit of mention that the pre-marital council from Kennedy was helping working through emotional baggage. That is fairly run of the mill for a pre-marital council, and does not appear to be particularly notable. Most pre-marital council provides exactly that. The fact that it is to someone notable, like Norris, does not add notability to this very routine act for a pastor. Regarding the sources for the organization he founded - those focus on the organization, not him. Perhaps an article on the organization would be appropriate based upon those sources. But it is not clear that they add much to his notability as an individual. Once again, associating with notable individuals (such as your claim above of association with David Cho) does not confer notability, unless the association itself has been the subject of significant reliable source coverage. In this case it does not appear so. If you would like to help keep the article, please find reliable secondary sources in major news outlets, etc. instead of primary sources. It will go a long way towards improving the article and the possibility of keeping it. I have tried to locate such sources, but have been unable to do so. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Comment - I did assume good faith. The reference isn't passing and is notable. The subject is also featured in the centerfold of the book. You may need to find a paper copy for that one. It was "run of the mill," except that the one being counseled is Chuck Norris and he felt it necessary to mention the subject in his book. It does add notability. You want the subject to be mentioned in reputable and notable periodicals: what is more notable than this reference? But I digress since this is not the crux of my argument; the subject has founded large organizations, been mentioned in multiple periodicals and sites for his charitable work, is mentioned in a major U.S. seminary's list of mega-church pastors. The reference to David Cho shows that they worked together and that Cho hosted and event with Kennedy. I am trying to improve the article and said, FROM THE BEGINNING that I am looking for additional references. There is sufficient proof that Kennedy is notable and it does no good for Wikipedia to delete it.Theseus1776 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete - The references do not do enough to me to suggest notability. For notability, Lawrence Kennedy needs to be the primary focus of the source. The ones given mention him in passing - the primary focus is an organisation or another person. If there exists a source which is primarily about Kennedy, then I would vote to keep it. As there is not, it seems he is not notable enough. ItsZippy (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as president of a denomination of 3000 churches. That makes him the equivalent of a bishop, and therefore notable. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you expand on your logic here as to how such a position as president of a virtual denomination is notable without significant reliable source reporting of such notability? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search:http://www.google.com/search?q=church+on+the+rock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have failed to mention his charitable works which mention him explicitly as the organization's founder. I think you are violating your "good faith" when you fail to do so.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe you are misunderstanding my question to StAnselm. I wasn't questioning if he is involved with the church. I was questioning how that is notable by Wikipedia standards - which would require reliable source coverage of that fact. I trust that StAnselm understands the question from a Wikipedia perspective though, and will respond when chance arises, as StAnselm has a strong history of editing in the religion area of Wikipedia and likely will have some additional logic which they can share about the notability claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops, (or Roman Catholic bishops at least) are now included at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Part of it may be the analogy with WP:POLITICIAN - if the mayor of a city of 100,000 is notable, then one would expect a leader of a denomination of 300,000 (??) to be notable also. But I dispute ConcernedVancouverite's claim that "no significant reliable source reports such notability" - the article includes a number of independent reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the explanation of your logic. But I note that the common outcomes discussion says, "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic Bishops are generally found to be notable. The bishops of other major denominations, such as the Anglican Communion, may also be considered notable on a case-by-case basis." It is not clear that this case falls under that definition as it has yet to be established that a virtual denomination is a major denomination. I question your claim that there are reliable secondary sources in the article that state he is the president of Church of the Rock, to establish the notability of that claim. I believe he is president of Church of the Rock, for sure. But it is still unclear to me that there is significant reliable source coverage to establish that position as being notable for Wikipedia. If someone could provide an article or two in a reliable secondary source that talks about his role as president of that organization as a focus of the article that would go a long way in convincing me. But I haven't been able to turn up such a source. The current sources referenced regarding that claim are the info pages of his church and of the organization. Those are primary sources and do not establish notability for the claim, even though they verify the claim. Note WP:NRVE which states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability...No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with ConcernedVancourverite here. While it may be true that Kennedy holds a senior or significant position in his church, that is not the grounds by which notability on Wikipedia is established. We need to determine whether or not it is significant that Kennedy holds such a position. This significance would need to be demonstrated by third-party sources paying specific attention to the fact. None which do have yet been provided. If someone could provide a reliable, third-party source in which Kennedy is the primary subject, then I would be willing to change my position. ItsZippy (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an agenda ConcernedVancouverite and I don't like it. There is a variety of articles about the subject, including his direct founding of an organization which has clothed 12,000 children since 1989. He is mentioned multiple times in multiple articles, yet you time and and time again ignore comments to this effect. You instead focus on one singular aspect of the article and make claims that "because it is not notable here, he is not notable anywhere." This is ridiculous.129.119.190.89 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against accusing people of having an agenda. You may disagree, but please do assume good faith. We are all here to improve the quality of Wikipedia, we just disagree about how that might be done. I would also like to point out that at no point did anyone say that Kennedy is not notable anywhere; rather, he is not notable enough, according to out notability guidelines, for Wikipedia. I do not dispute that Kennedy has done some very good work - that is not the topic of debate. In order for Kennedy to be notable enough for Wikipedia, our guidelines suggest that he must be significantly covered in reliable, third-party sources. This means that he must be a primary focus in a source and the sources must be reliable and not affiliated in any way with the person in question.

Let me look at each source individually. The first source is just a list of churches. Kennedy is mentioned in passing, as the pastor of a church - the source does not attribute additional any notability to him. The second source is the North Church website. This is affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot be used to attribute notability. The third source, the Church on the Rocks website, is again affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot allocate notability. The fourth source I have no access to; however, unless it is about Kennedy, it will not give him notability. The fifth source is a link to a site which does not work. The sixth source is, again, affiliated with Kennedy. The seventh source is an article about the Clothe A Child organisation and the involvement of a man called John Hammond. Kennedy's name is mentioned once to establish context - it does not give notability to Kennedy. The eighth source is a local news report about Cloth a Child. Firstly, as a local news report, it is not very deep coverage, so would struggle to meet notability guidelines. In any case, the article is about Clothe A Child, not about Kennedy - Kennedy's name is there, again, just to provide context. The ninth source, again, is affiliated with Kennedy so cannot provide notability. The tenth source, as before, is about Clothe A Child and just mentions Kennedy to provide context. The eleventh source is exactly the same as the eighth, just on a different website. The twelfth source is the strongest provided, but still only mentions Kennedy in passing. The article is not about Kennedy, it is about the event. Kennedy is briefly mentioned on a few occasions because he has a role in it. The notability, if any, if the event's. I cannot access the thirteenth source; see what I put for the fourth. The fourteenth and fifteenth sources are about Chuck Norris. Kennedy is mentioned because he took the wedding of Chuck Norris. If we had articles on ever pastor, priest and vicar who took the weddings of notable people, we'd have thousands of articles about people who's only claim to fame is that. This does not, therefore, constitute notability.

