Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 7

< 6 March	8 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Scientific control#Examples of controls. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Kertezc[edit]

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

Kertezc is not a real person, but is a fake poet as part of a control question on a certain psychology test. I could not find any reliable sources about him, and being part of one out of 300+ questions on a test is far from notable, in my opinion. Kansan (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While that might be the ideal outcome, unless we can source this, I'm not sure what there is worth merging. Kansan (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book specifically identities Raymond Kertezc as an example of a control question in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Merge is possible but the content as it stands would simply read like a trivia entry. An actual sourced item about the controls built into the test would be needed as it currently does not exist in the article. Simply redirecting is not useful as arriving there, the reader would still be at a complete loss as to why he or she has been presented with an article on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory when they were looking for a guy named Raymond Kertezc. For these reasons, I favour deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge taking this content, the source above, and making it into an appropriate target for the resultant redirect. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Whpq said, it would be trivia, unless it was explained as an example of a control question (but would that be particularly unique to this test? I would imagine many such tests have control questions.) Kansan (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and I don't think this would add much to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory article if merged. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scientific control#Examples of controls. I agree, doesn't belong in a standalone article, and the content would be trivial at MMPI, but it fits nicely in the article above. No reason to delete sourced, verifiable content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:36, 16 March 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. Big Dom 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INTA Gems and Diamonds[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion because the article seems more promotional than anything with majority of links back to the website of INTA Gems and Diamonds. Of the references, 5 of the 7 are links back to their website. One is to a group Blog called Luxist. The other is a bi-weekly web news site that briefly mentions the company in passing as one of the sponsors of Miss California. Only notability seems to be claimed for being the official jewelry sponsor of Miss California. Warfieldian (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article's subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Luxist is an AOL publication covering luxury goods and lifestyles. I'd accept it as coverage in a reliable source. However, it's not much coverage, and without other supporting coverage, it doesn't meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major Los Angeles jewelery company with 2 reliable, third-party sources (Luxist and West Hollywood News). I'd also like to point out that the page has been in good standing for 6 months. Jpjaegerc5 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. FieldMarine (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 gnews hits. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 10 March 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) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Zedong's religion[edit]

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

This article appears to me to be an unnecessary content fork from Mao Zedong. And that's what I said in my prod, which was removed by an anonymous editor. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is weakly sourced and seems more like a persuasive essay to argue that he was Taoist. As it has been the subject of much debate (as has the religious beliefs of other people such as Adolf Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama), I don't think this content fork is "unnecessary", but there isn't much currently here that can justify being kept. Kansan (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay — and a damned poor one: There is some debate about what the religion of Mao Zedong, ruler of the People's Republic of China from 1949-76. Many Christians believe that Mao was an atheist, but do not present any evidence for this claim. Mao's mother was a devout Buddhist, while his father did not practice. A story is told that Mao's father did become a Buddhist, however, after surviving an attack from a tiger... Carrite (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly argued original research. LadyofShalott 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment remember to delete the page Religion of Mao Zedong as well. 65.93.13.129 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research and no reliable evidence given —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.161.130 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is ongoing repeated IP vandalism of both this discussion page and the article page, including blanking of the the AfD notice template. LadyofShalott 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, bitch. Delete the damn page and go to church, you secular cocksucker.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hamernick[edit]

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

There are/have been thousands and thousands of university department chairs. There is no indication that Hamernick has any notabiliy beyond that. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor who also chaired and expanded an academic department for years, according to sources. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a professor or chairing a department are specifically mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC as not being sufficient for notability. --Crusio (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two cited sources are so textually similar that they should really only count as one, neither gives any indication of anything he did that might be of non-local significance, and I can't find any evidence elsewhere in Google scholar or Google news archive for passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Somebody apparently wrote this in response to his recent death, and both sources are obituaries. In fact they are special-interest obituaries; no independent reliable source seems to have published one. I'm sure he was a fine person, but he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The department-chair position is not enough, and Google Scholar finds almost nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 15 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeScript[edit]

WP:N CoffeScript does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, specifically coverage from someone independent from the source. Some tech blogs have written about it and it has been on Hacker News a few times, that is about it. In addition the article reads like an advertisement for the 'language'. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

CoffeeScript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:CoffeeScript}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that the coverage at this point is primarily from tech blogs, but for a year-old programming language, CoffeeScript is exceptionally notable. The only way for a programming language to draw mainstream press in its early years is to be associated with a major tech company (see: Google Go). Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, has spoken favorably about CoffeeScript, and suggested that it may influence the next generation of JavaScript. David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, has both praised it and used it for real projects at 37signals, an exceptionally influential tech company. As to the article being an advertisement: I'm the primary author, and it's true that I like CoffeeScript. I apologize if my enthusiasm gives the article a bit of a cheerleader inflection. But this isn't a case of a language's creator, or their friend, putting up an article to promote their pet project. This is a case of someone finding a language useful, expecting it to have a big future, and being surprised that there was no Wikipedia article on it. Trevor Burnham (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Brendan Eich can lead into two lengthy posts about the future of Javascript with a reference to it, and the respondents don't have to ask what he's talking about, that's a pretty good sign it's already achieved some level of notability. The notability guidelines are horribly broken when applied to programming languages - real working programmers don't necessarily publish in what Wikipedia considers authoritative sources. --Jfager (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 400,000 Google results for +CoffeeScript and it is well known in the programming world. Further, I question the nominator's objectivity on this issue as he quoted the word "language" as if to imply CoffeeScript isn't one (when there is no doubt that it is). Briancollins (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do not delete this article on Coffee Script! I have been searching for such a language! I have written a book from a Computer Scientist's point of view regarding the fact that compiled web languages are increasingly needed -- see www.newhollandpress.com . I build websites for a living but the jargon has become prohibitive to development! If people are not going to speak in a human language at very least they deserve a CoffeeScript that makes sense. And have you seen the source code page for Coffeescript!!? With every line of it that is written in Javascript commented thoroughly? I have never seen such a beautiful programming work in my life. It is true, that like Galileo, the advanced are sometimes too far ahead of our time. I don't know much about Wikipedia but I am incrementally using it for information, however if the Editors who make this decision do need an impartial write-up on CoffeeScript I would be happy to work on that page. I hold two Bachelors degrees: one in English Literature the other in Computer Science and I will be happy to send whomever makes such a decision a .PDF of my book: Building Consistent Websites. CoffeeScript is a *very* important work! --Evan Jan Williams 20:13, 10 March 2011 (EST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undulatus asperatus[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE all apply. The article is about a proposed addition to the standard classification for clouds. However that proposed new class has not (yet) been accepted by the meteorological community. When and if it does gain acceptance, then an article can be created on it. Suggest this be moved to someone's user space. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me to pass straightforward notability criteria. The article should make it obvious it is just proposal but the proposal has been reliably sourced and is of general interest. Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article author). I don't create articles about non-notable subjects, and the intent here was not to discuss the name as a neologism for something. This one was the subject of quite a bit of major press, and didn't have a Wikipedia article about it. The press covered it as the discovery of a new cloud type, something that may or may be true whether or not the scientific community wishes to classify it that way. If they do, that does in fact support that it is notable as a type of cloud. If they do not, it may be a type of cloud that doesn't have a classification, or it may simply be a series of events leading to a failed proposal, which is also notable based on the coverage. Emerging scientific theories and rejected ones, observations, systems that are not yet adopted, etc., all are subject to standard notability criteria. Cold Fusion seems a good example of that. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic is the subject of multiple in-depth and high profile coverage in the general press. WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply: Wikipedia is not needed to promote this neologism because it has not just been used but explained in the media. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because even in the event that this type of cloud formation is not accepted in the International Cloud Atlas, it will of course still be used, although possibly as a subcategory of one of the other cloud formations. WP:UNDUE makes no sense for something that has been reported so widely (National Geographic, New York Times, USA Today, Guardian, Toronto Star, MSNBC, CBS News, Daily Mail), and I am not convinced there are any neutrality issues in the first place (WP:UNDUE is a section of WP:NPOV).

That said, I am surprised that I did not find any mention of this cloud type in the scientific literature. If I missed part of the story and there is good evidence that this was just one media coup that wasn't taken seriously by meteorologists, then I would have to think about this again. Hans Adler 22:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last concern is what prompted me to nominate. Perhaps this is a "Deletionist" vs. "Inclusionist" thing, but I think we need some sort of evidence that it wasn't just a media coup and that it was taken seriously by Meteorologists, rather than the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were quite dramatic (perhaps why various media agencies picked up the story), but all of the coverage seems to be about the proposal by the Cloud Appreciation Society, not about the validity of the cloud itself as a new type. A comment by a meteorologist in one of the articles indicates his opinion was that it fit under the classification of a cumulus cloud. All other assertions in articles appear to be from the single source of the leader of the Cloud Appreciation Society (who has no meteorological training). HiFlyChick (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Undulatus until such time as the proposal is accepted. The information is worthy of being preseved, but giving it a seperate article gives undue weight to a proposal.陣内 _Jinnai 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable to the nominator. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable to me as well. Hans Adler 01:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good compromise, perhaps with less weight being given to the proponent's point of view (i.e. that the term is not recognized, nor is the proposal endorsed by meteorologists) HiFlyChick (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem here is that it redirects to Altostratus undulatus cloud. Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Hans Adler. The subject is currently a WP:Fringe one, but shows enough general notability and is presented in a way that is consistent with our policy on Fringe Material. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any indication that this is a "fringe" or POV issue? I have no boat in this race, nor am I an expert or involved in meteorology other than having worked with some professional meteorologists and being an interested layperson - I just read major respectable publications reporting on this as a real issue. And if it is being taken up as a serious proposal for discussion with the society, that suggests it's a legitimate proposal whether or not accepted, not a PR event. Did they all get hoodwinked? Merging is a different question entirely having to do with organization of information, not notability. If we decide project-wide to put all the sub-types of clouds into the parent article, then we should for this one too, and the circumstances around the discovery and proposal as notable as they are would logically fit in that section rather than as a standalone article. On the other hand, if we do have articles for different types of meteorological events and objects that are not distinct classifications, this one would logically stand on its own feet as an independent article subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the Google Scholar hits for "undulatus asperatus" are for things that are not scholarly articles. Of course this only shows that the term "undulatus asperatus" has so far not appeared in the literature. Possible explanations include: Maybe Scholars refer to the cloud formation in a different way, so perhaps the article should be renamed. Or maybe meteorologists, at least in the area relevant here, are old-fashioned enough not to publish preprints on the web, in which case we might have to wait another year for articles that were written last year or earlier to appear. (Publishing delays of 5 years or so due to peer review and other factors are not unheard-of.) But still, it doesn't look too good. Hans Adler 08:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how either NEOLOGISM, CRYSTAL or UNDUE apply at all. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 8 March 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 WP:SNOW speedy deletion under criterion A7. - Vianello (Talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mimyah[edit]

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

Unclear article, poorly written. It seems to be about the CEO of a company, and we don't know why this person is notable. The article features a single sentence containing 40 words, all of which begin with a capital letter. Maimai009 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD A7. Person (apparently?) with no notability asserted. Also possible COI, but I'm mentioning that somewhat tangentially. - Vianello (Talk) 23:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Facebook. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No asssertion of notability, and almost no content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 11:38, 9 March 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 to delete, default to keep. First agree on what makes a named hill "notable" or "unnotable", then come back & decide whether to keep or merge this material. One could argue, in analogy with settlements, that all named geographical landmarks are notable, or, only those with a clear historic, geological, or geographical value are notable. But no one has made a convincing argument to prefer one over the other -- leading to the present stalemate. No harm keeping this article until that point is agreed on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duncorn Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable hill. This was a supposed hill fort, but according to the source given in the article, an archaeological investigation in 1966 found that the apparent evidence of a fort was just natural rock formations. So without evidence of a fort fort, we're left with a hill that might be notable for once being thought of as being the site of a hill fort. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the article was written it said there was a Bronze or Iron Age hillfort, which would have been notable. I found the source for a survey in 1966 saying the features thought to be man made were natural & therefore the hill itself is non notable.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Delete This is an interesting situation. Had there definitely been a hillfort on Duncorn Hill, it would most certainly be notable, however as Pastscape notes the scarps are natural and it seems that the identification of the site as a hillfort was based solely on the artificial appearance of the scarps. So what this boils down to is are the archaeological excavations enough to constitute notability. In this case I don't believe they do; archaeologists wouldn't consider the site of interest (except perhaps in contrast to previous notions about it being a hillfort) and this doesn't seem to have been picked up in other publications. Perhaps a line can be added to the Nailwell article, but it may not even be worth mentioning at all. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per its talk page the 1966 investigation of the hill site has lots of sources and the article itself has references to back the facts up. It may not be considered a Bronze Age/Iron Age hillfort now, but the hillfort does have its own notabilty for its own article. However, I do believe that this article was a mistake but surely this could be worth keeping. Jaguar (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable hill, being amongst other things, a source of fuller's earth. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any sources to establish the notability of that? I'm sure it's also a source of grass for example, but that doesn't automatically make it notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course - do you suppose I would just invent this information? See, for example, Geology of East Somerset and the Bristol coal-fields, The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, The Jurassic rocks of Britain, Handbook to Bath, etc. There is not the slightest case for deletion so please see the deletion process which explains the appropriate checks to be made before starting an AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did make those checks, which is why I said "No significant coverage in reliable sources" in my nomination. All the sources you quote contain only the briefest of mentions. If there is significant coverage out there, it needs to be demonstrated.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving us the exact line of the source that mentions this? I don't seem to be able to access it, and I want to be sure that it's not just a reference to the general area but specifically talks about how this hill in particular is a source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found the source myself. It literally just says something along the lines of: Fuller's earth has also been found at, and then has a list which includes the hill. It in no way considers it a significant site for this, and indeed it's not like it's a place where there's a mine or an active operation to get fuller's earth.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the last ref gives it more than a passing mention. A fuller (sorry) version is at English Heritage's Pastscape site, which makes clear that the mis-identification as a hill fort was in a single book published by a local excavation club, the author of which told EN it was "based as the artifical appearance of a scarp as seen from the road to the south". If it had been a widespread mis-identification I would probably have argued for merging somewhere, but I found no evidence that it ever widely thought to be a hill fort. Qwfp (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first reference in the article says the government has already declared it to be a notable landmark. Dream Focus 01:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Wikipedia's definition of notable with that of the real world. The document says that Duncorn is one of many hills in the landscape that act as a landmark. By all means, Duncorn Hill should be included in an article discussing the landscape of the area, but the source certainly doesn't prove that the hill is independently notable. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just plain false. The citation is a World Heritage Site study that names nearly a dozen local topographical features as "local landmarks." This is a long way away from being an officially designated historical landmark, which the source never asserts in the first place. Would you kindly read the reference before making outlandish claims for it? Ravenswing 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "landmark" can literally just mean any sort of mark on the land. Someone giving instructions to my house, for example, might mention a large pond as a landmark to look out for when navigating. It is not synonymous with being considered a place of any notable interest. Being called a landmark in a government document is completely different from being "declared" to be a landmark.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's definition of notable at WP:N is "worthy of notice". The existence of a name for a hill is evidence that people consider the hill to be "worthy of notice". Cartographers are in the business of documenting named geographic features so that we have independent reliable secondary sources for these names. In this case not only do we have a good map; we have a document that shows the name has been in use since at least 1938, which proves enduring notability. Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), which with weaker supporting positions than those I've just mentioned passed easily through AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every street has a name, is documented on maps, and is detailed in local government publications and other surveys of the area in which it lies. Should we have an article on every street?--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeologists don't excavate streets, geologists don't do field studies of the mineral content of streets, and airplane pilots aren't worried for their safety by the elevation contours of streets. I think a better analogy is with islands. The problem here is not whether or not streets should have an article, but whether hills should have an article, and in this case a hill that goes well beyond the only identified baseline for geographic notability in this AfD. That is unless you consider the "hillfort non-notability guideline" (WP:HNNG), which says that hills that don't have hillforts are not notable, for which no supporting examples have been provided. Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by "in this case a hill that goes well beyond the only identified baseline for geographic notability in this AfD". In the absence of specific guidelines for geographic notability I am using the general notability guideline, which this blatantly fails to meet due to the lack of significant coverage about the subject. Your contention that the article be retained due to the hill simply being "named", "documented" and "worthy of notice" is not supported by policy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below, also Roads. Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it turned out that the hillfort was real it would be a different story. But it isn't, so this is just a simple, non-notable hill. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. It's a hill pretty much like all the others around it. It has no hill fort (even presuming that every place in the world that has, or had, a fortification is presumptively notable, which is nonsense), and there are no reliable sources claiming any fame for it on that basis. Consensus is long since firm that the lowest level of government-designated landmark in Britain is not presumptively notable ... but the assertion that this hill IS a government-designated landmark is false. Leaving aside just plain laughable assertions such as that every named geographical or topographical feature on Earth passes WP:N, there's a whole lot of nothing here. Ravenswing 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topographical features do not require a castle upon them to be notable. This hill is in the area in which the science of geology was first established by William Smith (geologist). He surveyed the area himself and other geologists and palaeontologists followed him, as the sources show. Its appearance in a World Heritage Site study seems quite significant and is far from being nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfort, not a castle. That off my chest (sorry), the area may be notable, the World Heritage Site obviously is, but is the hill? It can easily be covered in the respective articles (if it even merits mention at all), but are there any sources which treat the hill as a subject in its own right rather than an element of something greater? Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why I'm even bothering, but ... what's your point, Col.Warden? We're not writing the biography of William Smith here. The question as to whether or not a place name being mentioned in a site study is "nothing" might be worthy of discussion for a bunch of terribly bored kindergarteners, but it's out of our purview here. Let's see if I can make this simple: what criteria of Wikipedia policies or guidelines do you claim this article meets and why? Ravenswing 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5 gives our core policies. Amongst them it states that Wikipedia has the function of a gazetteer. The purpose of a gazetteer is to record placenames such as this and provide some corresponding details. This place is notable, having been repeatedly noticed, and so we are able to provide such details from the various reliable sources. There is scope for further expansion and it is our editing policy to keep articles in mainspace so that this may be done. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can just not see how a document saying "this bunch of hills are important geographic landmarks for this area" can possibly be interpreted to be more than a passing trivial mention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but did you really think no one would go and look at that link for themselves? The line you misquote is, in fact, "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." NOT that it has the "function of a gazetteer." You also should have recognized, long since, that people "noticing" something does not equate to, and has no part of, Wikipedia's definition of notability as presented in WP:N. Not nearly so nice a try; that's close to insulting our intelligence. Ravenswing 11:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plain fact that we have numerous lists and articles which document geographical places in great detail - rivers, mountains, villages, &c. We aim for comprehensive coverage of topics within our scope because it is our policy that there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover. That policy indicates that we should look to the five pillars for guidance on our scope and gazetteer content is explicitly included in this, as the quotation demonstrates. I fail to understand why you do not accept this and seem to suppose the contrary. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The only thing remarkable about this hill is that its history is so spectacularly devoid of anything remarkable. Hard to believe that we actually need to spell out "there's nothing notable about a hill on which nothing has ever happened, but that's the joy of AfD. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per my analysis of the sources, which is as follows:
1)- a passing mention which Colonel Warden, through a creative use of ellipses, presents as a description of Duncorn Hill as notable; when in fact it is a hill to the south of Duncorn hill that's being talked about. Colonel Warden has been warned against dishonest sourcing and really should know better by now. (edit) I see now there are two possible interpretations of that sentence. Striking my original comment with apologies. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2&3) Run of the mill factoids about its name and drainage conditions.

