Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 21

< 20 September	22 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I have boldly deleted the article as entirely promotional according to speedy criterion G11, just as i would had I seen it outside this AfD. . It amounts sourcing an article with a persons attempts to raise money; that is using the encyclopedia for promotion. WP:NOT supersedes the GNG, but the alternative would have been to remove the promotional material, and that would have included the sources. I will AGF in writing the article, but instead of viewing it as a thoughtless attempt to seize on whatever references might be available, it could alternatively be seen as a cynical attempt to exploit our policies. I'm amazed that anyone would defend this article--such a defense is a concentration on the wording of rules without taking into accoount our purposes. WP:N is not a loophole. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Styring

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

I do not see anything in the article that would make it notable according to wiki guidelines Snowman (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites in GS are 7, 6, 4, 1, 1. Although the area of scholarship is likely to be lowly cited, the cites achieved by the subject are not sufficient to pass WP:Prof#1. I don't see anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose. She has a fair number of publications, including several as senior author. Maias (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GS shows 8 publications with her as first author of 6. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Given that her attempt to crowd fund her research has been mentioned, in rather more than passing, in both the NYT [1] and Die Zeit [2] (both already cited in the article), there's an argument for WP:GNG - though possibly more at the "this deserves a mention somewhere" level than the "she deserves her own article" one. But one interesting note - while she gets several GNews hits, neither of these two is among them. Is GNews missing anything else? PWilkinson (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Therefore, the topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To further clarify, keep vote is based upon additional sources [3] and [4] listed above by user:PWilkinson. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator based the nomination for deletion upon information within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. This isn't congruent with WP:BEFORE guidelines. AfD is about the notability of topics based upon the availability of sources, not the article's content. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the RSs are there, as reflected above. Per WP:BEFORE, nominations should be focused on whether such sources exist, not whether they are in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cookson

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

References don't verify anything in the article, and no evidence of coverage from independent sources has been provided. Peter E. James (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete— per Xxanthippe, and fact that even under other name of ann wilkins, h-index still seems to be about 1, not enough for WP:PROF. in no way enough material for gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hold If a photo is taken and uploaded of her plaque in the Lancaster University central room will this candidate be accepted? (Preston North End Dan (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep - Internet sources aren't widely available, but other reliable sources are available, particularly in academia. Refer to references section in the article for some examples. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete Not a single one of the "sources" you provide support any of the material in the article, let alone establish notability. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— agreed. the first one mentions her name in the acknowledgements, but says nothing about her. i can't see where she's even mentioned in the second, but possibly because it's paywalled. she's not an author, though, and i'm guessing it's also an acknowledgements situation. the third one has her listed for a couple years as a donor to the geological society. these sources are really random, not about her, don't support the info in the article. truly not notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Reiteration: Internet sources aren't widely available, however other reliable sources are available, particularly in academia. Perhaps a more thorough library search and searches in scientific journals would be appropriate to establish notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Northamerica1000, it is those wishing to keep the article that need to establish notability. Reasoning that there must be something out there, somewhere, is hardly enough to credibly claim notability by Wikipedia standards. You seem certain that such references are indeed available - would you care to share exactly which journals specifically? Could you also explain which criteria the subject meets with regard to WP:ACADEMIC? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, sorry for some duplication)comment— could you list a few, Northamerica? i checked jstor as well as gscholar. it's well-known to be impossible to prove a negative, but i think no one here is arguing that she meets the gng, so that leaves wp:prof. if she's at all notable, she'd be showing up either in gscholar or in jstor. i'm completely willing to change my mind, but unless you can actually cite some sources, even sources "in academia", i see no way for you to sway anyone, because no one will be able to check. the ones in the article are useless. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see the coverage needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Vanity article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Traoré

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

I initially de-PRODded, but after discussion at my talk page and WP:FOOTY, I've concluded that an AfD is probably a good idea.