I hope that helps. Feel free to disagree with any of the analysis I've given but, if you do, please reason with me and explain why. I've given you detailed reasoning behind my rejection of each source, so I would like to see the same thought behind any attempts to refute my arguments. If I've made any errors, please let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy^{(talk • Contributions)} 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ItsZippy has gone through and highlighted the reasoning very effectively, and consistently with my comments above. So I won't waste additional space repeating the same points. I will just ask one clarification question though to Anon editor 129.119.190.89. Are you Theseus1776? Or are you a separate editor? It would be helpful to know for the reviewing admin when they close this AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how he's anything like a bishop; his only claim to fame was converting Chuck Norris; finding reliable sources will be difficult with such a common name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a self proclaimed polymath. You have no credibility IMP.Theseus1776 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits, not editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 8 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Advertising Pte Ltd

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

No indication of notability to pass WP:ORG. Being the longest-established something may be enough to be a "credible claim of significance" hence I have not nominated this for a speedy, but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article. Non-notable ad agency, hence an unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also, an entirely unreferenced history of the business containing personal details of the lives of its chief personnel suggests that this article was written by an insider. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Shorty23sin (talk) 01:47, 7 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Calcio Acri

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

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN". The article creator contested the PROD with the reason "It is a noted amateur club that plays in Italian Serie D Category. There is no reason to delete this page."

I couldn't find anything about the team that would justify notability per WP:GNG, and fails WP:FOOTYN, because they never played for a national cup.

For the exact same reason, i nominated this article as well:

A.S.D. Serre Alburni.

--Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:FOOTYN is an essay and should be ignored (it always is when people try and use it to keep articles). English clubs are deemed to be notable down to the tenth level, so I can't see why fifth level clubs in Italy aren't. Number 5 7 22:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And anyway, England has the FA Vase to thank. (probably–although i don't know the history of how English level-10 clubs have been considered notable) And perhaps i ought to repeat the argument i made on this older deletion nomination about another similar Serie D team; how can my neighbourhood's team, which plays in the Delta Ethniki, not be considered notable? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the point that I made in that AfD discussion, if your local team plays in Delta Ethniki then it should be considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there are about 180 teams in Serie D (see the current season article), I am at a loss to see why S.S. Todi Calcio and F.C. Calcio Acri seem to be the only ones nominated for deletion. Surely, if one goes on grounds of notability, they all fail (other than those that have played at a higher level). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two AfD nominations going on on this thread, and three on this. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - Although many clubs from Serie D do not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria, on a common sense basis I contend that teams playing at the fifth tier of Italian football are notable. There are almost 50 leagues in England in which all clubs are considered notable; exclude serie D and that would leave just six in Italy. At this discussion and this discussion, it was recently agreed that WP:FOOTYN was not fit for purpose, because it favours teams from countries with large national cups (e.g. France has over 6000 teams in theirs; Italy has 78). This is not an argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because it concerns a single guideline. Deserter1 talk 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deserter1, who has summed it up perfectly. Giant Snowman 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These clubs play one level below the professional ranks, in one of the strongest nations in club football. A quick look at the Acri website indicates ongoing press from multiple publications, both local and regional e.g. Gazzetta del Sud. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see 1) those said articles and 2) how local ~~and regional~~ publications are considered notable. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Deserter1, who has the same opinion as me. User :Kefalonitis94 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both two teams from a level often deemed as 'semi-professional' due to its nature of national league regularly featuring big names (this season includes fallen giants such as Messina, Venezia, Pistoiese, Ravenna, Arezzo, Rimini, Salerno, Casertana, Acireale and Cosenza) that allows promotion to a fully professional league plus nine additional Coppa Italia spots. The league as a whole receives regular nationwide coverage, including live TV on national channels from public broadcaster RAI, and massive coverage from local and regional media as well; this applies to all Serie D teams, without any distinction. --Angelo (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are actually talking about clubs, and all 160+ clubs of the Serie D don't receive equal ~~national~~ media coverage now, do they? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for the same reasons Deserter1 explained above. 23:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Disposal of human corpses. Courcelles 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal disposal of bodies in the water

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

Non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination. Original research, not supported by the one reference. Somebody finally comes up with a how-to article subject I can actually use, but it turns out to be original research. That makes me sad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment i really truly hope that this isn't original research. i'd hate to imagine what the author's lab looks like. kidding aside, i'm not sure that this actually is a case of wp:nothowto. it mostly seems to discuss regional variations in methods and specific cases where the methods have been used, and that seems encyclopedic to me. there is even an attempt to tie the subject into the larger culture, with the line about the unwed mothers. drowning unmarried pregnant women is indeed a major and exceedingly well-documented theme in anglo-american folk music over the last 8 centuries or so. i agree that it's badly unsourced, though. this doesn't strike me as too problematic, as it's not a blp. if it had sources and a rewrite, i think it would be fine. whether there exist such sources is a different question, and i think that that's the crux of the issue; is this original research? i may weigh in later with a !vote after more thought. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the subject itself is notable as a particular cultural phenomenon away from a general article on murder and/or disposing of bodies. Although as far as I can see there is no matching article for Disposing of Bodies generally anyway, of which this would be a child article if it was too large to be a section of that (non existant) article. I think it's essentially synthesis, combining disposal of bodies with water. I would support a merge with a general article on body disposal, but I don't think such an article exists?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is in fact this: Disposal of human corpses, although it's also not in super good shape. perhaps a merge would be reasonable? i'm not saying that it would be at this point, but just kind of enumerating possibilities. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so there is. I did a few searches and looked at some death articles, but couldn't see anything. I was looking for bodies rather than corpses though (and isnt that an odd phrase to be saying). A partial merge might be in order, but only a summary of this I'd say, not the whole article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a partial merge might be the best thing, but i still have to think. part of what bothers me about the article at hand is that the "illegal" part seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. it seems as if it should be a subsection of an article on disposal of bodies in water, but then (and here is where i feel myself talking myself into agreeing with you) it starts to seem that the "water" part, also seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. on the other side, the folksong aspect seems important to me (i know that this is only mentioned tangentially in the article, but it's important to the subject) and i don't see how the folksong angle fits in with an article on disposal of corpses, which makes water and illegal seem important again. more soon. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Disposal of human corpses. I'm willing to believe this could actually be a decent and interesting article in its own right, but as it stands now it'd be more helpful in an existing - though admittedly rough - general article. Otherwise it'll just be sleeping with the fishes etc. etc. Several Times (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Disposal of human corpses per Several Times. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, had I been aware of the other article I'd have put a merge proposal up instead of AfD, so now it's been pointed out I change my !vote to merge.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was all ready to close this AFD in line with the emergent consensus to merge, but after actually looking at it that strikes me as as extraordinarily bad idea. Look at the sources used, there is but one which simply verifies in that this has happened one time. The actual article content is written like an essay and appears to be mostly original research. I wasn't comfortable with merging that, so instead I've decided to weigh in in favor of deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are readily available as the article references specific cases, nearly all of which have their own well-sourced pages. Several Times (talk) 18:55, 8 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One-line fix