4) Possibly the best claim to notability, as I believe fuller's earth is pretty rare, but I'm not sold.

5,6,7 & 8) Turns out the fort doesn't exist, so there's nothing actually special about the hill!
Reyk _YO! 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current evidence for the fort has not been found but that does not mean that it never existed. The 18th century source says that there was a cairn of stones at that time but they have not been found in current times either. The site remains in the National Monuments Record and so is still of national interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it, now? In point of fact, a search at the National Monuments Record for "Duncorn Hill" provides ZERO hits. [1] That's Strike Two. Ravenswing 15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're searching English Heritage's website there, not the NMR - they are not the same thing. A similar search wouldn't find Daw's Castle either, for example. Anyway, as the article's sources already indicate, the site is monument number #204516 in the NMR. Resolving this difficulty of actually finding things on the web is one of the great virtues of Wikipedia - we provide a good starting point by summarising information from such disparate and specialist sources. Someone might use their smartphone to find out information about this hill when they visit it or plan a walk. They don't want to be fighting their way through ancient records and specialist databases. We provide a digestible summary of the important information about the site culled from numerous sources and so provide a good public service. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's in the NMR, but the record in a nutshell is that there's nothing of note on the hill. That's pretty plain to see. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A record of this sort is a note and the NMR sensibly chooses to keep it rather than deleting it. All the many other sources demonstrate such notice too. The fact that they haven't yet found good evidence of your particular interest in fortifications is unimportant. Our notability guideline explicitly explains that our topics are not required to have any special importance or fame - they just have to have been noticed. Our topic has been noticed by archeologists, geologists, palaeontologists, geographers, agronomists, walkers, historians, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own interests are unimportant, so leave that spin out of it. There would be no problem with the hill having a mention in an article or two where it's actually relevant and may have some importance, but it does not warrant its own article. None of the sources provided demonstrate that Duncorn Hill is independently notable. The closest there is is your argument that the site is in the NMR, but as I said the NMR basically says there's nothing of interest there. You're tying yourself in knots trying to keep an article on an entirely unremarkable hill with next to no history or significance, special or otherwise. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been remarked upon by numerous authors in numerous contexts. Your claim that it is "entirely unremarkable" is therefore false. Your POV seems to arise from a special interest in fortifications. Many hillforts were just enclosures for livestock and so some might think that these were humdrum too - just another corral. Such judgements are subjective and it is appropriate to bring out their non-policy nature. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, OR Merge and Redirect to Englishcombe#History. Yes, maybe not the "popular" call... but as scholars did write about the existance of (possible) fortifications, even if not found by later investigations, does show the area has received notice. And even as late as 1975, it was still being writen of as inhabited during Iron Age. Wikipedia has articles on far less notable locations than this, and at least this one is well sourced to serve our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since it has been discovered that there is no hillfort, this has gone to being just an ordinary hill that fails to meet the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can surely say that creating this article was no mistake. It had been mistaken as an iron age hillfort at the time in January, but since then the 1966 investigation ref explained that it apparently not a real hillfort. Duncorn Hill was the first Somerset article I started, but I can nevertheless say that I was doing the right thing. I'm sorry if I started all this confusion. Jaguar (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with creating this article. However, since it no longer meets WP:GNG, it will probably be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reaper Eternal. There was nothing wrong with creating the article; from the sources you had you thought it was a notable site. Information revealed later cast that into doubt, but from the information you had at the time your actions were perfectly reasonable. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment Wikipedia:Notability (geography) states, "The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs..." "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article." (emphasis added). I have noted above the 1938 document, which shows that this geographic feature has more than statistics and coordinates. The newspaper analysis of a hillfort, the fuller's earth analysis, and the status as a "landmark" are not needed to establish the notability of this topic. I have stated above a related concept based on the definition of notability in the guideline WP:N, which itself is cited in policy in WP:Deletion policy. I have also examined more than a dozen geography articles and think it would be easy to get a list of ten thousand articles that would not meet the unclear references to WP:GNG posited here, here is a sampling:

Category:Discovery Islands

Sonora Island (British Columbia)

Stuart Island (British Columbia)

Sutil Channel

Twin Islands (British Columbia)

West Redonda Island

West Thurlow Island

East Redonda Island

Redonda Bay, British Columbia

Pendrell Sound

New Zealand

Burkes Pass

Birdling's Flat

Barrett Reef

Somerset

Pen Hill

Blake's Pools

Queensland

Isis River (Queensland)

Sandy Cape only extended discussion is about the turtle's, not the cape

Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Wikipedia:Notability (geography) is not policy, it's an editor's opinion. Secondly Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or WP:OTHERSTUFFSHOULDN'T EXIST for that matter) is not relevant to this discussion. See also WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, Wikipedia:Notability (geography) states, "The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion..." I think that it is misdirection to say that this is "an editor's opinion" as if one person wrote it, when it was at one time briefly a guideline, and nominator has provided no competing viewpoints on how the Wikipedia community consensus views geography articles. Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that states, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING is an essay that states, "there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion." Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've identified a lot of AfD-worthy material there. When shall we get started? Tarc (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only for the reason that this article dispels the myth that there was a hillfort at this site. Without this article that myth may continue to be propagated Pahazzard (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? It's not really a "myth", it's a research investigation that turned out to be wrong, plus I really don't think that's the genuine purpose of an encyclopedia article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps "myth" was a poor choice of words, lets look at it another way; someone has heard that there may have been a hillfort on this site and looks it up on the web, despite what they find elsewhere Wikipedia will tell them the precise nature of this site, and that investigations have shown no evidence for a fort. Simple as that, the article is stating the facts, and is therefore a valuable resource. Pahazzard (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, alrighty. I'd still disagree; Wikipedia's job is not be Snopes, which would get pretty out of hand. And while it's factual, if we included articles on every possible minor misconception (and yes, this is minor, it's an architectural investigation on a small hill that didn't uncover anything) we'd be in quite a pickle, with articles on every single minor argument or conspiracy regardless of significance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if Wikipedia:Notability (geography) is just an essay, I support it. This is a great little article on a hill. Love it. The Interior (Talk) 11:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is well done, but the hill is, as of now, not notable. Just a hill, and not much of one at that! Pretty. It is not up to Wikipedia to "dispel myths." Else every hill, nook and cranny would have some legend behind it which "needed" dispelling. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) To understand this response, there is an implied WP:Just a hill guideline (WP:JAHG) which says that being "just a hill" makes a hill non-notable. What I don't see are metrics that separate "just a hill" hills from those that are more than "just a hill", and where within the current guidelines and policies WP:JAHG should fit (i.e., WP:IAR, the definition of notability in WP:N, a new SNG).

(2) I wonder if respondent has considered Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia:Five pillars states, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized...gazetteers." Gazetteer states, "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory...used in conjunction with a map...It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of...physical features, such as mountains...Examples of information provided by gazetteers include...dimensions of physical features." Unscintillating (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn geographic feature. Eusebeus (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Not notable Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and not notable as a geographic feature are two very different things.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an opinion? What is the basis for your opinion? Unscintillating (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point was, he didn't just say "non-notable", which kinda invalidates your response. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a hill somewhere in England. If shellfishes or other things were found, it doesn't mean it is notable. If I make a stroll into the forest or mountains to search for fossils, I will find any, even if it will take me hours, but I will find. Fossils are not a rarity. Even the article says it "might" being a hill fort. But it has not proven.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline explains that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". That's why just not notable is an argument to avoid — it is too subjective. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 14 March 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 article cited sources, but consensus was that they were insufficent to show the subject's notabilty. I am happy to userfy if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge S. del Villar G.[edit]

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

non notable author of a single non-notable book (see AfD for the almost identical article on the book, above--an ) His father is notable, and certainly his great great grandfather. "Advisor" to someone notable is not notable. Interviews are press releases, not notability DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relatively wide range of secondary sources, proving his notability. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following I am posting the opinion of Wikipedia professional editors, backed by Wikipedia itself who had positive views about my article (Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken) and recommended me to move this article into mainspace. The first one approved of the subject matter, but recommended external sources, (which Wikipedia doesn't have a mandatory preestablished number of them) The second one, recommended to put the article into mainspace and the third one was surprised by the editor who established the article (about the author) for deletion. I would find really serious and unfortunate that Wikipedia’s recommended editors wouldn’t have the criteria to establish from the beginning that the subject matter was irrelevant.

[17:57] <+CharlieEchoTango> iNeedHelp00, you'll need to show that there is significant coverage of the book in third-party publications[17:58] <+CharlieEchoTango> and use book reviews to back the information you provide, not the book itselfHi. What do you think of my article now? FC 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian Colinas (talk • contribs)

I think it very well written now, the tone is correct, it is properly styled. You could probably move it to mainspace now. Best,Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I just declined your CSD. Was there something I missed? Please let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC

The book appears in the Library of Congress on Line Catalog, since it was an American publishing house the one who published it in Spanish. Although the book was written in December, 2010, it has been so far recommended in two published Mexican magazines. The subject matter is of extreme importance because of its uniqueness; it is obvious for any rational person that there is something wrong with the world economy, and this young author offers explanations, that other most laureated authors don’t. The subject matter is what is notable. FC 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Some of the remarks in the above comment by User:FC appear to be copied and pasted from a talk page discussion. Please note that I have not commented in this AfD. Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on what's written in the article as of now, he doesn't seem to pass WP:AUTHOR. It's possible that his sole book may be notable however, as odd as that may seem, but I'm not sold on that (see the other AfD). Tijfo098 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author, per WP:AUTHOR; I'm taking no stand on the book, although I am hearing WP:ILIKEIT on that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article and included more sources to support it; please read it now. Consider: “The person has created a work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” (Hereby, there are 3 periodical articles and reviews about the book itself plus 2 international electronic interviews) plus several other articles about the author’s work, apart from the book. In addition, the sources either suggest or literally express, “ the book’s value resides in that it could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science.” I don't state it as clear, not to break the neutrality issue.FC 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science"? And I could be the rightful Emperor of Mexico; but it's not likely. On a more serious note, please note Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we are not a venue to publicize "groundshattering new ideas that could change the world if you just let me publicize them" or original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand the sarcasm about my work as a professional editor (the Mexican Emperor). None of the links you posted are related to the quotation I mentioned. The phrase I used was a quotation from an absolutely indisputable and reliable published source, not made by the subject of the article, by other parties with conflicts of interests or by an eager fan- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; this is not an unverifiable speculation, not about a future project (the book has been published and according to reliable sources a success, it is absolutely properly referenced, the quotation was not the editor’s own opinion or analyses but as I mentioned, it was an editorialized opinion of an excellent source "groundshattering new ideas that could change the world if you just let me publicize them"; and original research refers to opinions not published by reliable sources, again I mention the unarguable and verifiable source that has an excellent opinion of Jorge S. del Villar G. FC 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the only sources that count for opinions of the quality of books are from published, independent, 3rd party reviews. What an author's friends or associates or professional acquaintances may let him put on the book jacket or otherwise say is basically in the nature of press releases or advertisements--they are indiscriminate, and only include the favorable comments. When it does revolutionize economics, there will be no shortage of such published sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might be facing an IDL WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue here. The fact that you don’t like the sources does not mean they don’t comply with Wikipedia’s policies. They absolutely do: some sources that speak either about the book or about the author include Mexico Social journal, sponsored by CEIDAS, one of the most relevant social organizations, whose all of its board members are included in Wikipedia (Spanish): Mario Luis Fuentes (president); Jusus Kumate; Rolando Cordera, among others; MVS Comunicaciones; The Baltimore Sun; A sindicated column by Miguel Angel Granados Chapa. Check any of these in Wikepedia itself. In order to delete the present article, Wikipedia’s policies would have to be modified, specifying much more precisely which sources would and would not be acceptable. If Wikipedia’s policies would only accept scientific journals from north American academic institutions; then you would be totally right. However, according to Wikipedia’s policies, not according to your own believes of when a source should and shouldn’t be accepted; the 17 references are not just perfectly accepted, but they make an example of how articles should be referenced. Something similar happens with the issue about notability. According to Wikipedia’s policies, the notability is absolutely justified. Wikipedia’s policies would have to be modified in order to delete the present article, making much more clear which cases are subject of notability and which don’t. For instance, if only cabinet level government officials; if only writers who have been awarded a Nobel Prize; then you would be totally right. However that is not Wikipedia’s policy at the moment. As a matter of fact, if the subject had been not advisor of a Mexican Foreign Minister, but of a U.S. Secretary of State; if he had been 4 year columnist not of the largest newspaper in Mexico, but in the U.S.; if he had promoted legislation not in Mexico City but in California; if he conducted a radio talk show not in one of the largest Spanish speaking communications consortium, but in an American one; if he had unveiled an important policy issue not about a Mexican presidential ex candidate, but about an American one; I believe this article would not be nominated for deletion. FC 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy and allow the author time to add sources if possible. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:39, 15 March 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) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire (Kayla King album)[edit]