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

A non-notable term. Apparently the creators of the Jargon File (the initial source for this article) consider "one-line fix" to be a sarcastic joke. In real life, however, many bug fixes are just one line - just like some are two lines, etc. I don't see any evidence, other than the Jargon File itself, that this term ever took on a life of its own, beyond its literal meaning. Yaron K. (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Completely implausible that sources could be found to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source that established notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a sarcastic term with huge currency across the industry. The point is that "one-line fixes", like "five minute job" and "one pipe problem" are rarely anything of the sort. It belongs with "silver bullet" and (more particularly) "no silver bullet". For some reason, human ability to estimate the complexity of a solution remains relentlessly over-optimistic, even when this effect is already known. The current article is true enough, a simple WP:DICDEF, but there's scope here for something quite interesting, if anyone with an interest in writing was to expand it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not been expanded in seven years, so probably a WP:Permastub. Articles are supposed to be "topics" not glossary entries. This clearly is just one possible term for what would be a "bug fix" which I see redirects to patch (computing) so if anything, merge there. W Nowicki (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patch has little to do with it and would be an inappropriate redirect. "One-line fix"'s notability is about the misplaced optimism that an anticipated fix will be simple to develop. "Patches" are about the deployment mechanism of completed fixes. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked around on Wikipedia, and it looks like there are at least two articles that already cover that phenomenon of misplaced optimism that you're talking about - planning fallacy and optimism bias. I guess one could make that case that "one-line fix" should redirect to one of those - but as I said before, I haven't seen any evidence that "one-line fix" has a widespread meaning as a quasi-synonym for those terms. Yaron K. (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would be better targets that "patch", if we did make this a redirect. Planning fallacy is probably the best. There should be a para or section added noting the relevance for software development. Mind you, planning over-optimism in software is a big enough topic to support several books, all on its own. I've just checked an 8k page software dev wiki I have here and 73 pages (counted quickly by cats) could be classed as being about "planning optimism in software development". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, in Testing IT, "As testers, we have to create the understanding among the authorities that there never has been and probably never will be such a thing as a “quick one line fix” and that with every fix there is a high risk of collateral damage..." Or Software maintenance, "In contrast, during maintenance, a given problem may be very difficult to debug, but once the fix is identified, it could be just a one- line fix. Thus, there is no direct correlation between size and effort estimates in general". And, of course, when searching for sources, one must consider alternate phrasing such as "one-line change" which takes us to the excellent source Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes. Warden (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the phrase "one-line fix" gets used - I've used it from time to time too, as a programmer. What I dispute is whether it has any notability beyond its literal meaning of "a software fix that involves one line of code". Interestingly, of the (let's say) three examples you found, two of them use the phrase straightforwardly - which would seem to cast doubt on Andy Dingley's assertion above that the phrase has "huge currency" as a sarcastic term. Yaron K. (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Yaron K. I think the phrase gets used literally (along with the variants, "2-line fix", "3-line fix", "4-line fix", etc.) a lot more often than it gets used as a sarcastic phrase. There's no way it has any special notability, which is exactly why there are no sources. Msnicki (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nay-sayers seem to be offering personal opinions from their own experience, contrary to WP:OR. The claim that there are no sources is not exact; it is false. The source Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes seems reliable and addresses the topic in detail. For example, the abstract tells us that "1) there is less than 4 percent probability that a one-line change will introduce a fault in the code, 2) nearly 10 percent of all changes made during the maintenance of the software under consideration were one-line changes ..." Warden (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "one-line fix" doesn't mean a "one-line change". The problem is that assumed one-line fixes normally turn out to be more complex than that (false optimism when estimating before investigating). The resultant "multi-line change" is then deployed within the limited test budget allocated to this anticipated simple "one-line change". The 4% probability you cite is no longer relevant (the actual change was multi-line, not one-line), but the test effort allocation is probably inadequate to detect this. False optimism for one-line fixes is thus very dangerous for product quality - it encourages a simplistic and inadequate effort for quality maintenance on such fixes, whilst the fixes turn out to be excessively complex to allow that assumption to stand safely. Thus "one-line fixes" gain their existing poor reputation as a source of problems out of all proportion to their original impact. The fix is a robust system of continuous testing in place before working on such fixes. As the incremental effort of testing under such a regime is zero (it's subsumed under a fixed overhead, whether changes are made or not, and whatever the size of change) the ratio between re-test effort applied / anticipated change size is decoupled from this flakey optimism and we no longer find ourselves hazardously under-testing when we still need to, because "it was only going to be a one-line fix". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you seem to be giving us your opinion, rather than examining the sources. Here's another source — Towards Understanding Software Evolution: One-Line Changes — which examines the thesis of a software guru that "a one-line change has a 50% chance of being wrong". Such sources indicate that we have a notable topic here. Exactly what we say about the topic is a matter of examining such sources and using ordinary editing. Deletion would not be helpful in this and this is the point of our discussion. Warden (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a dictionary definition/neologism. I too have used it and seen it used but quite literally and trivially: a one line fix is a fix that involves changing a single line. It is very common, not 'notorious' or often used 'sarcastically' as the article describes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly there are adequate sources, this is a notable phrase, and it's not merely a dictionary definition. There is more complex explanation about the various uses and meanings of the phrase to be added, per the discussion even here about sarcasm versus literally referring to which line needs fixing. If this were the kind of thing a mere dicdef could describe reliably, then it would have a Wiktionary entry (which it does not, because it's an encyclopedic topic). If consensus ends up being not to keep, I'd prefer to see this merged and redirected to bug fix. Steven Walling • talk 04:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "various uses and meanings of the phrase" here? As far as I can tell, there only two - literal and sarcastic - with maybe a halfway point for skeptical in the middle. If you did a Google search on, say, "great Steven Seagal movie", you would find the same "complex" range of meanings, from sincere to sarcastic. If one could find enough instances of the phrase "great Steven Seagal movie" in published books and articles, would it merit its own Wikipedia article? No - the issue is that there are no references specifically about the phrase. Similarly, here there still seems to be only one source that discusses the concept in any detail: the Jargon File. Other sources either just include the phrase, or devote one or two sentences to it, like the book Testing IT. Yaron K. (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building a straw man argument about some hypothetical phrase doesn't negate the fact, stated above by others and myself, that there are plenty of sources which verify that this phrase is notable. Whether you think there's enough material for an encyclopedia article is more debatable I guess, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to compare some random phrase you thought up to a real term that is in common use. Steven Walling • talk 15:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, he's not offering a strawman and he's not insulting anyone. He's explaining the problem in your argument, that the occurrence of the phrase is not by itself sufficient to establish notability or even that all these various occurrences are even talking about the same thing as the subject of this article. He's explaining why the article is little more than a WP:MADEUP dictionary entry. Twice now, you've argued WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but where are they? This is what matters in an AfD discussion. Taking the question personally isn't very helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources have been cited above including Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes and Towards Understanding Software Evolution: One-Line Changes. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great source. Did you read it? "[T]here is less than 4 percent probability that a one-line change introduces a fault in the code." That doesn't sound like the thesis of this article, that it has some notable sarcastic meaning. I think they were using the term literally, looking to see if they could find a relationship between the size of a change and the expected defect rate. (IEEE journals just aren't a place where you see a lot of sarcasm anyway.) Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 6 September 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 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chládek