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

Lacking reliable sources (only Facebook, Myspace, and an "online music-marketing platform") to indicate encyclopedic notability of an unreleased album. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-07t19:38z 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kayla King herself does not have an allmusic.com entry, so her notability is dubious, and while she may marginally rate an article, here individual albums don't. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No single appearance in sites like Amazon or Allmusic.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:14, 14 March 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) 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People's United Community[edit]

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

No verifiable, reliable, published, 3rd party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-07t19:32z 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete News coverage of the organization and its activities: BBC, Birmingham News, both about the group's opposition to flu vaccination. Their website was cited in a book [2]. Another book said something about them on a page which is not viewable at Google Book Search: [3] Does not seem to rise to encyclopedia notability. Edison (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is from Xlibris, a strong indicator of self-publishing. The website is being cited as evidence for a claim that the British government is engaged in a large-scale conspiracy to cover up MPs being imprisoned after being convicted of child sex offenses. I'm not sure this really counts as a meaningfully sane secondary source. Shimgray | talk | 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, or delete with no prejudice for recreation. There is no NPOV version of this article. But at least, with the pre-Special:Contributions/MahdDogg version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_United_Community&action=historysubmit&diff=417649702&oldid=415495753 diff), you get as far away as possible from a BLP-violating hounding of the group. Not only are Google News results confounded by hits for the People's United Community Foundation, but the only news hit actually returned by Google News, Birmingham news source shows evidence that they may be more often referred to as THE People's United Community, or TPUC. It is also a little unfortunate that the BBC does a story on them, as Edison's research shows, but that does not actually make it into a Google News search. What else might it have missed? Anarchangel (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak delete' There may be a notable topic somewhere in there, but with all the non-sentences, spelling mistakes, unsupported assertions and opinions presented as facts, it's very difficult to tell. As it stands the article seems to me so bad it's pointless to keep it.113.73.125.202 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this entry is based on over 1 year of research into the organisation and contains the only references regarding the TPUC that are available, the words and actions of it's own users. The previous note regarding "non-sentences" "spelling mistakes" "unsupported assertions" and "opinions presented as facts" is disingenuous and is clearly made by someone who has not followed the reference links provided in the article which presents the source for those assertions based on the words of the members of the TPUC forums, the most active part of the community. This attempt at deletion of the article is simply TPUC themselves not wishing themselves to be viewed in an unfavourable light, though after in depth study of the group this is an honest presentation of the facts. MahdDogg (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete; there's a slim amount of sources out there - one news event and one interview - but nothing which really seems to establish notability. Writing a response article which criticisms their claims is no doubt fun, and I'd have enjoyed doing it myself, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic material. Shimgray | talk | 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Shimgray, I would say you make a valid point - rather than simply bowing to pressure from TPUC themselves to have the critical article removed. I wouldn't argue with deletion on this basis. MahdDogg (talk) 11:37, 10 March 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. Big Dom 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views[edit]

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

Apparent POV fork of Beethoven's biography discussing in some detail what seems to be a very minor fringe dispute. As it stands, the article is almost entirely original research, and nothing indicates that its topic holds enough significance to deserve its own article. Landon, for instance, doesn't seem to broach the subject; and more recent musicologists like Lockwood make no mention of the purported controversy simply taking as granted that LvB wasn't a very religious man.

A quick google shows very little interest by scholars in the question in the first place, and what little dispute there may be in religious sources can be discussed in the main article, if at all. — Coren ^(talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and broaden to include a wider range of discussions. For someone as world-famous as Beethoven, separate articles on major themes are appropriate . Considering the very important significance of the rather contradictory messages in the 9th symphony and the Missa solemnis, a major topic. There are specific references for it, some at book length.--see the article in the Catolic Encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you deduce "important significance" of religion according to what was composed. For one, much of what Beethoven wrote was on commission, as is normal for any Kapellmeister. Secondly, I don't see why one need to even have religious conviction simply to write music on religious themes or for religious occasions! Or are you arguing that Wagner needed to live in expectation of Ragnarök to write the Ring Cycle? Unless they have significant coverage in reliable sources, Beethoven's putative religious leanings do not deserve an article. They do not (or at least none have been put forward). — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not inherited, per WP:GNG. Although his religion might influence his music, the link is rather tenuous. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is religion a "tenuous" influence on someone known to have composed famous masses ? DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it would even be related. By that reasoning every architect who designed a church is automatically a Christian? The point is, reliable sources don't cover the subject at all. If it has any significance, it's very marginal and very poorly covered. It might be worth a paragraph in the main article — at best — but it certainly doesn't even have enough verifiability or notability for an article. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers - Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: On the one hand, it is a topic worth exploring and worthy of inclusion in the pedia. On the other hand, it is problematic - a lot of synthesis and unsourced attempts at tracing religious beliefs to musical content. (In this, DGG is right that a composer of religious music must be somehow influenced by religion - but what that influence is exactly is not apparent.) This character Charlie Hopta has to go - he is not a music historian, but a band leader in Easton, Pennsylvania - not someone who merits the laurel of reliable sourciness.

But bad is not unworthy. The article needs to be improved, not scrapped. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It can always be merged back with the main article if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. See for example, Gotthard Fermor, ed. (2006). Spiritualität der Musik: Religion im Werk von Beethoven und Schumann. CMZ-Verlag Winrich C.-W. Clasen. ISBN 3870620811. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus would deign to give us anything (in English) from the above magnum opus I might possibly think differently. But as things are, a very poor article, most of which seems to be referenced to an (itself unreferenced) high-school essay. Any clean up would leave virtually nothing. So delete and merge to the main article anything which might be of interest and is not WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the title "Spirituality of music: Religion in the works of Beethoven and Schumann"? If a professor of theology at a German university writes a book on the subject (strictly speaking half a book I suppose), that seems to me pretty strong evidence of notability. Even if it is not in English, there's no need to be sarcastic about it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, then, Hyperdoc, add something from the book to the article. While I am assuming that the subject has value, and that things of interest have been written on it, as the article stands now, there is nothing of value in it. -Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 9 March 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 deleted. per A3 (non-admin closure) Mono (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Muslims[edit]

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

This seems to be nothing but some "See also" stuff and an external links section (now that I've removed some very POV stuff added today). It used to be a redirect, to Democratic Muslims in Denmark, which doesn't seem like an obvious target at all, before it was recreated as an article in September 2010. I'm reluctant to tag it as CSD:A3, in case anyone thinks there's anything it should be turned into - I can't think of anything sensible, but you never know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looking at the article history, what I gather is that Moderate Muslims was the name of a political group in Denmark created in January 2006. In February 2006, the group changed their name to Democratic Muslims and the author of the original Moderate Muslims redirected to the new article. (Who by the way was also involved in creating/editing the new article). I would typically say just put the redirect back in place. However, in that the original name was only used for about a month, 5 years ago I cannot see anyone using the Term Moderate Muslim that is actually looking for Democratic Muslims. In fact, a redirect would most likely be confusing. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands, the article appears to qualify for speedy deletion (A3) as it is nothing but an implicit "See Also" section, some external links and a category tag. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:03, 7 March 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 speedily deleted per G5 by Moni3 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Leads[edit]

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

Not notable - many of the sources advanced by the article's creator are either not reliable (some are self-published sources, Facebook and the like), others, such as "Private communication", are totally unverifiable original research.

None of the sources appear to be independent of the subject- the Salon source linked is a profile and a single, two line blog post. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The major problem to me is the lack of secondary sources about the subject. A Google search is tricky, because I'm getting a number of erratic hits where Wikileaks is misspelled, so I'm unwilling to say that the secondary sources don't exist. Until they're presented in the article, I strongly endorse deleting the article. If the secondary sources are presented, then I'll revisit that recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the fact that none of us have been able to find reliable independent sources, I see also that the article says "It has published two collections of poetry and two collections of essays. Selections from the second collection of poetry, Works of Love, have been published on Facebook and other websites." That looks to me like a pretty clear announcement by the author of the article that the subject is not notable. There is also the remarkable edit summary "I don't know if he's famous, but apparently he dated my daughter!" JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that would be this edit. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article needs substantial cleanup, however AfD is not a cleanup process (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state terrorism[edit]

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

Here's what I said eleven months ago:

This article has been problematic for over five years. It violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV persistently because it is a WP:COATRACK. The solution is to delete this fork, and place any relevant content in the appropriate articles, such as those related to the incidents mentioned, or to United States history articles, or the histories of the named conflicts or covert actions. We should not be scraping up bits and pieces of different things to create unbalanced, unacademic, unencyclopedic articles as has been done here. Five years is long enough. Repeated nominations have resulted in the same old refrain that it can be fixed. We shouldn't accept that argument any longer. The article hasn't been fixed after so much time because it can't be fixed.

Since then the article has not gotten better; it has gotten worse. Recently added maintenance tags include:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2010)
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (August 2010)
This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (October 2010)

The reason this article hasn't been improving is that the topic is improper. Lots of different things hung together on a WP:COATRACK to create original synthesis do not make a Wikipedia article. The content here should be removed to the relevant articles, and this page deleted. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links from the 9th nomination of related AFDs that I thought may be helpful Monty845 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's all that Jehochman has written and additionally it's an WP:ATTACK page. This is the worst article in the encyclopedia, It's existence is a continual embarrassment to the wiki project. It's an biased, POV pushing, chock full of synthesis and it hasn't been fixed because it can't be fixed. V7-sport (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy really isn't appropriate, the only plausible speedy criteria would G10, but it seems like a stretch to apply that to an 'attack' against a nation. Furthermore there was an extensive debate in the ~~last~~previous AFDs that resulted in a keep, while that is not dispositive to the outcome here, it should at least justify allowing a full discussion to take place. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Per G1, "partisan screeds", which is exactly what this article is.~~ Very well, this article is an attack page though, as well as a coatrack for fringe opinion. V7-sport (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1 is Patent nonsense, my reading of it suggests that if you can comprehend the text it passes G1. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and there are valid sources. Unfortunately, few editors have attempted to correct the POV issues. TFD (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nominator. Pure coatrack. Tentontunic (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article can't be deleted after 9 tries, continuing is not appropriate. I notice some of the previous AfDs were closed as speedy keep, on the basis of not being good faith nominations. A summary article is highly appropriate for such a major topic. as well as the detailed articles. The way to deal with POV is to add material, not delete the article. The addition of tags only shows a continuing dispute, not a hopeless situation. If it requires a RfC on the content, that's the route to go. here are abundant sources from all possible POVs on the subject to permit a balanced discussion. There is no subject whatsoever that cannot be discussed with NPOV, and any attempt to claim otherwise is intrinsically a violation of NOT CENSORED. I do not believe the current nominator capable of anything but a good faith nomination, presumably from an understandable frustration at seeing the continuing disputation, but I can not say the same about some of the early responses. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Extremely notable topic with a very wide range of secondary, scholarly and disinterested sources. Not a polemic but simply a controversial topic. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to State terrorism and the United States, in accordance with the established pattern of Torture and the United States, War crimes and the United States, Human rights in the United States etc., and then keep. I understand why this article is unpopular with pro-US editors, and a little too popular with less pro-US ones. It's never going to be uncontroversial material, but as DGG says we aren't censored and there are clearly decent sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with the sentiment of the nomination, by Jehochman, but at this point, the article is well-established enough on its own to stay, so I am leaning keep. I agree to rename to State terrorism and the United States. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very America-centric for other countries to have these types of articles and somehow the USA doesn't. All countries do bad things in the name of realpolitiks. The articles meet every criteria in WP:GNG. I am sure the nominator is very patriotic, but we are building an encyclopedia, not a school book for Texas grammar schools. We also need to develop consistent naming within Category:Terrorism committed by country --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is very America-centric for other countries to have these types of articles and somehow the USA doesn'"

There is no other first world country with a page like this.AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's it! Apparently it's built into the definition of state terrorism that first-world countries can't commit it, whatever they do? Actually, no it isn't, unless the definition has been fine-tuned by a major first-world government, of course. State terrorism and France doesn't exist, but of course it should. "Among the Northern liberal democracies, the historical record shows that it is the great powers with colonial legacies, for example Britain and France, and more recently the US, that have been directly responsible for the regular use of state terrorism. Moreover, in some senses the US [...] is a unique type of actor that differs not just from small and middle-power liberal democracies but also from the other powerful liberal democratic states. Its military reach is unmatched, as is its power in the global capitalist system, and, as this study will show, so is its use of state terrorism in the South, although this is frequently with the support and involvement of other liberal democratic states." (From the introduction of the 2009 Routledge book "State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South".)

That last book covers Algeria as a prominent example of French state terrorism. Due to its special focus it appears to not even mention the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior – a covert terrorist action by France which was publicly condemned as terrorism by France before the New Zealand police caught two of the perpetrators, who turned out to be members of the French military on a special mission. This is certainly enough material for a similar article on France. If it bothers you that the US is being singled out, I suggest that you write this article. Hans Adler 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just stick "terrorism" in quotation marks throughout the article.

What definition exactly are they even using in this article? Typically terrorism means "Trying to inspire terror" and not "covert regime changes". Perhaps this should just be renamed to "Unjust acts of violence by the U.S.", or converted into a list article.AerobicFox (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Very notable topic, although for obvious reasons it's less notable in the US than elsewhere. (US citizens tend to have a kind of unhealthy patriotism that makes it hard for them to even see the atrocities that happen in their name, and the media's self-censorship on such issues does not help, either.) I have not examined the article to see if it's currently written in a neutral way. But I have no doubt that even if it were totally neutral there would be neutrality disputes there, due to the nature of the topic. That's not a valid reason for deletion, it's a reason for improvement (if necessary). I do believe that we need such an overview article. It's also not original synthesis:

While the book State terrorism and the United States: from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism has a somewhat fringey American publisher (the British co-publisher looks more reasonable to me), War and state terrorism: the United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century is published by Rowman & Littlefield, which appears to be perfectly respectable.

Speedy because there have been so many AfDs and there is no (valid) new reason for this one. Hans Adler 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: all pure WP:SYN. Almost none of these sources discuss U.S. State terrorism, but a single unpopular act, or a series of unpopulat act, that have been strung together to make an orginal concept of U.S. terrorism. As noted above, Category:Terrorism committed by country contains Iran, Pakistan, Soviet Union, Guatemala, and the U.S. The U.S. is clearly the outlier, and chosen not because of its "notable terrorism", but due to its high profile.AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There is no counter to the belief in U.S. state terrorism presented in this article. Individual events have people defending the actions (it was ok to drop the atom bomb, ect), but there is no side that attempts to refute charges of U.S. state terrorism, most likely due to U.S. state terrorism not even being a notable topic.AerobicFox (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interesting to see how people stick to their beliefs and claim that things don't exist right after they have been shown an example. In addition to the two books I mentioned above, there is also a 1991 Routledge (academic publisher) book with the title "Western State Terrorism". It's abstract in the database of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service describes it as follows:

The fundamental, and controversial, thesis on which the essays in this volume are focused is that most significant acts of international terrorism are perpetrated, or at least organized, by the United States, its allies, and its client states. [4]

And from the abstract of the book itself:

The author of the first chapter distinguishes between a propagandist and a literal approach to the study of terrorism, providing an overview of U.S. terrorist activities in the Middle East and Central America.

Or take the first three sentences of Ruth Blakeley's 2007 article "Bringing the state back into terrorism studies" in European Political Science:

State terrorism, along with other forms of repression, has been an ongoing feature of the foreign policies of democratic great powers from the North and the United States (US) in particular. The use of repression by the US was particularly intense during the Cold War, and we are seeing a resurgence of its use in the 'war on terror'. State terrorism, of which torture can sometimes be a tool, is defined as threats or acts of violence carried out by representatives of the state against civilians to instill fear for political purposes. full article

If such sources are not currently used in the article (I haven't checked) then that's a problem of the current presentation, not a reason for deletion. Hans Adler 00:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The fundamental, and controversial, thesis"

controversial = fringe. Even done academically such a topic has little respect, done here it doesn't even look legitimate. This article is a patchwork of unrelated events, drawing connections between them to portray the U.S. as a terrorist state. This would be fine if it were adequately portrayed as having little coverage by academia, but as it is unrelated reliable sources discussing other topics are interwoven to give the appearance of legitimacy.AerobicFox (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. (1) The Guantanomo Bay detention camp is controversial non-fringe. Also, for a government to have random citizens of other countries kidnapped and flown around internationally for torture is controversial, but not fringe. (2) There is no rule that highly notable topics are excluded from Wikipedia just because they are fringe. We have articles on astrology, homeopathy, Christian Science, hollow Earth, orgone etc. You are arguing about how the article should be written. Here we are in a deletion discussion, i.e. we are discussing whether the article should be written. Hans Adler 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What serious academic publication has called Guantanamo Bay "state sponsored terrorism"? To me this article appears infested with ideological POV pushing. The topic is not proper. Sure, the content and criticism and even illegality of US actions can be discussed in relevant historical articles. The problem is that these events are not called "state sponsored terrorism" by the most reliable sources available. That's a spin job being pushed by a few editors. We need to be accurate: call things what they are, and not stretch definitions or engage in synthesizing research. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG. Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' as it's an extremely notable historical subject (though the article is admittedly too long; arguably, this is due to the wealth of documented information on the subject). There is a strong precedent for documentation and mention of this subject from academics^[1] and world governments such as Cuba and Nicaragua in international forums. There is a precedent for the US being brought to trial for these "alleged" actions in international court (Nicaragua v. United States, the ultimate ruling being against the US of course). And as someone mentioned above, there are extremely similar articles (that follow the pattern "[country X] and state terrorism") for other countries such as Iran (and in the case of that specific page, there is no deletion nomination; as far as I can see, the deletion nomination for this article relative to the lack thereof for the Iran article, only reflects that it is a sensitive subject to many US editors of English-language wikipedia, as those indoctrinated in Bush-style "War on Terror" ideology of course find it offensive but find the Iran article natural). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is not a reliable source for U.S. terrorism. He is a linguist academically, and a political activist on the side. Most of these sources are either from an academic who self admits the idea that the U.S. has committed terrorist acts is fringe, or from people who use their reliability in other fields to support their unrelated political positions. I have yet to see a counter argument presented in this article also which contests that the U.S. has participated in state terrorism, nor have I seen any indication that this is not a fringe view that is synthesizing reliable sources to make it appear mainstream.AerobicFox (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis A Perez is a more centrist academic who clearly fits the silly ad-hominem criteria of not being "fringe" (he is a Cuban-American living in the US who has put forth many criticisms of the Cuban Revolution), and has written much about US terrorism against Cuba. There are still more academics to be cited in this respect, especially on the more left side (such as historian Howard Zinn). And there is a wealth of very centrist journalism (incl. the acclaimed Joan Didion), even within the US, that terms many US-coordinated actions as "State terrorism." Anyhow this isn't the place to get into the citation war -- Chomsky himself is a strong academic and researcher whose non-linguistic work is often cited by many other academics (calling him "non-academic" outside of his linguist work only amounts to ad-hominem as far as I can see) and has been consistently invited to debate academics in academic forums on non-linguistic subjects. Aside from that: international court rulings are not "fringe" opinions. If you've "yet to see anything about this that's not a fringe opinion," you haven't looked at international court rulings. Again I reaffirm what has been brought up in the course of responses to this nomination, and to the previous 'nine' failed deletion nominations of this article: this is an *extremely notable* subject with a wide precedent for documentation. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to show disrespect to how hard you have attempted to make your above argument sound mainstream, but Perez self admits the views are controversial, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist without a history degree speaking on historical subjects seemingly from gleaning modern political editorials, and being condemned for “unlawful use of force,” in Nicaragua is not "international court rulings" that the U.S. is a terrorist state. All this is moot however, since there is no understanding between those that want to delete and those that support, we can only hope you don't start really fucking up and finding a way to make BLP violations on top of this.AerobicFox (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't curse at me and otherwise attack me. When you say you "don't mean to disrespect" and go on to curse at people, it becomes clear that you obviously do intend to disrespect and are just being snide/disingenuous. As such, I'd say I'm not the one whose actions are inviting violations. Aside from your behavior, the only other things I have to address is that A: you seem to be unaware that US vs Nicaragua was an ICJ ruling (in no way invalidated by US efforts to block its enforcement), which indeed *is* an "international court ruling," not just a case of the US being "condemned in Nicaragua" as you characterize it, and B: it's telling that you keep resorting to attacking my Chomsky citation, hammering away at your conception of who he is (whatever combination and concatenation of "-isms" you assign to him) rather than disputing the essence what he says (a tact that seems the very definition of ad hominem). I've had enough of defending myself from cursing attacks or defending my citations from ad hominem attacks: my vote and reasoning should be clear. Due to the antagonistic nature of your behavior, I'm through with feeding back into it. And also due to the antagonistic behavior in this delete-nom page as well as in the previous ones for this article (so well exemplified by your attacks), and to the highly questionable good faith of a *tenth* delete nomination (in the face of overwhelming subject notability), I'm really starting to regret that I changed my vote from "speedy keep" to "keep." 173.3.41.6 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah "personal attacks" blah blah blah "ad hominems"

Seriously your characterization of my above post is otherworldly, and obviously we are not going to agree. My use of fucking was not directed at you in any way, and certainly wasn't cursing you out, but I suppose you latching onto things and spinning them into a web of self delusion shouldn't be surprising considering your part in the article in question. Let's just end this discussion here, I never would have nominated this for deletion after the first two times despite its being atrocious.AerobicFox (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic? Yes. Properly sourced? Yes. Well enough written? Yes. NPOV? Probably some work to be done there, but within acceptable parameters... This has been defended repeatedly and repeatedly kept and one would think that eventually this Ground Hog Day treatment of this article will end. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a consensus exists that the article has numerous problems. I'd be very happy if those wishing to keep would lend a hand with editing. There is no joy in deleting an article. Having tried several times, I see no way to fix this behemoth, but please do try if you think it worth the effort. Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to take a closer look if you tell me where to look. Is one of the numerous sections not actually about the US using illegal means to terrorise the population of a foreign country, or knowingly assisting a foreign state or non-state actor to do so? Or is the problem more subtle than that? Hans Adler 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is different but it's nothing subtle. Whether or not a section is "actually about" US State Terrorism, is not the only criteria for deciding whether the section should be kept. For instance, the 3 or so subsections about the debate surrounding Hiroshima/Nagasaki, are arguably about what you say they are, but they are also a complete repeat of the content of this page: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is one of the several cases where the article could be fixed. I am strongly against deletion of the article but we must admit that it is too long. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To use that section as an example, the content should be seriously trimmed, with a link to the article you mention. There should be at least one high quality academic source that links these events to state sponsored terrorism. This same principle can be applied to all the other sections. Any that don't have such a high quality academic source should be removed entirely. Noam Chomsky is not such a source for this article. He's an expert on linguistics and some topics in computer science, but not history. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion thread on POV issues and you may respond here. TFD (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it absolutely has scope for improvement (as many people have pointed out, the length is the most obvious), this article should absolutely remain in the Wikipedia corpus. It includes extremely important arguments that need to be in the public domain, and it is certainly NPOV. I feel that many of the calls for deletion come from those for whom anything that might be perceived as against the American administration is against America and American values. This is absolutely not the case, and it is important for the protection of American values that these sort of topics be discussed and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.208.253 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"perceived as against the American administration is against America and American values"

From the perspective of one who supports deletion I can speak that from my perspective it seems those for keep neither understand the arguments for deletion, nor could understand how anyone other than a super POV monster could possibly want to get rid of this article. It has so many issues; I am overwhelmed at where to even begin, or how to even approach a side that completely views the opposition as inherently bias and uncooperative.AerobicFox (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Deletion pushes are obviously more based on nationalistic views than regarding Wikipedia policies. Subject is properly sourced and discussed in non-trivial sources. I take it that the fact that the subject is present in the mainstream media constantly for decades doesn't really count for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm regretting that my own vote was "keep" and not "speedy keep" as the bad faith behind a *tenth* groundhog-day delete nomination (in the face of overwhelming subject notability) for this article, is blatant and obvious. For the inevitable future delete-nominations of this article, we should not be so cautious about using the "Speedy Keep" option; it is entirely appropriate here. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article is problematic as the nominator points out with its issues but it is certainly an encyclopedic topic which should be covered and is valuable. Maybe if somebody sat down and sorted out its issues it wouldn't need to be nominated unsuccessfuly for AFD x10♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous easily sourced claims about this. What's the problem? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the article is a mess of synthesis. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. The sourced content here should be moved to the relevant articles about the relevant historical incidents. I am not aware of any serious mainstream academic publication that says the United States has engaged in "State sponsored terrorism". This is a fringe theory cultivated by a few radical ideologues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publishing novel ideas. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG, Anime Addict AA, Dr. Blofeld. IQinn (talk) 02:02, 14 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrawal[edit]

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

Firslty, the notability isn't established by the sources. Secondly, the article contains POV and has claims to awards and accolades which are not sourced. Thirdly, the editor who created it shares a name with the music composer Pi (Talk to me! ) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the first hit film in the Haryanvi language. Even after more than 30 years, English language newspapers in India discuss this landmark film. The Hindu called it a "big success". The Times of India called it "famous". Express India called it "popular". The Tribune in Chandigarh called it a "golden jubilee hit". Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hindu as noted above, and {http://www.indianexpress.com/news/second-innings/661605/ India Express] covering the sequel that is to be made to this polular movie. As a non-English film released in 1984, sources on the Internet are not going to be easily found. These articles demosntrate that the film has been noted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a major newspaper in India things its notable, then it is. Dream Focus 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in India is notable enough for en.Wikipedia, and correction of tone is an addressable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:20, 11 March 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. There are literally hundreds of thousands of porn websites out there, very, very few of them can be considered notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webcams (Website)[edit]

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

Non notable website, most of the various references are for the facts throughout the article and not actually related to the subject Jac16888 ^Talk 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Makeet (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Webcams as a website, was for two times nominee at XBIZ_Award in 2009 and last time this year in 2011. Various references was used in sections: Live Peep Shows and Third-party sellers and covers adult_videochat area and affiliate_programs in this adult website area. Makeet (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 of 20 nominees and it didn't presumably it didn't win either year, which I doubt would make much difference since the awards themselves don't appear to be especially notable. And the references used in those sections have nothing to do with the website itself, the fact you managed to provide a reference explaining what a camgirl is is not exactly important--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ along with XBIZ_Award are currently the Oscars for adult_industry. I do not want to express an opinion about if a nominee in two years is important or not. About if my references have nothing to do with the website itself I can say that all related to action from an adult videochat in my case Webcams. Makeet (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thats according to who exactly?. You need references which demonstrate why the website is notable, of which you have none--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need references which demonstrate why the website is notable – The most important reference who demonstrate that Webcams_(Website) is notable is Rabbits_Reviews. Along with the two XBIZ_Award nominations another reference is from Adult Reviews: Webcams Review Makeet (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. XBIZ is a component of a public relationa/promotion business; its awards are not subject-independent and fail the "well-known"/"significant" standard. Most of the sources cited in the article do not relate to its corporate subject, but are general discussions of online erotica used to bulk out an otherwise insubstantial article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I structured my Wiki article into five short sections, each section with its own sources. Some sources cited are related at Webcams website activity with his components: adult videochat and affiliate program. Two XBIZ nominees are a notable recognition for this website. My Wiki article is relatively new and I continue to improve my article with new reliable resources. Makeet (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all my respect I wanna tell you. I worked more than four month for documentation for this wiki article, two Wikipedia editors review and finally approve my article and now, with two words a contribution to be proposed to be deleted. I repeat, sources used for webcams website activity has two important components: adult videochat and affiliate program. At adult videochat section I offered details with reliable sources, about HD streaming used on Webcams website. At affiliate program I offered details with reliable sources about model of business used in this affiliate program on Webcams website. Makeet (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note A new source was added on Webcams in the world of video chat section: [5] Makeet (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a truly spectacular WP:RS failure (as are most online posts bylined "Mephistopheles." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

truly spectacular WP:RS failure - I believe your statement mischievous that comes just to cancel my work and more than that to pick out laughing. Do you think that, this attitude comes as help for someone to improve something? Makeet (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note A new source was added on Live Peep Shows section: [6] Webcams.com on TheBestPorn, Review by Maggie, Written on Jul, 21, 2010 Makeet (talk) 13:35, 14 March 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. Big Dom 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of the Heart (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film by non notable company. References are all primary sources, mainly personal websites of artists supposedly involved with this project. Content contains quite a bit of pure conjecture. WuhWuzDat 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. andy (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. While the film might late merit an article, lack of coverage and the article itself encorages this deletion when it offers "Production on the film started August 2010, the script was finished January 4th, 2011, and was then story boarded. The movie is now being casted in global auditions and animation should start soon." and ""After the script was finished the film was given a 2013 release date, but is subject to change if everything doesn't go as planned." As things in the film industry rarely "go as planned", we can wait until it does and gets itself some press. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable production, unfunded by any major or minor studio. If it was a finished film, maybe, but this thing barely exists, at this point. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:03, 8 March 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 List of characters in Berserk. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guts (Berserk)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced, no third party coverage Little Professor (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Berserk characters. This is the standard way with handling non-notable characters, especially the main protagonist of a very long running manga series. —Farix (t | c) 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Farix. Agree that that's the standard outcome here. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Farix. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If any fan wants to figure out exactly what arcane guideline covers character articles and how one distinguishes coverage of the series from the character and do the research, you would probably find all the hits in the CSE very helpful. --Gwern (contribs) 15:53 9 March 2011 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copy paste with substitution of Guido van Rossum. Danger (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha El Mekki[edit]