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

Contested PROD: still no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, still promotional, author hasn't improved it since contesting the PROD. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches yielded no reliable sources to determine notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS as required to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling, I could not find anything except unhelpful self-published sources. To establish notability for a fashion designer, I expect to see at least a mention or two by an actual fashion editor, e.g., at any of these. Msnicki (talk) 18:33, 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. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hino Oficial Do Santos FC

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

No sources to establish notability of this football anthem: the inclusion of the full lyrics is potentially a massive copyvio. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it's substantially notable. Consensus has seen many songs like this deleted during my time here. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. – Pee Jay 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Digirami (talk) 02:01, 3 September 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 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Champions in FIFA Worldcup

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

A legitimate and welcome new template, but no need for it to be an article. We already have List of FIFA World Cup finals. If retained, needs to be moved to normal English designation (Worldcup is not one word; winners are not referred to as "Champions in...") Kevin McE (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{FIFA World Cup Winners}} already exists. Giant Snowman 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Redundant to an existing template and List of FIFA World Cup finals, a featured list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delete - The content is clearly notable, but it clearly belongs in the Template namespace. Given that it already exists there, the article is completely unecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot even redirect due to incorrect capitalization. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:25, 5 September 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 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pender Greene

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

Non-notable 'executive coach', article written by the subject, promotional. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source offered that might establish notability is the Network Journal article. But frankly, I just don't find that article to be reliable as it strains credulity both that an LICSW could be one of the "25 Most Influential Black Women in Business" and that an individual could be that influential but have so little coverage to show for it. Googling, I could not find other independent reliable secondary sources WP:RS that might establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The closest was an Examiner article (sorry, can't give the link because the site is on WP's blacklist) talking about "cougars" (women involved with younger men) but that article isn't about the Greene, it's about cougars. Though not a reason to delete, the article reads like an advertisement WP:PROMOTION, not surprising given that it was written by the subject herself WP:AUTO. Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition the majority of the edits are auto-biographical Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think something could be written about her, but it might be too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatant self-promotion and résumé. Yuck! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 8 September 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. If there is anything worth merging it can be pulled from the page history.Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mudd

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

Delete or Merge (as nominator) into Samuel Mudd per Notability and already exists in another article. Only reference I can find refer to his death and/or his fight to clear his g pap's name. Information already exists in the Samuel Mudd article making this unneeded. Pudge MclameO (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ — there seems to be nothing notable about this fellow that's not tied into his crusade re: grandpa, and that is already covered better in the Samuel Mudd article than it is here, thus obviating need to merge. it's possible that the case he filed, mudd v. white, deserves an article, but this isn't it, and won't become it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If most of the content that is in this article exists in another, then to aid navigation and because redirects are cheap, I think it would be more appropriate to redirect as opposed to delete. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect per Steven Zhang. it didn't even occur to me, but it's the obvious thing to do. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me either way. We just don't need a stand alone article. Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samuel Mudd#Posthumous rehabilitation attempts. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:29, 8 September 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 Dale Brown#Patrick McLanahan Series. With redirects being generally seen as cheap, and aiding in navigation and searching of the wiki, and from the comment below, this seems like the appropriate course of action. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McLanahan

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

This purely fiction article lack source. It does not even have one. I say nothing of its failure to comply with notability requirements. Fleet Command (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Dale Brown. Excessively long, way too detailed, entirely in-universe article with no sourcing at all. No need for a merge, since there is enough information about him at the Dale Brown article already.--MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 5 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional aircraft in Dale Brown novels

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

This article:

Lacks references
Fails notability requirements
Is an article fork of Fictional military aircraft

Fleet Command (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fictional military aircraft. Alternatively, merge with Dale Brown. This topic is not notable enough for a stand-alone article but does warrant its own section in the aforementioned article. Deterence ^Talk 08:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is excessive fan trivia based entirely on editors' interpretations of the work of fiction itself. It therefore fails WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:OR, because you can't draw your own conclusions from primary sources and put than in an encyclopedia article. I oppose a merge because this article fails basic content policy and so none of its content is usable. In addition, the suggested merge targets are unsuitable. This level of intricate fictional detail would be out of place in a biographical article about a real person, and the list of Fictional military aircraft is already way too long, horrendously sourced, and overflowing with fancruft so shovelling more of the same in there would just make it worse. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the Fictional military aircraft is probably too long, (and could do with a split, such as one article for fictional aircraft from literature and one for movies), I don't see that as sufficient reason for deleting this article instead of merging it. If the article Fictional military aircraft is too long, then the excessive length of that article, (with or without a merge with Fictional aircraft in Dale Brown novels), can be dealt with separately from this AfD. Deterence ^Talk 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of source? Article fork? You know, article forks are deleted; contents that cannot be verified are also challenged and deleted. God knows how much false info or novel non-Dale Brown fiction is sandwiched amongst all those unreferenced material. Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? 90% of Wikipedia is trivia. Deterence ^Talk 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not for plot-only descriptions of fictional works, including minor plot details such as aircraft. Fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these fictional aircruft seem indiscriminate. Lacks references in the form of inline cites for verification, and likely contains a fair amount of original research, but a dedicated fan could probably cite what page which aircraft was described in which novel. Even then, it would lack independent and reliable sources needed to show the topic is a notable one, or that the "fictional aircraft in Dale Brown novels" is any more deserving of an article than hats and garden tools used by Agatha Christie's Miss Marple (a "black lace cap" in "The Tuesday Night Club;" "a felt hat with a bird's wing" in "A pocket full of rye"), cars destroyed (multiple per novel) in Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novels, or fictional horses (and fictional airplanes, for that matter) in Dick Francis novels. Edison (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This stuff is better off being put in a fan wiki. Wasn't pleasant on the eyes first time I saw it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:14, 3 September 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs) as G3, blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of India

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

Hoax, no such place. Grahame (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like you said this article is a hoax. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps even speedy. If it is a hoax, no sense in dragging this discussion out any father, eh? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 14:31, 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. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K!TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. No independent references. Survived AfD in July 2005, but no improvements since. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without references that show this is software is widely used/ known/ discussed, the article is useless product placement. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete — searches turn up nothing but download links, no discussion. the same is true for this search, on quenottetv, which seems to be an alternate name for the project. according to sourceforge page for project it hasn't been updated for two years, the cvs repository at sourceforge seems to be dead, and the project's website hasn't had news updated since 2007. it seems like a moribund and non-notable piece of software, forcibly superseded by progress and moore's law. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 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 keep. Discussion indicates that high schools are commonly kept, so long as they are verifiable. While this page still fails WP:DIVERSE, the subject has sources and can be reasonably expected to find more. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret