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

...if he's really so damn famous, why am I too dumb to find much about him, and why where all the purported refs dead links...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real evidence of importance, let alone notability. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax, at least the part about Python/C. --Danger (talk) 11:07, 8 March 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) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boyle (footbag)[edit]

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

Is winning a national championship and representing your country in a sport that most would not even recognise, or realise has championships, notable enough? No sign of any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Being world champion at this very minor sport is an arguable case (which I'd probably argue against) but national champion shouldn't cut it for such an obscure event. MLA (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a look and couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 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) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Christian families of Kerala[edit]

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

aimless article. Relevant info already in Christianity in Kerala Arjun^codename024 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If any of the families are actually notable of themselves, then separate articles on them may be appropriate. Otherwise, the bulk of this article is a rehash of [Christianity in Kerala]]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable unverifiable list--Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 9 March 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 Superman III. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Webster[edit]

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

This is an article about a movie character who had one appearance in a forgettable film. It serves mainly as a plot review, better kept at Superman III, if anything deserves to be kept at all. One positive review is provided, with no source. This page provides no context that would indicate any importance, which I'd say has been confirmed by his not crossing over from the film to the comic books. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no evidence or indication of notability independent of lone film appearance. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Superman III, or a List of Characters in the Superman film franchise if someone wants to create it, per ATD. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 8 March 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 close as wrong venue; will point nominator to RfD. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chaput[edit]

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

nn hockey player that fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. The article is, in fact, just a redirect to List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks. was PRODed, but redirects are not PROD eligible(?). ccwaters (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Redirects for deletion is where this should go. Reso lute 15:22, 7 March 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 redirected per below. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and Caicos at the 2010 Commonwealth Games[edit]

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

This article is just the duplicate of this article Turks and Caicos Islands at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, i don't know why the same user had made these both and most fascinating thing is that he's autopatroller. Bill william compton^Talk 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Bill william compton^Talk 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Looks like the author wrote this article before the national teams competed than forgot to update. I redirect the piece to Turks and Caicos Islands at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. No harm...No Foul ShoesssS ^Talk 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved by Shoessss who got there before me. No need to keep this AfD open. MLA (talk) 16:02, 7 March 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 speedily deleted as advertising. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 March - Great People's Day in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

This article appears to have been created to promote the Facebook campaign group. It seems unlikely that this will be fundamentally rewritten to meet the WP:NOTNEWS policy and should anyone be interested in doing so, they would be better off having a copy userfied. PROD rapidly removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook advert. MLA (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable web content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due of fact that its NOT encyclopedic entrance Even through I support the following campaign, it doesn't provide any knowledgeable information and/or chronology of events. This is simple advert of the event which might be or might not be a historical protest in Azerbaijan. Therefore, its needless entrance to Wikipedia 18:20,8 March 2011(CET)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panderica[edit]

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

unsourced and possibly made up WP:NEOLOGISM. Nothing on google to confirm its existence. noq (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per stated reasons. Attempts have been made here and here to provide the article creator advice and assistance in wikifying the article, but so far to no avail. The only person who appears to have any information about this neologism isn't talking. LordVetinari (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Panderica refers to a group of people that includes both Americans and the Indians. Panderica's slogan is " mix East with West". According to the Panderica group, "people must worship both Jesus and Shiva"..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable neologism--Sodabottle (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not clear if it is a neologism, organization, faith, or movement. But in any case, notability is not asserted. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax or non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable, possibly a neologism. —mc10 (t/c) 21:27, 13 March 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 salt due to repeated re-creation and deletion Big Dom 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Mukherjee[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, no realistic sign of notability, certainly fails WP:PROF standards. (Auto?-)biographic promotional article in the style of an academic resumé. Article was stubbornly re-created at least three times despite several A7 speedy deletions by two admins. In the latest incarnation, the author has finally added a claim to notability, but it's hardly a credible one: "nominated for 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century". That claim is unsourced (the footnote only confirms the existence of that publication), lacks substance as long as it's not documented what the standards for a mere nomination are (can anybody nominate themselves?), and is most certainly out of touch with the objective degree of academic achievement documented in the rest of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, Not yet. I know his work, & have read some of his papers, as he has many of the same special interests as myself. I did some trimming of the article to our usual manner. As a positive factor, Some of the work is published in JASIST, the highest quality international journal in the field, and Annals is the leading Indian publication in the subject, with an international reputation. But he is , after all, only an assistant professor, and such are rarely considered notable. His papers are almost uncited--citation density in this field is notably very low, but Scopus shows 2,1,1,1, and 0 for the others. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. GS cites are 3, 2, 2, 2. Not remotely enough. Salt for persistent recreation. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century is one of the many vanity lists published by the International Biographical Centre, i.e. it is a well-known vanity scam. It signifies not even a molecule of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 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. Chick Bowen 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled[edit]

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

PROD was removed by the author. No explanation was given at the time, though a later edit summary from the same editor said "This a new novel that is being reviewed at this time. It should not be deleted." However, that is not a reason for not deleting. The reason given in the PROD was "not clear how this meets WP:NBOOKS. The only reviews I'm finding are on the back cover of the book." The stuff I have found has been dominated by (1) www.colinprestonrockedandrolled.com, sites selling the book (e.g. Amazon) and other non-independent sources, and (2) blogs, Wikipedia, and other non-reliable sources. There is only one apparently independent source given in the article, and, apart from doubtful reliability (looks bloggy to me), it gives only very brief coverage of the book. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the original proder and my statement above stands. I have also had difficulty finding any sources outside of primary ones (which appear to be created by the publisher) or blogs of questionable reliability. It might be notable at some later date but now is not that time apparantly. RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely not true that the only reviews are on the back cover of the book. If you are going to push to delete an article you really need to be accurate. (see Knight Reader review, it does not appear in the book at all) The book has already been mentioned by two independent blogs within the last four weeks. (Knight Reader and Meredith Sue Willis Books For Readers # 139) This fact makes the book notable already. The novel is also being reviewed by top publications such as Kirkus Reviews at this time. Should new novels be removed from Wikipedia while they are in the process of being reviewed by publications such as Kirkus Reviews? I think not. This novel deals with important themes in American cultural history such as the Vietnam War, the 1960's, the Beatles and John Lennnon. It seems unfair and ironic ("free encyclopedia") that Wikipedia would discriminate against independent authors in any way. Established publishing companies are able to get reviews more quickly for their books because of their status and connections. This does not make their books more legitimate or better written than books by indie authors. Wikipedia needs to recognize how difficult it is for independent authors to get reviews and be a little bit patient. Toddport (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on a couple of blogs does not "make the book notable already". See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to understand why.
Being "in the process of being reviewed" is not enough: we need evidence that a subject has already received significant coverage, not unsupported assertions that it is being considered, and will receive coverage in a while.
The importance of the themes which the book deals with does not make the book notable. I could easily write a few sentences on those important themes right now, but my scribbles would not be notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only on subjects which have established notability by receiving coverage in reliable sources. Yes, that is "discriminating" against subjects which have not received such coverage, but it is Wikipedia's policy. You can become active on Wikipedia and propose changing that policy if you like, but the present deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of current policy, so saying that you don't agree with the policy is unlikely to influence the outcome. If you want the article kept then the thing to do is to provide evidence that it satisfies the current notability criteria. If you can do so then I will very happily withdraw my nomination, but "has been mentioned in two blogs" and "is being reviewed now" do not take us in that direction: you should look at Wikipedia:Notability to see what will do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched myself for anything in reliable sources which could establish notability for this self-published book, per the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). It simply isn't there, as JamesBWatson outlined above. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not free advertising space. It's not the place to raise the profile of a person, product, etc. in the hope that it might get noticed, but to cover those who have already made their mark. A deletion discussion is not a reflection on the artistic merit or accomplishment of the article's subject. It is based solely on the notability criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews has posted a review of Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled on their website today. Toddport (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a Kirkus review of an independently published book is not evidence of notability. Kirkus charges "indie" authors for these reviews. [7]. Voceditenore (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is one of the most respected review publications in the publishing industry. A Kirkus indie review is always an objective critique and a large percentage are in fact negative reviews. Agents and editors respect Kirkus Reviews. Toddport (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddport, this isn't about the merits of the book, whether the reviews were good or bad, or even how objective the reviews are. The fact that Kirkus doesn't review indie books, unless the author pays them to and by their own description "The Kirkus Indie program gives independent authors a chance to obtain an unbiased, professional review of their work, written in the same format as a traditional Kirkus review" (my bolding), means that this + 2 reviews in blogs is simply not enough to pass the criteria. Had the book received a star rating from Kirkus, it might have made a slightly better case. But as it is no. You also should be aware that the notability criteria are normally very strictly followed for articles on self-published books in Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I was responding to this version of Toddport's comment, which he has subsequently edited. Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 12 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Andrew[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources as required by WP:BLP. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...if you want to add the missing sources, the G-News archives might be helpful (it is a search for subject's nickname, God's Smuggler). Brother Andrew is a notable person and we should keep and improve this article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I was able to find articles about Brother Andrew in both the New York Times, as shown here [8] and Time as shown here [9]. There are a few more references from other 3rd party publications. Is this enough to keep, just not sure? I’ll add better sourcing to the article and we’ll find out what consensus is. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the good work above. Seems notable, only the sources are really in qustion so with sourcing should be a keep. MLA (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consider also the RS coverage under Open Doors which often includes mentions of its founder. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 8 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Adiposity Index[edit]

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

While "Body Adiposity Index" is a real thing, as confirmed by a Google search, the article is written as a vanity piece, with references to people who seem to have no significant connection to the subject. Lampman (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone should bother to try save the article, here's a good start:[10]. Lampman (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bothered, but I'm a layman. Therefore I added deletion sorting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not CLEANUP: If it can be salvaged by editing (and it looks like a good start has been made in that direction, by removing the oddities), then you should withdraw the nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term finds some use in scientific writing per Google Scholar. It is currently a stub, not a vanity piece, and as such there is no reason to delete it - since it does seem to be a concept that is being used in the field. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Why should we delete useful articles? I wanted to know what BAI was, and luckily there was an article on it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia was the first place I looked when I wanted to know how to calculate BAI. It would have been disappointing had this page not been there. --catslash (talk) 13:05, 11 March 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) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Alaskary[edit]

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

The article fails to unambiguously address the WP:PROF criteria. Considering the lengthy résumé the article contains, there seems little likelihood of anything significant being missed and consequently little prospect of the criteria being met in the near future. Roles included such as 'Deputy Ex. Dir.', 'Coordinator' or a trustee are no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability and do not meet the PROF criteria. Raising for discussion rather than PROD due to the number of academic related claims made in the article, though I only find one citation in GScholar and only one other publication citing her paper. Fæ (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is nothing more than a prolix CV and history of her career as a speech path. 1 citation in GS and scholarship awards do not add up to passing notability. Yanicaracas has created a small WP:WG with Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, the subject's place of employment. Coupled with the fact that this user also upload the headshot of the subject, I suspect a COI promotional effort here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricola44. I hope someone also will look into the other articles created by this editor (I am a bit short on time myself). --Crusio (talk) 16:47, 7 March 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. Big Dom 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Yu (Facebook marketing expert)[edit]

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

The subject of this article may not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. As would be expected for an online marketer, there is quite a lot of mention of him in blogs and the like (including a fair share of negative press that appears underrepresented in the initial version of the article), but I did not see any coverage in what I would consider reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lacks credible references. I also question why an online "marketing expert" would have an article on Wikipedia. Considering the increased risk of spam, perhaps notability criteria for marketers and their agencies should be more stringent. LordVetinari (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. No, "marketing experts" need to have some kind of significance in history, culture, or technological development before they merit Wikipedia articles. No such showing is made for this person. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete farcical claim of notability. The only claim of notability is that this person is internationally recognised. The reference appears to be his Facebook page. Speedily delete this vanity. MLA (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one editor, non-notable vanity page. Free advertisement.--Hokeman (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no disinterested, independent sources indicating notability. 78.26 (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my original CSD. Strikerforce (talk) 00:41, 8 March 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) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School House, Sedbergh School[edit]

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

Non notable house of Sedbergh School. Certainly one of the contributing editors is from the school so there is possibly COI and NPOV to consider as well. NtheP (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a boarding house at a boarding school. There is no indication that this is an historic building or other distinction that would justify an article about it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school is notable; its individual boarding houses aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 11 March 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) 23:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dive (American based rock band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Content of article is a direct copy/paste from the band's Facebook page. Significant content contributor to the article appears to have a conflict of interest with the article's subject. Strikerforce (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently updating wiki with legitimate sourcing to confirm bands notability. Kimichelee (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than a handful all in regard to the subject of this AfD, as of this post. Possible conflict of interest concerns. Strikerforce (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article are just band profiles on sites and do no represent significant independent coverage from a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above. Sources are sketchy, and mostly local or regional. I do not see significant coverage here. Nor can I find much else. --Quinn ^☂THUNDER 22:29, 8 March 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. Nomination was also withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Ki-Han[edit]

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

WP:V -- Unsourced BLP. If the claim about coaching in the K-league can be verified (Daejeon Citizen) can be verified with a single reliable source. I'd be happy to call that notable, but I haven't been able to track down a reference that isn't a wikimirror or a forum post. Definitely running into a language barrier on this one, sources or even a the correct Hangul translation of the coach's name would be warmly welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If the content of the article can be verified, he is quite clearly notable, but until then we cannot assume that he is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No player of this name was ever selected to play for South Korea at the Olympics. The closest I can find is Kim Ki Nam, who was no.22 in the squad for 1996 according to fifa, which I think means he was only a standby player. Stu.W UK (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Although the claim in the article if verified would mean the subject is notable, I can find no sources to verify any of the assertions for notability. I am unable to confirm he has competed at the Olympics. I cannot confirm he is the coach of Daejeon Citizen. This is the current coaching staff in Korean which is not help to me as I cannot read Korean. This machine translation seems to have the manager vaguely match with our article on Daejeon Citizen FC. The others, not so much. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that source has been found. -- Whpq (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lim Ki-Han or Lim Gi-Han (Hangul: 임기한) currently head coach of Daejeon Citizen U-18 team, and he played in a fully pro league.im1a2 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep as nominator, per Im1a2. Nicely done, thank you. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source in English, even as a machine translation, would be great Stu.W UK (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per improvements to article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:49, 11 March 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 as WP:CSD#G7. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avirginsplea.com[edit]