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

Not notable no real references in the articles and it has been marked as such for years. CapMan07008 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable private college, with an article that reads like a prospectus. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This nomination is flawed because the article was not tagged with a "deletion template". IZAK (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IZAK, Did you fix the nomination? I'm sorta new and still learning my way around Wikipedia. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm CapMan, for a "new" editor (only joined August 15th, not even two weeks [45]!!!) you sure are busy running to delete articles about Orthodox Judaism and Jews, such as when you were slapped down with a Speedy Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aharon Kotler and now this article. Take a few deep breaths, step back, try to engage other editors in fair discussions first, go to their talk pages, or go to WP:TALKJUDAISM and get the expert views of editors there. This is a long term work in progress. That will help you out. Raise your level of WP:AGF and WP:NPOV and then you can take the lunge at deleting articles that are bound to raise controversy which you should try to avoid. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am new, and I've admitted this, as for the Aharon Kotler I admit I didn't do enough research there weren't enough references listed on the pages, it pointed out to me later how I should do a proper search on this. I am still new and learning. I will take your helpful tips, I appreciate you guidance. FYI, I have also nominated non-orthodox articles for deletion with 1 being deleted another 1 prodded and several other where I have tagged for needed references and if there are no reference is a reasonable amount of time they too will be nominated for deletion [46] CapMan07008 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-written article that needs more citations about a notable yeshiva in New Jersey. IZAK (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I've been watching this article and trying to improve it for at least 2 years. I've tried finding sources many time and come up with nothing. If you can share some WP:RS that would be great but otherwise, the nominator is correct and the article should go. Joe407 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I Agree with Joe407, it has been marked for quite some time looking for references since October of 2009, unless they can be added, This should be deleted. DrSultan85 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, For the Same reasons as Joe407 and DrSultan85, I think this fits under A7, that's why I nominated this. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to popular opinion here, the article is apparently sourced. Highschools and a fortiori post-high schools are considered inherently notable. I can't see why this type of schools should be treated any differently. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that opinion is currently changing - see Jimbo Wales talk page, where he says a statement by him on this topic was misconstrued and that in fact schools are not inherently notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no evidence that opinion is actually changing. Whether this kind of school falls in the mainstream of the years of AfD consensus may be another matter, as this is a specialty school of unclear size.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Jimbo Wales (what a silly name anyway) and don't give a flying shit what he has to say.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's nobody special, he just THE FOUNDER OF WIKIPEDIA, lol... CapMan07008 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specialized high schools and colleges are considered notable. The distinction is between colleges and trade schools. A theological institute ins not a trade school--its a specialized academic institution. Size is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even If we ignore size, it still has no WP:RS CapMan07008 (talk) 21:54, 29 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, Sandstein 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant delete. I am unable to find any coverage in the Haredi press.~~ Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep. I found a feature-length article in Binah women's magazine about the yeshiva, and fleshed out the history accordingly. Now it has reliable sources and awaits more news coverage as it grows. The yeshiva has made an impact by putting Carteret back on the Jewish map after the near-demise of the community in 2002, and rebuilt its Jewish presence with the addition of kollel families who are now making their homes there. In addition, I think that having a template like Template:Yeshivas in New Jersey is of encyclopedic value, and that we should work on populating the template with more articles about these small yeshivas. Yoninah (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their necessity for template is an excuse; it's not criteria for notability. Please see Kudpung's Opinion. The Terminator p t c 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say the template was a criterion for notability; I said it had encyclopedic value. The references I added to the article show the article's notability. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I change my delete to strong delete although much has been said about this article but thee fact remains it still has insufficient WP:RS, and nothing has been said that might prove its notability, and its deletion has been mentioned before but the process was never initiated[47] an example of another small yeshiva before[48] CapMan07008 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's sound analysis. There may be a point where a "school" is so small we treat it as a personal project, but this is plainly not such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete (as per Joe407 and Yoninah), or pare back to the bare minimum, which is to say the first paragraph and the sidebar. I have some sympathy to the argument that schools are inherently notable enough to be included, but all the details beyond that opening are unsourced and/or unnotable in their own right. — Shmuel (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must Delete and no doubt about it. when it's bad article we shouldn't be reluctant because of our emotions, the fact is this is relatively small ″school″ with absolutely no 3rd party coverage, and not one of the people objecting to the deletion has provided any proof for its notability or verifiable refs, as a matter of fact I have no idea even if any of what it says in the article is true. Only thing the opponents of the delete have mentioned is empty rhetoric that went against the opinion of the founder of wikipedia. IMHO we need to focus on expanding the notable articles as opposed to wasting our time with articles that are clearly not-notable. For God's sake, It's not even covered by Haredi press 208.54.87.150 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— 208.54.87.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete As per the Simple Bob 108.35.89.38 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— 108.35.89.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - for good reason we normally keep high schools or schools that contain high school sections. That is the case here. The issue up to now has been the lack of sources. For example, this search has produced nothing. At that point I would have supported deletion as failing WP:V. However, a substantial source has now been provided. Consequently, I think that it should now be kept and developed. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added to the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 7 September 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. No clear consensus for deletion. Strong arguments against deletion. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Todd (American football)

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH NThomas (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned, does not meet criteria for inclusion as an athlete Bella the Ball (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable college athlete. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. cmadler (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. He passes the former based on having "gained national media attention as an individual," including stories about him at ESPN.com and NBC Sports. Several examples of the "national media attention" have now been added to the article. He passes the GNG standard due to truly extensive and non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources about his college football career as a record-setting starting quarterback at Auburn. He set all-time Auburn records for most passing touchdowns in a season and longest pass from scrimmage. A google news archive search here turns up over 2,000 articles about his college football career, including many that are specifically focused on him. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject of article is just receiving routine coverage that any Division I QB receives. In this case, I think he has to receive at the minimum all-league first team honors or all-American honors, which he has not (as far as the article currently says). — X96lee15 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "minimum" for an all-league first team to according to WP:NCOLLATH, conference awards are not national awards. First team All-Americans are another story, but the way WP:NCOLLATH is now, All-Americans still wont pass WP:NCOLLATH #1. NThomas (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is well established that college football players may have articles if they pass either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. In this case, he passes both. National media attention qualifies him under WP:NCOLLATH #3, and the totality of the news coverage (2,000+ articles, including many feature stories about him) gets him past GNG as well. Some college athletes are tough calls, but this one is easy if people are really following the guidelines. 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Passes WP:N. --otduff ^t/_c 09:57, 1 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rylan Reed

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BASEBALL/N. NThomas (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the expansion. Many minor leaguers have a comparable amount of press but get deleted. Taking the time to do the expansion makes this one a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After beating cancer, he became a first-team All-American football player at Texas Tech. Satisfies both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Offensive linemen almost never get glory or news coverage, but the truly exceptional ones do. Reed is one of the truly exceptional ones. Examples of news coverage include: (1) Intimidating Reed once made minor-league hitters quiver, ESPN.com, Nov. 17, 2008; (2) Recovering Reed sets Tech weight-lifting mark, ESPN.com, July 28, 2008; (3) Texas Tech happily lays it on the line: Blockers aim to pave way vs. No. 1 Texas, USA Today, Oct. 30, 2008; (4) Tech's Reed goes from diamond to gridiron: From mound to mountain; Once a pitcher, Tech's Rylan Reed thrives at tackle, Houston Chronicle, November 18, 2008; (5) Reed anchors Red Raiders' offensive front after his triumph against cancer, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Oct. 6, 2007; (6) Older, wiser Reed a steady influence for Red Raiders, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Oct. 31, 2008; (7) Texas Tech Lineman Rylan Reed Bench Presses 625, KCBD, July 28, 2008; (8) Crossett Native Rylan Reed a 'Warrior' at T-Tech, Arkansas Sports 360, (9) From baseball to battling cancer, Texas Tech's Reed has thrived: For Tech's Reed, life is beautiful, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 9, 2007; (10) Cancer scare led 'lucky' Reed to football, Connecticut Post, Jan 18, 2009; (11) Raiders tackle progressing well from ankle injury, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Aug. 21, 2008, (12) Tackle hopes to find zone against touted Virginia DL, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dec. 26, 2007; (13) Preparation makes perfect, TriCities.com (Tennessee), Jan. 2, 2009; (14) Texas Tech story about Reed shattering bench press record; (15) Reed has learned to just enjoy the ride: All-American has overcome cancer, tragedy, New Haven Register, Jan. 17, 2009; (16) "Live strong Reed, 26, overcomes cancer, tragedy to anchor Raiders' O-line," The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 4, 2008; (17) Setbacks haven't stopped Texas Tech's Rylan Reed, Denton Record-Chronicle (reprinted from The Dallas Morning News), Sept. 3, 2008; (18) "Crossett's Reed Picks Baseball Over Hogs," Pine Bluff Commercial (Arkansas), Aug. 8, 2000; and (19) "Reed trades UA football for baseball," Southwest Times Record (Fort Smith, Ark.), Aug. 8, 2000. Throw in four years of minor league baseball as a pitcher summarized here. Add it all up and you've got a notable athlete. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reed is a great guy with a good character, but four years in the minor leagues doesn't make a person notable according to WP:BASEBALL/N. I can find 10 stories for almost any Division I-FBS football player, that doesn't make them notable. NThomas (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a very small percentage (less than 1%) of college football players who receive the kind of extensive non-trivial coverage needed to satisfy either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. The few who do pass our standards. As for your claim, "I can find 10 stories for almost any Division I-FBS football player," it's just not so. Many players get the occasional routine passing reference in game coverage (or a stat line), but not this type of feature story coverage in national news media and major daily newspapers. And he was a first-team All-American to boot. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple source. While I often cite that GNG says that notability is only presumed, and allows that consensus can choose to override its acceptance critieria, this is not one of those cases. His WP:IMPACT is being a two-sport athlete (even if not at the top level) and his first-team All-American honors in his senior year after recovering from cancer.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets GNG. Not only are there plenty of non-trivial articles, but there are several from non-local or national publications (New Haven Register, Connecticut Post, ESPN, etc.). cmadler (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources above are enough to satisfy WP:GNG for me, which trumps WP:BASEBALL/N every day of the week. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPygmypony (talk) 03:14, 4 September 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. Discussion and/or more nominations of the other related articles is probably in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbrlen

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

The article contains "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it", per WP:Patent nonsense. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to Bulldog73, this poorly-written article is not patent nonsense; instead, it is an attempt to describe a feature of the C computer programming language. I was able to figure this out in less than a minute using a smart phone, and I am by no means a programmer. Accordingly, it's not patent nonsense. I will leave it to actual programmers to determine whether or not the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not patent nonsense, just poorly written. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree: this is not patent nonsense. It successfully conveys the ideas that this is a command in the C programming language (though I can see it's vague on what it does or what it's for. I presume it is explaining the syntax and arguments the command takes. But Wikipedia is not a programming language manual. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a manual. Its not accurate anyway, since it is not really a language feature but specific to a library that supports certain variable-width encoding of character sets. W Nowicki (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question there seem to be quite a few similar articles (see List of C functions). Are we going to propose deleting them all? --Kvng (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep and cleanup. In fact this article is better than some of the stubs created by this project. I agree with the "not a manual" argument but it does seem well established that each function in the C standard library is allowed an article (or at least a redirect to one article covering a group of related functions). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where/how has that been established? --Kvng (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a programming language manual. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:40, 8 September 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 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get With It (band)

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

This band's article's only claim of significance comes in the form of "immediate success in 1981 as a live act in the New York area," which is a statement that can't really be judged at face value, especially with no sources to back that claim up. Furthermore, the band "could not get a record deal," and I can't find any third-party coverage of the group. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also note that this article claims that one of the band members joined the Broadway cast of Beatlemania (musical) in 1987, even though the musical played on Broadway only between 1977 and 1979. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything about them during a Google search, which indicates they are not notable/important 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable band that was unable to get a record deal. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this group; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:48, 3 September 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) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Commander

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator is the developer. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 24 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) 02:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to show that it meets WP:GNG … NN software article with WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{02:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per above. No WP:RS and a complete WP:COI. Looks to fail WP:N. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 15:48, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Powered Robot

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)

Sounds like a nice show. However, if I understand it correctly, this was a 3-minute piece in 2010 and a 50-minute piece in 2011, performed only at the Orlando International Fringe Theater Festival--which isn't the biggest venue around. The reviews are exclusively from the local press: three short paragraphs on this blog, a few more paragraphs on this blog. What's in here is invisible to me. This isn't even a complete blurb. This is the most noteworthy of the bunch--and, might I add, makes it sound like a show I would enjoy too. But, unfortunately, I don't see how this meets our notability guidelines. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi there -- are you looking for sources outside of the local press? Atlanta picked up one of the stories here. The Orlando International Fringe Festival is the longest running of its kind in the US and one of the largest in North America. Dog Powered Robot received seven awards at show and was just named "Best Fringe Show" by the Orlando Weekly. Are the blogs the problem? We were up against shows from New York, Japan, England too. Let us know what more you need. Thanks. Jollycookritt (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)— Jollycookritt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hello Jollycookritt. It's not so much what I need; I don't decide on these matters, a consensus of other editors will. BTW, I've place a "keep" in front of your name, figuring you'd be on that side. What we need is multiple sources reviewing or discussing the production/group in depth; mentions in just the local press are usually not enough to be deemed notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at your sources. Notability for the festival has to be established in that article, but the FAQ from the organization is not going to help much. The Atlanta mentions--it's a few paragraphs in TheDailyCity.com, which doesn't strike me as a very notable publication. But I am going to stay out of this and let other editors weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Also, here is a new link for the Brink Magazine article (which was not correct before) with a full review of the show. You can also see it in a PDF here. Is there a preference of which one Wikipedia would like to use? I'll continue pulling more sources about the Fringe Festival's notability. Thanks, Jollycookritt (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC) You are free to comment all you like but only one bolded !vote per customer please. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dog Powered Robot was one of the top shows at the 2011 Orlando International Fringe Theatre Festival, which is the longest running Fringe festival in the United States. There are a few shows that have started at some of the Fringes here in the US and gone on to open on Broadway, most specifically Urinetown, and from the Orlando Fringe specifically Toxic Audio, and most recently 6 Guitars which premiered in the 2010 Fringe will be going to Off Broadway for a short run. In regards to Dog Powered Robot they started a cult following the year before at the 2010 Orlando International Fringe Theatre Festival when they premiered in part of another show called the Creative Mind Experiment. With the business savvy and personable Evan Miga he’s created a great show that appeals to all audiences. It also helps that they have the adorable star of the show Fisher Miga the little Pomeranian that powers the robot. At the festival there is a strict time limit on the load in and load out of all shows, with Dog Powered Robot, they not only had a huge set, but many technical aspects to their show and were always able to build and strike the set in the allotted time. Whenever they had a show they would also sell merchandise, which was so popular they were having to take orders that would have to be shipped out after the festival was over. They know how to market themselves, and have the show to back it up. It’s a fun show that appeals to the kid at heart, but also has the adult aspects so that everyone can enjoy. I know that not only does Miga Me Productions have a great future, but so does their show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.51.47 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — 97.101.51.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider better options to let the world know about DPR. The show does not meet notability standards for Wikipedia, as per Drmies. Bella the Ball (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established. Most of the arguments in favor of it, such as from the IP address, are more about why it's impressive rather than about providing sources or policies that would keep it from deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like advertisement. Only minor coverage in local press. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:50, 8 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Willey