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

First of all, a note: I am the original creator of this article. The article was created after the subject was mentioned in several (notable) newspapers. However, I made the mistake of not including any references. In the article's current state, there are still no citations, and I was unable to find any references from reliable sources, other than this blog which shows that it once made the front page story on the Toronto Sun; however, that is still only one source. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and nominated the article for speedy deletion for you per WP:CSD#General G7. Author requests deletion.AerobicFox (talk) 08:03, 7 March 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 (but see my full comment at the bottom of the page). —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planking[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, only references included are primary sources or a single reference to a reliable source. Contested prod. Google searches on the title bring up cooking or building material hits only. RadioFan (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very recent Australian fad, and unless multiple independent reliable sources discuss it in depth, the article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not talk about the importance or notability of the subject.—C45207 | Talk 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thought by the title that this was about the exercise planking. If anybody wanted to make an article about that then that would be notable, and this current info could probably be mentioned in such an article.AerobicFox (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exercise does appear to be notable; it's covering in some non-health news sites. Maybe this article can be converted like you stated.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all ten Google hits in the search you link to, and they don't seem to me to come anywhere near establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

try checking google books instead. Here are a couple thousand books that recommend planking. I can personally attest to the commonality of this exercise as it has been covered on my cross country team, in martial arts, in yoga, in core strength classes and in pilates that I have done. It is an extremely common exercise with dozens of variations and the existence of all these books calling it one of the best ab exercises should confirm notability.AerobicFox (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article with no useful content and no evidence of notability. Really no more than a dictionary definition. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, appears to be a transitory fad, most likely to be something someone made up in college one day. MLA (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs cited do not appear to establish notability. Edison (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I have gone ahead and changed the article from being about the Australian fad to being about the popular isometric exercise. There are far more sources that can be used to further expand and elaborate the current subject of the article which I will start adding in coming days. I'm recommending closing this as the subject of the original AfD(the Australian fad) is no longer the subject of the article.AerobicFox (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new article looks better than the one up for AFD, but perhaps rather than deleting the article being discussed and replacing it with another of the same name about a different subject, you should have created Planking (exercise), and allowed the AFD to continue. Alternatively, someone could have done a "Snowball delete" and you could have then created your new article. Edison (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin. Looking at the course of discussion here and what's happened at the article, here's what I've done.

I am closing the AfD, as it relates to the article about the Australian fad, as a delete under the snowball clause.
I have assessed Aerobic Fox's new article and determined that it overlaps with Plank (exercise). As a result, I've merged the content there.

Had there not already been an article on the plank, this AfD would have ended with the unusual outcome of a delete result and an article immediately existing at the same title. I want to make clear that there was a massive topic shift, so there's a hard split: the edits that relate to the one topic were deleted, but the edits that relate to a second one were not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 8 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'The Joe' Gurba[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Some local media, but fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – My apologies for being unsure of the processes and their entirety in advance. I believe that Joe is notable enough with the recognition from a 2006 Covenant Award. A national award given by the Gospel Music Association of Canada. [11] As well as having multiple albums for sale on the iTunes store. (I do not know of how to cite that). He has also, in my opinion, "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". In the Edmonton scene The Joe as well as his Record Label Old Ugly Recording Co. are extremely prominent in the local scene of Edmonton Alberta Canada. *http://www.edmontonsun.com/entertainment/music/2009/09/11/10833966-sun.html
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/album+Edmonton+artist/4098878/story.html
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Rapping+beat/4101590/story.html
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=155fb487-03b6-4a87-9d60-0568f727b423&p=1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kijkmusic9 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note - I have removed the ref tags and reformatted for readability -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am satisfied that the above sources represent significant coverage in reliables sources, and the Edmonton Sun article describes him as "a top ambassador for the local music scene". Beyond the sources noted above, he is also covered by tbe Edmonton Examiner, and Calgary's Fast Forward Weekly. ~~Note that the article should probably renamed to The Joe with a REDIRECT from Joe Gurba or vice versa.~~Perhaps a hatnote at Joe Louis Arena makes more sense and move this to Joe Gurba. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, as the above sources represent significant coverage in reliables sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq (WP:BAND # 7) and WP:BAND #1: Is GNEWS some sort of wikipedia policy, guideline, or do you mean Google news? The Edmonton Sun is part of Quebecor and Edmonton Journal is part of Postmedia; not some fly-by-night "neighbourhood newspaper" that nobody's every heard of. These two sources and the citation for the Covenant Awards means the article meets WP:BAND criterion 1. The CBC Radio 3 lists lots of write-ups in the media [12] (which would have to be cited in the article properly). Argolin (talk) 01:02, 12 March 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. Big Dom 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perry aberle[edit]

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

Subject was city councilor for two years in a town in Maine. That's not enough for notability. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a small town councilor, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claims to notability are made. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Also appears to be WP:COI with the article's creator.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any possible applicable subguideline. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a small town councillor, not worthy of a article in an encyclopaedia. MtKing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtking (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to keep it, on the basis of his extreme youth upon election (otherwise I'd agree that councillors aren't notable). However with the COI issue around its creation, I'd want to see a lot stronger 3rd party referencing before supporting that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 14 March 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) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fimmel Extended Nuclear Cluster model[edit]

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

Original research. The theory described in the article is propounded in a single article in fringe journal "Physics Essays"; the Physics Essays article has no citations; neither the author nor the theory make any appearance in the mainstream physics literature.Bm gub (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Bm gub (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On Google scholar I found three cites stemming from "Extended Nuclear Cluster model", but they were all cites by the author of his own work. I also searched "Extended Nuclear Cluster model" on Google web, which has 74 hits dominated by wikipedia mirrors, and I looked at most of those hits and did not find independent secondary sources. So, the topic appears to lack the independent secondary sources required by the guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. I try to assume good faith but I'd be very surprised if Curiolae (talk · contribs) were not 99.185.49.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and if both weren't connected somehow to Mr. Fimmel.Chick Bowen 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Jenks24 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article however should be checked to comply with the Biography of a living person policy (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Kyron Horman[edit]

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

This article is an example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. I do hope that this missing person is found, but nonetheless, the subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline. PROD was removed without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable crime which has received national coverage: Google News Archive shows 832 hits. No comment was necessary on the PROD removal because the nomination was entirely without merit. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SINGLEEVENT only applies to biographical articles. This article is about an unsolved crime. If it was biographical, it would be titled Kyron Horman. This disappearance has gotten national news attention, including multiple appearances on Dateline NBC. —SW— ^babble 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the event of the kidnapping is tragic but has certainly gotten enough coverage to make it notable. If this were an article about the child it would be a different story, but this is not the case. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, just a variation of missing white woman syndrome; the drive-by media can't resist a missing precocious kid story either. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. When the coverage of something like this goes beyond the local market (e.g. CBS Crimesider), it fulfills WP:GEOSCOPE/WP:EVENT. Location (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this continues to be covered by the media for more than six months (and is more than just a single event, as it has some subplots to it with the pending divorce), and that media coverage includes national coverage, thus passing the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the above keeps.AerobicFox (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article reports very serious allegations against a living person, which though reported, were never adequately enough substantiated to support an arrest. Though these appear to be reliably sourced, they raise other issues under WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS etc which should be evaluated if the article is kept. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure of the notability so will not make a recommendation, but I agree with Jonathanwallace that the article, if kept, should be checked for conformity to BLP. (I have just changed a few uses of "claims" to "states".) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for me.. no question about it. Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- It could be disputed whether or not Kyron is notable, but his disappearance has got to be, with all the news coverage it has received. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 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 deleted by Ponyo (talk · contribs) under CSD criterion R3. Big Dom 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Silverbacks Park[edit]

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

Title was misspelled when moving. — Bmanphilly (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename If the name was misspelled while moving then why is is here on the AfD page? Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Atlanta Silverbacks Park now exists. Bmanphilly (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article has a PROD tag on it, but was missing an AfD tag. I have added the AfD tag, and removed the PROD, since its at AfD anyway. Ravendrop 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by author request / implausible redirect / typo. We don't need to go through an AFD for this one. Note to Bmanphilly: you may use {{db-author}} to delete this kind of pages. jonkerz ♠ 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect - no need at all for AfD, why is this here? Bienfuxia (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'd say redirect but "Atlantic" doesn't appear to have an association with the park's name.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:26, 13 March 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 per G12, copyright violation. The text in here had the ring of something that has been written elsewhere, and what I'm seeing is a word-for-word similarity to this. The latter is copyright 2006 by V. Kozarenko. This was definitely not written, if one can use that word, in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano memorization system[edit]

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

Spam / how-to guide / no evidence of notability. Take your pick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now find that I could speedy it on the basis of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giordano Memorization System but having created this AfD, I will let it run. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a fine example of a how-to guide. Conversely, this is not a good example of a repost: the version deleted in the other AFD is completely different, so it's ineligible for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is not a how-to guide. The article is merely describing the techniques that are a defining aspect of Giordano Memorization System and leaving them out would mean that the article was uncomplete and did not fully describe all aspescts of Giordano Memorization System. Just because techniques are discussed and you could perhaps use these techniques if you really read into the descriptions doesn't make it a how-to guide. You have to understand that because of the methodical nature of the subject at hands (mnemonic techniques and systems) one cannot write an article about it without mentioning or describing the techniques. In that defense I would like to mention that GMS actually has a lengthy theoretical base which is included in the article and which definately does not qualify for a how-to guide. On the subject of notability you can go and search Giordano Memorization System on google and you will see many references to it and many discussions/pages about it which I believe is evidence of notability. You might have an impression that this is spam because of the other GMS pages that there have been, which I agree, were mostly spam. I didn't make those pages and cannot vouche for them but for the current article I have taken my time to write a lengthy informative description of the system and tried to write it in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia. PaulKulla (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prune Fails WP:HOWTO at present, but there's probably something in here saveable by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 7 March 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 (myself). Guerillero | My Talk 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi Eye In The Dark[edit]

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

Outside of the COI problems, I can't find any good solid sources for this. Most of the sources used as trivial or are blogs. It appears to be not notable. The prod was contested so here is the XfD. Guerillero | My Talk 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many new Cites and repairs have been added. American Links as well, to show the importance of this film and its role in bringing Nollywood to America. Please understand that this is "new" to many americans. Links like chicago tribune have been added. And the other links are considered huge media outlets in other countries like Golden icons.Dustyairs (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reviews and interviews in multiple African media, see The Nigerian Voice, GhanaNation, Modern Ghana The Voice news magazine, AllNewsGhana. It is a valuable piece of information about African cinema. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I log on today and the page has sources that aren't blogs or IMDB. It looks keepable. Because of that I am going to withdraw this AfD. If anyone objects they can re nominate this page. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:11, 7 March 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 without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. If someone wants to rewrite this with inline citations then go for it. I will userfy or incubate this on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gerhardt[edit]

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

After going through and removing resume information, and doing a search online, it looks like this actor appeared in a soap opera for a year, and 2 independent films (which don't even have their own wikipage). Even Gerhardt's personal wesbite doesn't list any other accomplishments. This person does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR notability guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I do see a few interviews of him on Buddytv.com, but that doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and both relate to his limited time on General Hospital. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 February 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) 01:18, 28 February 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, 7 March 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris DeRosa[edit]

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

I was unable to find significant coverage (or any coverage) of this musician in reliable sources; he does not appear to meet the relevant guideline. Chick Bowen 04:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider reliable sources? In the field of drummers Modern Drummer and Drum! magazines seem as good a referance as they get. He has been published and written about in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.146.247 (talk • contribs)
- This appears to be the Drum! reference you're talking about. I couldn't find the Modern Drummer one. That seems to be fairly trivial to me. WP:Music says that a criterion is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent." I don't think DeRosa is there yet. He's obviously a promising young musician, but I don't think he meets our inclusion standards at this time. Chick Bowen 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 February 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) 01:22, 28 February 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) 01:26, 7 March 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 Hip hop. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious hip hop[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic. That one finds hip hop artists who are described as conscious (such as on page 4 of this 'reference' does not mean there is a verifiable and distinct kind of hip hop one can call "conscious hip hop." Moreover, the article is woefully unsourced, with one reference to a senior project and one (ineffective) link to what appears to have been a student project at DePaul. Feel free to peruse the history: what I've trimmed does not constitute reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 February 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) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hip hop. this makes a nice, very small subsection in the main article. one day, this may be a more notable phrase and could be given its own article, but i agree, its not there now, and not going to be in the next few days. I think there are conscious hip hop artists, but as the article states, its somewhat underground, and that is our criteria for notability: NOT being obscure or unformed, even from a subcultures perspective.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 7 March 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. Big Dom 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Christian Outreach[edit]

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

Non-notable religious organization. The single third party source do not supply evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of notable references. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail criteria for notability Warfieldian (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional third party sources were added to the article Ccoministry (talk) 14:28, 02 March 2011 (UTC) — Ccoministry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't think the two news article that you added establish notability. See WP:Notability, which requires significant coverage of the topic in question. Those two articles are not about the organization--they merely mention the organization in articles about some of their employees. There's no analysis of the organization, so there's no "significant coverage". Also, User:Ccoministry, before you edit further, I'd suggest that you read WP:COI.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for you GrapedApe, how is it that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is able to have a page when almost all of their sources are from their own pages? And what about Catholic Christian Outreach? They don't have any sources listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccoministry (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size and scope of of the organization is impressive, and they do get some outside coverage even though it is not currently cited at the article. For example the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described its Jubilee 82 as "one of the biggest assemblies of Christian youth." [13] I'll add some references to the article - and maybe delete some of the puffery - and then let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those 2 references are about the jubilee conference, not the CCO. Maybe the conference is notable, but not the CCO.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? The organization isn't notable but its annual convention/gathering is? --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 7 March 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) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while this is a borderline case, I think MelanieN's additions are enough to keep it. Kansan (talk) 23:58, 7 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Burke[edit]

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

Vanity page lacking independent reliable sources with conflict of interest issues. -- Selket ^Talk 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although WP:ATHLETE does not specifically address ocean rowing, being part of the crew for two world records meets the spirit of the athletic notability guidelines as competing at the highest level of his sport. Coverage exists that verify he was crew on the Sara G. There is some more coverage about him and one of the other crew specifically. Although behind a pay wall this article clearly has him as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 01:46, 7 March 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) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this athlete is named on this link on the Ocean Rowing Society's website (who are the adjudicators for Ocean Rowing for the Guinness World Records) as being a member of the crew of the Sara G. This crew are currently the world record holders for the fastest ever crossing of the Atlantic by oar and the world record holders for the most number of consecutive days rowing 100+miles or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmccann (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 March 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) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Joan (band)[edit]

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

Moving here from a CSD A7 request. Seems to be advertising with serious COI issues. Appears not to have charted any singles or to have released an LP (I'm not sure what a mini-album is). Their label OIB Records does not appear sufficiently notable to have it's own Wikipedia page. Article has two references, but I am unable to verify them. -- Selket ^Talk 09:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Selket to get more opinions at AfD due to the following snippet in the article: "The release achieved critical acclaim from the British music press gaining good reviews from national publications such as NME, Artrocker, Rock Sound and The Fly, alongside positive support from many prominent music blogs and fanzines."
I can't check any of the print references, but that might be enough for WP:BAND#C1. The album reviews I find online are probably not reliable: chicago-independent.com, subba-cultcha.com, glasswerk.co.uk, incendiarymag.com, soundfreak.co.uk.
Has an indication of importance, I don't know whether they are. Hopefully our resident experts can judge it. Amalthea 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Amalthea 10:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had reviewed this article while helping clear the new article backlog and requested the CSD A7 primarily because of no real indication of notability that I could ascertain but also because of significant and blatant COI issues. The article was written by the band members using User:Pope Joan and openly discussed being band members on their talk page. Bands are certainly not one of my strong areas, much less UK bands and though I could find no mention of them on Google or Yahoo, being a US user I didn't think to search UK versions of those services at the time. I will leave this discussion alone now so the experts can weigh in but wanted to fill in some of the background about how it arrived at this forum. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They've generated some buzz, but there is not signficant coverage in reliable sources. This might change when they release an album, but for now, they fail the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 1 March 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) 01:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to pass the notability threshold without an album or more significant coverage. The COI is not definitive, but it doesn't help. Chick Bowen 03:27, 15 March 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 anyone wants this userfied so they can work the highlights into the main Hellboy article I'll do that for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hellboy fictional timeline[edit]

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

Per WP:PLOT, this article can essentially be nothing but plot summary and in line with multiple discussions such as this one, this one, or this one. should be deleted. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this article should be cleaned up, put into prose form and merged with the Hellboy article. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 01:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good supporting article for a long running and extensive comicbook series. I don't beleive a merge to the main article is appropriate, as the material would get trimmed out nayway and it would essentially be the same as a delete. Artw (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article, but it's still 100% plot.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete putting aside how much I enjoy the timeline and the series... the timeline is entirely a plot summary, which fails what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT#PLOT which has been a policy in good standing for several years, despite failed attempts to come up with a better alternative. I suppose you can add some third-party sources that cover the reception and development of the series, but then that would belong in the main series article, not a WP:CONTENTFORK devoted to repeating the same plot summary in list form. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability for the timeline since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that cover the topic. The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world notability that relies exclusively on primary sources. As such, it is an unnecessary content fork. The subject of the article also does not meet the general notability guideline, so there is no reason to keep the article around. Jfgslo (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a well done article. That doesn't make Wikipedia the right place for it. If there is a Hellboy focused wiki, by all means this should find its way there. But here... no. It is entirely derived from the source material. Even if it were to be sourced to the secondary sources that repeat/regurgitate the plot points it will still be in-story content derived from the original comics. No critical commentary. No true real world context - and no comparing when historical figures used in the comics to their real histories doesn't create that context. Nothing but a massive plot dump. Delete - J Greb (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete a well-written article, clearly beneficial to the encyclopedia (it's been viewed over 2000 times in the last month) due an arbitrary rule. Deleting this article will not make Wikipedia better. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and merge into Hellboy. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:V#Reliable sources and notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Greb and the precedent of the three AfDs mentioned by the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 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 standard for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources, not how great the subject is or how well the article is written. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Shui Living[edit]

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

Promotional, but borderline case with a long history of COI by an editor who just changed his/her name from "GeekShui" to G33kedout. Most coverage peripheral or trivial. Second para reads like an advertisement by somebody hoping to sell the company to a bigger firm. Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name change was done to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, which does not exist. The addition is not done for promotional or commercial purposes. I am more than willing to document the fact that the article was written by me, in the discussion section of the article. This was the next logical step, but I have not, as of yet, had the opportunity to do it. It is simply a matter of documenting the existence of something that was created and is recognized by many as a credible source of information. While the readership may not be as large, the premise is no different than that of large, technology news sites, such as ReadWriteWeb, Mashable or Engadget. Furthermore, these news outlet are known, commercial entities. Geek Shui Living is not. It is an entirely non-profit site that simply seeks to share knowledge with similar-minded readers. No link has been placed from any other website to the Wikipedia article. With regard to the comment regarding the perceived "trivial" or "peripheral" nature, it is inequitable to assume that because a site has not received acknowledgement from a larger outlet, their significance is any less. Recognition, to include sourcing of GSL articles, by external websites with no affiliation serve to document that GSL's content is well-written and trustworthy. Additionally, the purpose of the second paragraph is differentiate between GSL and other tech news sites. The entire existence of the term GSL is founded in an actual idea that seeks to address the increasingly widening divide between an individual's real and virtual life, in modern society. Unlike most sites that are simply stood up to deliver news, for the purpose of eventually earning a profit, GSL, as a site, grew from the original concept. It is not incorporated in any state or country. Therefore, there is nothing to sell. No compensation, monetary or otherwise, is received by any contributor to the website. Finally, the comment regarding a "long history" of rewrites is incorrect. The original article was posted only but a week ago. Since then, the only changes effected have been those suggested by the various editors, in an attempt to ensure all Wikipedia requirements were successfully satisfied. No misleading, unfactual, or exaggerated information has been posted at any time. As with any article, the development of it is a process, which may take time to turn into a polished product. While I understand the concern expressed, I am confident that no conflict of interest exists and that Geek Shui Living is exactly the type of content that Wikipedia intended to include among its collective body of socially-significant information. Based on the inclusion of the aforementioned tech news websites and others like them, the deletion of Geek Shui Living would amount to inequitable treatment. Reconsideration of the deletion, based on the points brought forth and clarifications detailed, herein. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this information. G33kedout (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — G33kedout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. Criteria 1 requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I could find no independent coverage from reliable sources. A search of Google News finds only items FROM the GSL blog, but nothing ABOUT the blog. Alternate criteria 2 and 3 do not seem to apply here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 6 March 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) 01:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have been probably speedy deleted on grounds of no credible indication of importance, and also as entirely promotional. I see nothing substantial here. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google that looks for the exact phrase "Geek Shui Living" but excludes results that include "geekshuiliving.com" and any other domains that contain information posted about Geek Shui Living, by Geek Shui Living, returns 21,800 references (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22geek+shui+living%22+-geekshuiliving-com+-skreened-com+-randomgeekshui-com+-linkedin-com+-cafepress-com+-twitter-com+-youtube-com+-posterous-com&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22geek+shui+living%22+-geekshuiliving-com+-skreened-com+-randomgeekshui-com+-linkedin-com+-cafepress-com+-twitter-com+-youtube-com+-posterous-com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=9d5df9e295f138e9). While this may not be the same volume generated by the related (but admittedly larger) sites such as ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, or Engadget, it does give credence to the idea that Geek Shui Living is something that many sites around the web (and the people who run them) feel is "substantial" and "of importance". To this end, the nature of the entry limits interest to those who have seek information regarding technology, gadgets, etc. The repeated commentary regarding the "promotional" nature of the article has no foundation, since the Wikipedia articles of other tech news sites and blogs referenced herein (as well as in my previous comments) do not meet the strict criteria against which GSL is being judged, either. If GSL is an entirely promotional article, this means that every such Wikipedia entry should be nominated for deletion. Yet, they are not included in the list for discussion for deletion. Unfortunately, the comments regarding speedy deletion seem to be entirely subjective in nature. There is no argument regarding the fact that the article does not have any obvious, socially redeeming value, but if one were to apply such a standard across all Wikipedia articles, how many would remain published. The question that begs to be answered is what harm the GSL article does by being published in Wikipedia? Is the information false, slanderous, or offensive? Have claims been made that cannot be substantiated? It informs people about a topic, which may interest them. It provides a different angle than that of simple tech news consumption. GSL seeks to not only provide the latest technology news, but more importantly to stimulate people to ask questions and use to critical thinking skills to develop their own educated opinion. Therein lies the importance, credibility and substantiality. GSL does not stand to benefit financially or otherwise from being included in Wikipedia. As of today, a Google search for the phrase "Geek Shui Living" returns 33,900 results (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22geek+shui+living%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), which means that despite its youth as a website, it is well-indexed. No promotion is necessary through Wikipedia. For that matter, both the sheer number of Wikipedia entries and the statistically-improbable possibility that someone may happen upon it preclude the possibility that it could be used as a promotional platform. Additionally, if the number of search results returned is compared against the number provided above, it reveals that 64% of the results that mention the phrase are extraneous to GSL's site. This means that people have taken notice. It also means that people who may happen across GSL's Wikipedia entry and find a new place to read thoughtful, concise and objective information regarding technology topics, are the ones who may benefit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's editors are apparently not among them. Obviously, people will not take the time to write letters of thanks to Wikipedia for inclusion of GSL, but they will come back to Wikipedia the next time they seek objective information. It appears that, judging by the commentary thus far, this discussion is unfortunately one in which GSL cannot convince any editor (other than the first one who reviewed the article) to examine the issue as a disinterested third-party would. Thusly, it seems that if there is no personal value in it for the editor, there must be no personal value to any of the millions of people who use Wikipedia on a daily basis. Therefore, from Wikipedia's vantage point, it must be deleted. Each Wikipedia editor, armed with their own opinion (which any Wikipedia submitter has to trust as being objective), will make their recommendation to keep or delete it. Based on the complete lack of demonstrable consideration of the points brought forth in my previous entries and the repetitive theme of "I see no value", this will be the last attempt to obtain fair and equitable consideration. Ultimately, this is saddening because, despite being filled with blatantly obvious, promotion by political candidates and mindless pop culture content focused on the latest one-hit wonder (all of which make the Wikipedia cut), I still returned time and time again to Wikipedia to search for information, simply because I thought of it as a real-world encyclopedia made by the people, for the people. It would seem, though, that, judging by the sequence of events in this article's history, this is not necessarily the case anymore. A quick glance at many other nominations for deletion show that no one cared enough to even defend the entry they submitted. Yet, GSL has gone to great lengths to succinctly explain what it is and why it deserves to be kept. Sadly, this seems to have little bearing on the ultimate judgement. In conclusion, there will be no more attempts to justify that which has already been justified, through readership, reputation, and statistical data. Ultimately, GSL existed before its Wikipedia article and will continue to exist long into the future, regardless of whether or not it does in Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. G33kedout (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think these deletion discussions are based on personal opinion - but they are not. There are very clear criteria for notability of a website, defined at WP:WEB, and as I pointed out above, Geek Shui Living does not meet them. That does not mean that the site has no value - I'm sure it does. It just means that Wikipedia has standards for what is included here. It has to have standards; Wikipedia would lose its value as a reference if everybody could post just any old thing. Meanwhile, your posts have hit almost every one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: pointing out that there are other pages just as bad (the shorthand for that one is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); asking what harm it does (WP:HARMLESS); saying that people will find it WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL; and of course the WP:GOOGLEHITS test - in which you found lots of Google hits but none of them is from what Wikipedia considers a WP:Reliable source. If you click on the links I have provided here you will learn more about why people are taking the position they are about this page - and why your arguments are not changing any minds. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the essay WP:TLDR Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the entire discussion regarding this deletion, and have several points/questions I would like to offer. I am not certain I am doing this correctly, I have just signed up for an account to be able to do this, and while there is a vast amount of instructions, I may not have absorbed them all. Firstly, allow me to state that while I have only created this account today, I use Wikipedia regularly, without the need to log in, therefore it was not necessary to create the account until now. Please do not discard my commentary on the matter out of hand on the assumption that I have been "recruited".

I thank those who have participated for the links they have provided for reference, as they have been most helpful to me in trying to understand the argument being made for deletion. I can understand the apparent frustration of the original contributor, who has been given arguments (aside from the last one) that fall under "just pointing at a policy or guideline" without any constructive feedback as to what the editor felt was needed to bring the entry up to standards. As for the last entry, I found it to be to most clear, concise, and informative of the arguments for deletion.

Allow me to open with the term "useful", which has a narrow definition as applicable to this discussion. In reading this, I note that encyclopedias are noted as having content culled because it is not considered "useful" in the context of an encyclopedia. As I understand it, in order to determine that context, one must first consider the intended use of the project as a whole, to determine what will be considered "useful" within that context. Many use Wikipedia as a research facility, allowing them to quickly find many articles, entries, and external links based off a single keyword search, without ever having to leave the project itself. Were we to use G33kedout's example of his article on the Library of Congress indexing tweets being featured prominently on a related and well-known tech site, consider the following. Given that it is current events (loosely defined) and of a socio-political nature, this topic could easily be the subject of a research project. Using a keyword search of "Library of Congress twitter" returns a result including the entry in question. Thus, I (as a hypothetical researcher) would read the entry, using the external and internal links to gather information on this event during the course of my research. I would deem this "useful" as a user.

My question is this, and if I am wrong in asking, I apologize as I must have missed the rule. What context are you defining Wikipedia to be in? I realize that this argument will be considered biased. I am in favour of the entry's inclusion, therefore I am applying my arguments to that end, much as those who have gone before in this discussion have done the opposite. Yet, I still humbly submit my arguments for your consideration, and would appreciate any clear feedback that can be given. I am new to this process,so detail is important to me learning if I have done something wrong in posting this entry. Michaelwpg (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TLDR Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, article doesn't really demonstrate any true notability (though the LoC discussion looks interesting), references on the article are either passing mentions or meta-index pointers. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion that I can see. The references given on the page are aren't from reliable sources or are immaterial (Alexa rank, Google tech news). I suggest the author copies his work to his user space and recreates the article in mainspace when the site becomes notable. — Bility (talk) 21:22, 14 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foivos Delivorias[edit]

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

I contest the Notability of this article, As it has no links to any WP:RS. Phearson (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does now. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phearson - I beg to differ. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 March 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) 01:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:59, 7 March 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. Big Dom 17:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tevita Folau[edit]

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

Has never played first-grade football, and at 26, quite probably never will Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, a bit of coverage here and here, although it's questionable how much coverage Tevita would have got if it weren't for his brother Israel Folau. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
After thinking about it for a bit, I'm going to go with delete. He doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS and the only coverage he has received is because of his brother, but notability is not inherited. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This discussion was never transcluded onto a log page so let's give it some more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as athlete just failing to reach notability Yaksar (let's chat) 02:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs more sources. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Men Wear Pink[edit]