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

Article has been tagged with cleanup tags for several years with no work done on it; no citations or references or indications of noteability. The vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches. Jtrainor (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the guy is clearly notable. he's all over google books and google scholar, and not in a trivial way. the fact that the article is in poor shape is indicated by the templates, which of course should be left. but there's no deadline. let's just leave the article tagged as a mess and wait till someone fixes it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 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) 01:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an editorless article in bad shape, but a search indicated that ability to establish wp:notability is near-certain. Needs editors/rescue, not deletion. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why on earth would we want to delete this article about a clearly notable 19th century abolitionist leader and newspaper editor? Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE and consider following its wise precepts in the future. A Google Books search verifies his notability in a matter of seconds. Why be concerned about the fact that "the vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches" when these are 19th century speeches and therefore in the public domain? By no means do I claim that this is even a halfway decent article, but the solution to a poor quality article about a notable topic is to improve the article through the normal editing process rather than deleting the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at sources, he is a notable figure in history. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lousy, lousy article about a subject appearing more than sufficiently notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 1 September 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) 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AbleNET

AfDs for this article:

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

nn chat network with 300 users. Numerous refs, but this is a ref bomb, not a real notable subject.

This article attempts to hitch a ride on events around irc-unity and the Fizzer worm. The problem is zero of the secondary sources are about AbleNET. One or two of the blog posts make a passing mention but those are not WP:RS for documentation or notability. Once you strip the article of things that do not mention AbleNET (the subject of the article), you are left with a handful of sentences that are referenced by primary sources and non-useful blogs and forum posts.

This survived AfD several years ago, before WP:N and WP:RS were really enforced and WP:ILIKEIT was seeming valid. This article doesn't meet our standards, now, if it ever did. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the sources, the nominator appears to be correct. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 24 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) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator's comments. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:N. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 14:29, 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 Big Nate. causa sui (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nate on a Roll

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

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. The only reference used is a primary source. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to existing Big Nate article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 28 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) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge No indication of notability. No references. (just mentioned the big nate web site as a "source". The content is a plot summary, not an article about the book. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Nate, save history just in case anything useful can be extracted from it someday.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Discussion on AfD guidelines for articles containing content unlikely to be merged. Trevj (talk) 11:37, 8 September 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. Courcelles 09:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Militello

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

I'm helping out an IP here [49]. "This Article has been nominated for deletion for the following reasons: WP:FAILN and WP:SPIP" Thank you - I'm the IP. 2.97.116.154 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded and updated/improved the article a little, adding a number of references. Honors and awards include several of substance. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:12, 29 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) 01:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Wp:notability looks probable and possibly established. Article needs work. North8000 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning delete Uncertain the notability of the prizes. Google searches yielded many results, although the reliability of these sites are questioned. Fail WP:BASIC. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A relatively close call, but I think that peer recognition like this [50] and a significant award nomination by Marilyn Hacker is enough to create a presumption of notability that hasn't been refuted (if even dented). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:17, 1 September 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 MammaPrint. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agendia

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

Non-notable company, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. The article was previously speedily deleted as a blatant advertisement; the current version is, for all I can tell, a recreation. Huon (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 24 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) 01:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company produces an important product (MammaPrint) that is widely known in the oncology world, representing a commercialization of the original academic university endeavor. Article needs additional edits, sources, and considerable work (and I am not undertaking to do the necessary work) but company is noteworthy. AFD tag should be removed and meaningful directive tags added to facilitate collaborative editing.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FeatherPluma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete/merge some content to MammaPrint I find myself persuaded by Cerejota's articulation of the clear issue that notability is not inherited, and that the notable topic is the test, rather than the company. I also acknowledge that the article on the company has probably appreciably more interest within the field than for general readers. Even with a deep troll I can't find any really good article-saving RS. There is a nagging problem in my mind that there is no other proper venue in WP for all the OTHER tests (other than MammaPrint) but the present situation really does not support them as independently notable (altho they speculatively might "get there.") Although I put some considerable effort to breathe some life into the article I take that as a learning experience. By the way, and in the converse as to Cerejota's principal point, I assertively / explicitly dissaffirm any WP:COI/WP:NOPAY concerns he may have in regards to myself... any distraction in that direction is moot. I do understand and agree with the valid part of his input. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looks fishy. Might be gamed by a wiki-saavy editor. Lists lots of references, all of the ones I checked don't mention them. Half of it is catalog type info rather than encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaffiliated with the company. I actually have no bias or ax to bear in the matter of the article's deletion or retention. However, from an academic viewpoint I wish to gently express some concern about the level of encyclopedic scholarship in relation to speculative possibilities. I sort of appreciate the reasons for your opinion that the article maybe "looks fishy", as there are indeed issues with this freshly posted article which hasn't had much of a chance to be edited yet. The problem is that the sentence, "Lists lots of references, all of the ones I checked don't mention them" (meaning Agendia) really does not make any sense to me, for several reasons: 1) If you look a little further you will readily find numerous citations in the article that do just that, including an FDA citation which includes the sentence, "MammaPrint was developed by Agendia, a laboratory located in Amsterdam, Netherlands, where the product has been on the market since 2005." 2) There are also Reuters and a Wall Street (but note that the 2nd of these was added after your comment) citation discussing a 90 million euro IPO that specifically names "them." Bearing in mind WP:AGF, I suspect that you didn't have time to read all the references, which is possible since you indicated that "all of the ones" you checked (i.e. you checked a subset) didn't... In short, the idea that the article "might be gamed" is uncorroborated speculation, and it turns out, seems to be factually wrong. In the interests of not quenching flawed but correctable new articles on WP, may I reflect to you that the guidelines support a pleasant, intellectual, nerdy appeal that decisions and indeed opinions regarding AfD need to be based on thorough research and careful explanatory detail, articulating which relevant criteria are or are not met? That said, the article is indeed flawed in several ways, and I have made a number of edits to the article, including transitioning some references to a WP:MEDRS standard, to start it along the road toward being a reasonable contribution. I may (or may not) be able to return to it some in a few days to tweak it further.FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has a lot of flaws and there are still several sections I haven't worked thru in depth, but I wonder if the edits that have cleaned up the article somewhat go toward reversing the deletion opinions?FeatherPluma (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge to MammaPrint. The product and the company appear to have gotten significant news coverage, for example from the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. Some of these links need to be cited in the article to help demonstrate notability. And in fact it might actually help if some of those non-helpful citations were deleted, e.g., press releases and journal articles. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have followed thru on your suggestions to the extent consistent with a gentle developmental edit approach. However, I have no objection to more radically removing some non-helpful citations. Only so much is feasible at one time tho.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to MammaPrint - fails WP:CORP, product can be notable without company being notable. The article is a pure puff piece, with a lot of references that dodn't even mention the company (but do mention the product) etc. This is straight forward case of not understanding that notability is not inherited and possibly of WP:COI/WP:NOPAY issues. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 8 September 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 Joseph Simmons. Courcelles 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Simmons