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

Notability - appears to fail WP:NFILMS, with no gnews hits and ghits quickly going into database range. Article created by user with same name as director of movie. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sufficient sources are supplied to verify that the film meets notability guidelines at this time. I did a quick google search and didn't find anything that would substantiate notability. According to IMDb, this film is currently released only on the internet; a speculative theatrical release date does not help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Real Men Wear Pink is a motion picture provided for free on its official site, the release of this movie is a new age distribution strategy which allows for more viewers to help the process of the independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the movie isn't the issue; the question is whether it meets the inclusion guidelines of this website. Wikipedia is not here to help the process for the independent, but to document what reliable sources have to say about "notable" topics. If there are no reliable sources discussing this topic, it does not yet belong here. Please review WP:NFILMS. If we are not able to verify that the film meets that guideline, the article is not likely to be retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a working version of the IMDb link - not that it tells us much of interest except that the release date is "11 December 2011". I rather feel that WP:CRYSTAL might come in here. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signing posts Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~We are aware wikipedia is not here to help the the independent, but the process of distribution for motion pictures has changed to online distribution. The author is not promoting the site, nor promoting the movie. However, the author is providing information on a valid project that can be viewed at the request of the great people at wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - you can only say 'keep' or 'delete' once. You can 'Comment' all you like. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the author able to provide independent reliable sources that verify that the film meets our inclusion guidelines? That's what articles on films require on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell me what other reliable resources you need, beside the Internet Movie Database, and its offical site, most projects only have these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.213.142 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelnes on what is required to establish notability for a film can be found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet your requirements for maintaining an article on Wikipedia. However, the film is developing a new landscape of distribution. Its available for free online, this is perhaps worldwide distribution. If you will kindly go to the website and see for yourself, this film will change the direction of moviemaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing new about a film being available for free online. Can we assume that all of the unsignedIP messages are from the same editor, the only editor who has voted for Keep, and that the editor has admitted that the article does not meet standards, and WP:SNOWBALL this article? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the film will change the direction of moviemaking, I'm afraid that it's not Wikipedia's goal to be there at the groundfloor. We are by our nature always going to be at the tail end of a trend, since our job is to document what others say about something. As our policy at WP:FUTURE notes: "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We play catchup once the cultural norms do change. Once the film changes the direction of moviemaking, reliable sources will comment on it, and we will be happy to host an article about it then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. If and or when this one gets some recognition and is verifiable in reliable sources, we might consider a return. Okay with it being userfied to its author until such time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' for now per blank, this film has grossed over 5,000 vistiors in its first week, this is news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.213.142 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No gnews hits, so apparently, no, it's not news. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Thought I'd !voted already...) per Schmidt et al. Peridon (talk) 18:39, 5 March 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current refs, and a google search, reveal no signs of notability at this time. if an admin wishes to userfy the content to the article creator, with the stipulation that we would need much more, and would likely have to wait until december's release, to recreate, im ok with that. I cant even tell if this is of interest to the LGBTQ community. if it was, it would surely have gotten some attention by now if it was any good, as the name would have gotten it some attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "5,000 vistiors in its first week," is not as notable as many youtube videos that far surpass that number. While the phrase "Real Men Wear Pink" may have notability the film clearly does not.AerobicFox (talk) 08:15, 7 March 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. Rename and/or merger discussion can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) (formerly Battle of Tripoli (2011))[edit]

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

Most of the sources I can find suggest that "A battle for Triploi" might take place, but there certainly isn't support for one raging right now. This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fighting does not necessarily equal a "battle", this is hardly the Battle of the Somme. Wikipedia is meant to report on history not create it. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting has happened in the suburbs and amid rallies, but if we are to define a battle as being between two armies, like the Somme, then this article needs to be renamed, not deleted. As it is, the model of the modern revolution usually involves semi-organized PEOPLE, not armies, and this is reflected by the nature of the entire uprising. The importance each side has allocated to Tripoli, the violence that has already occurred there, and Gaddafi's decision to stay there all are enough to requisite this article, but probably not as a "battle." Metaknowledge (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest then? Renaming it to Fighting in the Triploi area during the 2011 Libya uprising? Is there any reason this needs a seperate article to 2011 Libya uprising? There wasn't any discussion let alone consensus to split off information about the uprising in Tripoli as opposed to the rest of Libya. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Struggle for Tripoli" is my suggestion. Specifically, Tripoli is important in this and there is no way other than this article to get information just on Tripoli's role in it. Metaknowledge (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The article already more than demonstrates notability. This is a major element in one of the biggest events (so far) of the 21st century. Agreed it is not a traditional state v. state battle, and has not yet reached its apex in terms of intensity, but it is a battle nonetheless, as the sources make clear, and it has begun. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - well, redirect and if you want to merge something that is not in one of the other articles I support that also, corrently this doesn't belong here at all, perhaps wikinews, the title is awfully POV as well, talk about one sided, you could also call it, the defence of Tripoli. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - So is Battle of Moscow a biased title, or Battle of Rostov (1941), Battle of Berlin, or Battle of Britain? The description is also being used by multiple major media outlets: [14], [15], [16]. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, excuse me I read it as Battle for tripoli. - and as such could also have the opposite , defence of Tripoli - I still support deletion though and the title is still not good, battle is more like the links you presented and I am not seeing reporting of such a situation occurring as a battle, perhaps a peoples uprising, anyways we are not rolling news. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, concerns about the name are more than valid, but the article's content is still important and unless you are arguing against its notability (which does not seem to be in too much question) there is no reason to push for deletion. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename - I agree with Metaknowledge, at the very least rename the article maybe to 2011 Tripoli struggle or 2011 Tripoli clashes.EkoGraf (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe under a different name, but this is obviously an ongoing „battle“, or whatever you want to call it, of high notability. —Nightstallion 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have about the protests in Libya - 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Libya and Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising and International reactions to the 2011 Libyan protests and 2011 Libyan uprising and List of Libyan officials who protested or resigned during 2011 protests looking at the BBC reports Gadaffi is still in control in Tripoli and there are few reports of a battle presently occurring, I would say the opening line in the article - The Battle of Tripoli is a battle currently taking place for the control of Tripoli, - is currently more of an ambition than a reality. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a merge discussion to take place on the articles' talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Pontificalibus. CRYSTAL concerns, POV concerns, NOT concerns. Any content can be easily added to either the 2011 Libyan uprising article, or the Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising article, or both, as needed. There's just no need for a separate article here. Nothing will be lost with a deletion or a merger (and a delete here will effectively become a merge, regardless).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is major on its own, and as for your concerns, the timeline proves that WP:CRYSTAL is not violated, POV may be a bit problematic because of better and more accurate reports from the rebels as compared to Qaddafi's supporters, but all info is to the best of our knowledge as this progresses. I don't know what part of WP:NOT you're invoking, but this article seems to follow those guidelines last I checked. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to 2011 Libya uprising. This is a crystal ball article, describing something that has not happened and which might not happen. The Afrol press article cited in the article which used the term "battle" described largely unarmed crowds of protesters popping up somewhere for a bit until the Kadaffy troops shot at them at which time they dispersed. A battle requires two armed forces. The dictators in Egypt and Tunisia were deposed without a "Battle of the Capitol City". Similarly there was no "Battle of Petrograd" when the Reds captures the Winter Palace in 1917. If a battle occurs at a time in the future, an article could be split off. Edison (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note I had a good look round and the unconfirmed claim in the article that the the airport is controlled by rebel forces is still unconfirmed and imo a very dubious claim. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitiga airport is confirmed by various sources; see the ref list. As for Egypt and Tunisia, those were very different struggles where the opposition was based in the capital city, whereas this rebellion is coming from the countryside and are coming to take the capital city, hence the need for this article to describe that. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Too much information has been removed by wikipedia simple for the sake of brevity or whatever, there's no good reason to delete this page, it's far and away the most important battle of the Libyan conflict. Swalgal (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What "battle" are you referring to? Did Gandhi have "battles" with the British, or did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr have "battles" with racists? 24.13.81.21 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were nonviolent movements. Not to mention actual fighting, 65 mercenaries have died in civilian-led lynchings. Hardly Gandhi's ahimsa or MLK's "universal love." Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to Tripoli during the Libyan uprising or something similar. We can't just create separate articles for every single event in the uprising. I also don't think that these events can be defined as a battle. Rafy talk 10:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the battle is beginning to occur between Qadhaffi's forces and people in Tripoli. I think the name is appropriate as it really is a battle for the last and most important city. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add, this article DOES NOT violate WP:CRYSTAL. This article has been sourced and refers to an ongoing situation. There aren't any looking-forward statements. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There also currently is nothing happening in Tripoli that is worthy of an article at all. The reports are that Gaddaffi is in full control of the city. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toufik-de-Planoise (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Go ^Leafs Go 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Soon to be a major battle in a revolution. Maybe a re-name to something else temporarily, like "2011 Tripoli clashes" until it escalates further.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising without prejudice for re-creation once the situation has died down and we can actually analyze the extent and significance of the fighting. From what it sounds, this isn't a true battle, but political unrest and a bit of rioting, but the situation isn't so clear because it's ongoing. WP:CRYSTAL is very relevant here. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I created it, but I created it under that name because I saw a template that talked about this war. And the article was there, but it hasn't been created. Thus, I created it under that name. But, I want it to be renamed! --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You want it renamed to what? Edison (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising. We might want to create one if things go badly, but hopefully there will not be yet another bloodbath in Tripoli. Ray^Talk 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - I don't like moving articles during AFD discvussion but the title as it was so false a representation of the facts as reported that I have moved it to 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) - this is reflective of the situation that all these articles that are being forked of have no additional value, and need forking back where they belong, 2011 Libyan uprising, I have also moved a couple more that are being forked of in a similar manner, we are not here to promote weak uprisings. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your conduct of moving the article in the middle of an AFD discussion and renaming all of those others, on the basis it has not been confirmed that the fighting in Brega and Ras Lanuf constitutes a battle even though all media outlets have described them as battles for those cities, could constitute major POV-pushing on your part. Not to mention that you removed a number of referenced information from those articles allong with the references, that could be considered as vandalism. In all good faith I am telling you you need to discuss these things before doing such extreme things. So please do so. Also, please refrain from using wording as weak uprisings, because that could be seen as a non-neutral point of view, and also how can you even say weak uprising since 3,000 people may have already died? EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish - totally unconfirmed extreme claims - there is no battle for Tripoli and to host an article under such a title is not our job. All extreme unconfirmed claims require consideration and attribution to the author and the publication and should not be presented as if fact - Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I did not say the event in this article is a battle, I myself am for renaming it, I only said that I ahve a problem with you renaming it on your own while the discusson has not ended and i had a problem with you removing cited information, even if they may be just claims, from those other two articles and renaming them without first discussing it with other editors, that is highly disruptive behavior.EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff off, its not disruptive at all, how do you get off with three hundred edits and a single purpose account accusing me of anything - I give a funky about libya I am a neutral, cited info - so what - this topic is a complete content fork. I appreciate you are an experienced neutral wikipedia contributor and I was looking at your edit history and thanks for that. Battle for Tripoli is a false representation of reality. SOome reports claimed there was a battle occurring but after a few days and the unconfirmed claims from unnamed rebel mobile phone and twitter claims it was clear that it was not a battle as anyone would understand a battle at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Withdrawn As the original nominator it is my view the article should be renamed to 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) per Off2riorob's suggestion. A week has passed and there has been notable conflict in Tripoli, but not a Battle of Tripoli. This move would address my concerns stated in the nomination, and I believe would also address the delete rationales given by others. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see where you're going with WP:CRYSTAL, but there are published news sources which relate to the subject such as "World news" for example. This is the reason why this is a notable event. According to Wikipedia:Core content policies I think it succeeds on verifiability, which is the reason I expect to see this article kept. Minima c (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note and suggestion on renaming Just want to note that user Off2riorob broke the Wikiquette rule. Also, my suggestion for renaming is to Tripoli clashes (2011), the current name set by Off2riorob simply feals wrong. But I am not for naming it a battle. Because there is no battle here.EkoGraf (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Guaka (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second recomandation Since there have been no new clashes since February 26, I suggest to rename this article to Tripoli clashes (2011) and set an end date as February 26.EkoGraf (talk) 22:55, 6 March 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article shows clear signs of notability and demonstrates an event that to me looks like is going to happen. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim has not foothold in policy or guidelines, an event that looks like it is going to happen is not presently reportable, this allegedly is an online encyclopedia not a news report. If it breaks out then it may have legs but right now its a load of unverified press claims and exaggeration that are refuted on the next press promo loop.Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork of 2011 Libyan Uprising. Read this article, read that article, it's obvious which one has to go. The protestors want democracy is pure OR. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does either article have to be deleted?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's been renamed; no opinion one way or another about the article, but I'm showing the move of title as part of the title of the discussion. Mandsford 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the present 22:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) non-crystal name 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli). The length criterion of WP:SPLIT justifies having better organised, more complete details of Tripoli info here while leaving brief comments in the main article, e.g. as in 2011_Libyan_uprising#5.E2.80.937_March. Tripoli contains about 1/6-th of the Libyan population and is the political capital. Boud (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article show notability however I believe the article could be better organised however I expect this to happen naturally as it is an ongoing event. IJA (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Under construction/2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) for two weeks. Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:Article_incubator/2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) as per WP:Deletion_policy#Incubation and WP:Article_incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and MOVE to Tripoli clashes. --92.4.76.233 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) - — 92.4.76.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 15:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NE0N[edit]

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

Delete because article does not show notability. WP:PROD was tried, but page author contested. —C45207 | Talk 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability whatsoever. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yep, no evidence of meeting the notability criteria. —Gƒoley Four— 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one who PRODded it; my rationale then still stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, this is why people need to actually mark the page patrolled when they tag it with CSD/PROD/maintenance tags; about half the 250 or so pages I'm patrolling have or have had tags on them. This page was still unpatrolled, and fairly near the back of the log, so I thought it hadn't been touched yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder.—C45207 | Talk 07:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this has to do with the Twinkle bug (for some reason it's not marking pages as patrolled even though it says it is), but for some reason PRODding an article never automatically marks it as patrolled. Just a heads up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy / Snow Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#OR etc. Fæ (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of the above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable or SpeedyDelete [17]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 9 March 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) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duality (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable "microbudget" project. "It is currently being submitted to film festivals and is seeking distribution," and my guess is that the WP page written by a WP:SPA is part of that attempt. It is five years later, so notability probably won't come any time soon. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear failure of WP:NF fuzzy510 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists.[18] It premiered in Boston in 2006 and on DVD in 2007.[19] It did receive a few reviews and the director himself interviewed... but only in a few non-RS.[20] And wow, the film can be seen on Youtube in 11 parts.[21] I will grant that the acting and productions values seem decent enough for a microbudget film... but as the film and director were never covered in reliable sources,[22] all we can state is that it exists. WP:NF is failed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 9 March 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duality (Star Wars fan film)[edit]

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

Non-notable fan film, no assertion of notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have started a post relating to how WP:NF relates to fan films such as this at WT:FILM. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "No assertion of notability" is incorrect - article mentions coverage in Entertainment Weekly (which I found here) and from Apple.com. Article needs to be edited with references added throughout, but the coverage from the three articles linked at the bottom of the page are more than enough to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there was an assertion, if you look at the sources they aren't all that great. Notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The EW article has a blurb about the project, the Apple article mentions right in the beginning that the film was made with Apple products (and since when has Apple been a news & information source?), and the Time piece is based on a website visitor poll. I have never heard of DigitalProducer.com so I don't know how good that one is, though it is an entire article so that is something. WP:NF heavily favors commercial release, but I don't think it has fan films in mind. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I concur however I confess to curiosity why this wasnt put in the article.Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat
Keep - I've reedited the article, removing a lot of the unsourced content and to include the provided sources, as well as a more recent reference from Time magazine. 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Film is really only mentioned in the sources within the context of Star Wars fan films, not as a unique standalone work in its own right. The sources establish the notability of the phenomenon driving the production of such films, not this particular film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage. [23] CanMag is referenced in 116 Wikipedia articles, but doesn't have its own article. It looks like a reliable source though. Entertainment Weekly mentions it. [24] IFILM programming director Jesse Jacobs said "Duality absolutely blew me away, and a lot of people out there are saying this is the best they've ever come across." Other results are out there, but most require a paid subscription to see what they say. I think this provides its notable though. Dream Focus 22:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, IFILM actually hosted the video, so I don't think it would qualify as a second party. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hosted, but not produced. However, the quote came from Entertainment Weekly. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 8 March 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.

^ Chomsky, Noam. "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State".

[1] Chomsky, Noam. "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State".

[1]