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notability. Sources are not independent or significant. Ei1sos (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google found a couple of interviews, although marginal might be a better word than dubious. Can I suggest a redirect to Run's House#The Simmons family where she's covered? Edgepedia (talk) 19:55, 25 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) 01:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge No indication or wp:notability, and it appears unlikely. North8000 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implement the never-completed merge per the first AFD and speedy close. And how could the obvious vandalism about the male lingerie models stand for months? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 1 September 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. I'm sorry Bopalula but the consensus here is that this Microbrewery doesn't pass our general notability guidelines. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Laxey Brewing Company

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? How about a simple google search for "old laxey brewing company"? This gets over 2,300 results, that seems to be fairly significant. I'm sure nobody wants a link to a google search, but it seems that they may be the only way to please some people.

I live in the Isle of Man, I went to the pub that this brewery is part of just over a week ago, it's still there it exists. I first attempted to created this article as the list of breweries in the Isle of Man on Wikipedia was incomplete. My first attempt failed as certain people without relevant knowledge disliked the links provided, so I created it as a stub as this seems to be how many thousand of articles that I can't verify as true seem to get on here. Now can someone explain to me how something with 2,300 results on google does not have "significant coverage"? Bopalula (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. We don't count Google hits here. We need coverage in reliable sources, and not just passing mentions. In order for the topic to be considered notable on Wikipedia, we need solid coverage with meat on its bones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, lack of "significant coverage" is not listed as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. (Yes I know it has a generic catch all statement).

Bopalula (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chill, I only deal in facts.

I've added two more references from Isle of Man Newspapers. Similar references were rejected before, but are relevant. Bopalula (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is a local brewpub. It apparently operates in a small hotel, according to the one accessible source.[51] Their ad in the same publication calls it the "island's smallest brewery" and notes that it is located in back of the hotel. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ihcoyc, I'm confused. You say "Delete, weakly" what does this mean? That makes no sense in English, please explain further. You then go on to make statements that seem to support the article. Bopalula (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete, weakly" means basically that I'd be open to persuasion that this business is notable if more significant independent reliable sources established that the brewery had achieved fame beyond its immediate locality. But the one source I was able to access (the other's a broken link) seemed to say instead that this was a local brewpub. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 31 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) 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Lots of passing mentions in sources. Did not find any substantial coverage by any of the listed sources nor in a quick scan of google search hits. No assertion of notability-related facts. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I will be happy to change my recommendation if such sources are brought forward. Passing mentions don't count here. Perhaps other editors added a "weak" prefix out of an undertandable wish to keep an article about an interesting little island brew pub, if only it were notable. The problem is that it isn't yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and get a website. Lots of people brew beer. Old Laxey beer sounds delicious. But it is a small operation, not something that merits encyclopedia coverage. Bella the Ball (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the phrase "it is the Isle of Man's smallest independent brewery." is indicative of the subject's notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly. I dont know how others searched but my first 20 pages only found a inflight magazine and a toy truck. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:30, 3 September 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 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsChannel

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

Not notable, just a bundle of unrelated names of news programs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. Rcsprinter (talk) 10:17, 29 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) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a word/phrase, not a topic. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hazard-SJ ± 02:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely a topic at all, and with no sources certainly not a notable one. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 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) 01:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kaufman

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non-notable individual - he barely even gets trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. I'd normally suggest a redirect to NARTH, but that would prevent us from making the actually notable Benjamin Kaufman (the Medal of Honor guy) the primary topic. (And here's a pre-emptive wish of good luck to anyone who intends to slog through all the GNews and GBooks hits for "Benjamin Kaufman" and "Ben Kaufman," as I did.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 25 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) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he's not really notable by Wikipedia's standards. Once the current article is deleted, redirect the truly notable and historic Benjamin Kaufman (Medal of Honor) to this title. Add a hat note to the top of that article linking to NARTH for those looking for information about the present Benjamin Kaufman. Thanks to Roscelese for slogging through the Google hits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not well-known. Google searches yield results which talk primarily about the insitution which the Kaufman set up. No article is entirely devoted to the person in question. Fails WP:BASIC Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:02, 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. causa sui (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C418

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

The subject of the article is not notable, in my mind. The closest he comes to meeting our notability standards for music biographies (WP:MUSICBIO) is point 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. He composed the soundtrack for Minecraft. However, the caveat of point 10 is that if they are not notable beyond that, we should merge them to the work's article. There is no coverage of him outside of minor write ups about the soundtrack to the game. Almost all the sources are self-published and non-reliable. This should be deleted with any relevant information merged to the game's page with no prejudice to recreation if notability can be established later on down the road. either way (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not only notable for the Minecraft OST, his other music is listened to a lot, search C418 in YouTube and see how many views the videos have. And only one of the sources are self published, that's not "most' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are primary sources and are not used to establish notability (though reliably published interviews can be used in the article). YouTube views (along with Google hits, site ranking, etc.) are also not a measure of notability. WP:GNG requires secondary, reliable, significant coverage sources on the subject itself. So far I do not see any at all. Minecraft OST, however, is notable, but Rosenfeld does not "inherit" notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one self-published reference used seven times plus two outside sources (one of which is used twice). Until 5 minutes before you made this comment, there was another self-published reference as well, so I stand by my "most" comment. And I fully agree with everything H3llkn0wz said. YouTube views is not a notability standard. I tried looking for news on the Google News archive and can find next to nothing (nothing relevant jumps to the top right away with just "C418"...nothing relevant at all with "C418" + rosenfield...and 6 hits with "C418" + Minecraft, none of which give him notability, just existence). When I Google him, almost everything is his self published materials (a Twitter, a blog, a Facebook, etc.) or a reference to Minecraft. Nothing establishes him as a notable person outside of his composing of the Minecraft soundtrack. either way (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid this was going to happen. Unfortunately, this article does fail WP:N and WP:V, especially when it comes to a WP:BIO. I'm afraid I will have to say Delete for now. C418 is a great composer, but his stuff is just not notable. More articles surface, Minecraft gets released and maybe it would be enough notability to write another article.An alternate to deleting and keeping a redlink, we could just redirect it to the Minecraft article. Just have to make sure C418 is mentioned in that article somewhere. Yes, C418 isn't known just for the Minecraft soundtrack, but to many, that's the only thing he's known for, i.e.: the reason for this AfD. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 11:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 25 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) 01:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. At the very least, the article should be merged to the game's article, as per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with what Whpq wrote. --Ryan.germany (talk) 15:15, 8 September 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 G12, non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Radel

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography with no WP:RS to support WP:BIO or WP:GNG … WP:CSD#G12 (copy&paste of subject's own website) and WP:PROD deleted by author/subject without comment — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD G12. I have retagged the article. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 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.