Having struggled to find more mainstream sourcing from the french media or the usual statistical channels, I guess there are two questions. Is leberry.fr a reliable source? And if it is, does Bertrand's 20 minutes for Burkina Faso make him notable? —WFC— 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. Since the PROD was contested, and since WFC and I have discussed the matter on his talk page, I have been in two minds about this player's notability, and am now edging towards delete. My main issue is verifiability - all we have to confirm the claim to notability (i.e. playing 20 minutes at international level) is one source of questionable reliability. Even if he did play, we don't know if the match in which he played was an officially sanctioned, senior full A-team game i.e. was it legit? The lack of sources about both the match and the player have got my spider senses tingling; I mean, we don't even know what club this guy plays for! There were reports from The Sun (notorious for its lack of reliability) in August 2010 saying he had signed for Chelsea, but in January 2011 the BBC (much more trustworthy) confirmed that had still not signed for the club. There is also no mention of him on Chelsea's otherwise comprehensive official player profile site, and no news story from Chelsea about his international appearance - strange, as you would have thought that they would have raved (well, at least mentioned) one of their young "superstars" making a senior international debut at the age of just 15! Giant Snowman 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - research + improvements to the article have now verified the claim to notability (i.e. being a senior international footballer), although I still have concerns at this player's club status - Facebook is NOT a reliable source! Giant Snowman 02:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Le berry (it's also the same content as "Le Populaire") is not the only source confirming he played for Burkina Faso[5][6] Also, FIFA.com lists the friendly game[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, this video from Orange Foot (sponsors of the AFCON) interview him, he talks about life at Chelsea: 10:40 seconds onwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This interview, published 4 days ago confirms he is at Chelsea[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 01:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a Burkinabé international, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the last comment, as a Burkinabé international, he passes WP:NSPORT and specifically WP:NFOOTY. TonyStarks (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability seems to now be established, check out the references in the article that establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and the manner in which the sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that this person has played an official game of senior international football, that this is adequately sourced, and that this is considered by the community to warrant an article. In ordinary circumstances I'd withdraw, but while we've got people's attention on the article, I still have concerns over the sourcing. Burkina24 states that he is 17, which is clearly at odds with the statement that he turned 16 this month. And I cannot believe that no English source of equal quality and relevance to the French ones can confirm him being at Chelsea. Any ideas on where to look to clear these details up? —WFC— 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find his name at all on the Chelsea website (searched it through Google) and he's not listed in their Academy or Reserve squads. However, I did find this from when he signed with the club as a 14-year old: [9]. TonyStarks (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all reports saying he signed for Chelsea in August 2010 are false; the BBC (super trustworthy) reported in January 2011 that he still hadn't signed. I don't think he ever did, hence his complete (and suspicious) absence from their website. Giant Snowman 13:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Burkinabé international. Playing for your national team at 15 is quite extraordinary. Great work on the sourcing. I did see that he played and scored for Chelsea's under-18 team in a pre-season match, but it wasn't from a reliable source so it can't go in. I thought Chelsea would be all over this story, to be honest. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy (musician)

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. The only reference in the article is a Twitter post, and I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I was going to bring this to AfD for the same reasons myself, but decided to give discospinster first dibs. My thoughts of the article are best summed up on its talk page. -- WikHead (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't even really released anything yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like another few reasons why this article should remain on wikipedia then please read carefully through WP:MUSICBIO. This artist has created music which meets the Album, singles and songs part of WP:MUSICBIO. Please also read 'if the subject is not notable section of WP:MUSICBIO. The article avoids self promotion, his work can be verified through independent sources and the recording artist himself has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article. Now in my opinion I think you did not compare the article with the information given on WP:MUSICBIO. Before replying make sure you have read through the whole article before making opinionised assumption of why the article I have written should not remain on wikipedia.

Isammostafa (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - None of his work can be verified through independent reliable sources. Twitter is not a reliable source and is the only reference provided. This fundamentally undermines your argument. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have replied without checking the article or WP:MUSICBIO. If you go to Izzy (musician) and go down to references there are independent sources listing the recording artists music. There is only 1 twitter reference which has been given on many wikipedia articles such as the reference for Justin Bieber's One Time single. The rest of the references on the article I have written come from music websites.

Isammostafa (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There was only twitter when I checked, but perhaps I had some issue with a cached version of the page. Blogs are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability or meeting WP:MUSIC is shown. I do not consider the references in the article as it stands as reliable sources. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now have enough references to support my article so that it is not deleted. Look at the references and you will see that the artists music has been hosted and placed on a major music website - HotNewHipHop. This website is 100% reliable, and can be used as an independant source as listed in WP:MUSIC to show the artists work.

Isammostafa (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Uploading your music to a site does not make it notable. Self-published sources are not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe your argument is valid, to create an artist account on HotNewHipHop you are asked to provide references for your work so that they can approve you as a recording artist on there website. Stating the fact that the music on that website is self-published does not change the fact that the music is featured on a major music website. The references defianately apply with everything in WP:MUSIC.

Isammostafa (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - Dude! Check me out! I am Grand Master Q with the Wiki Wiki Wiki song. That must mean I am notable too! NOT! -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't demonstrate one criterion of WP:MUSICBIO and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhawn Joseph

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

As I stated in my WP:PROD, this particular person does not seem to have received the requisite third-party notice that Wikipedia requires for biographies. See WP:BIO and WP:PROF since the claim to notability seems to be one of academic success. The article itself appears to be a puff-piece made to generally praise the subject and I'm wondering if this article was created at the behest of the subject considering: this.

The question to consider here is if there are enough third-party notices in reliable sources for us to write an article on this person. So far, it seems that the passing mention of this individual has occurred to a level that is barely perceptible in the journals and really the most intense notice has occurred on blogs and personal internet pages which we should not be linking to considering WP:BLP. Additionally, much of the information is currently sourced to Rhawn Joseph's personal pages.

Another relevant guideline to consider is WP:FRINGE. I think that there are a number of users who are questioning whether he has the notability that we would require for a fringe promoter. There certainly are far more famous anti-Darwinists, anti-Big Bang-ist, pro-panspermia people that we write about (Chandra Wickramasinghe comes to mind as does the late Fred Hoyle), but I just don't think the subject of this article has risen to the level of fame we would require to write a decent article on the subject. Basically, we have a PR-piece written to promote Joseph at this point, but I don't see how we can satisfy WP:NPOV considering there aren't enough independent third-party evaluations that have occurred reliably. We're in a morass for satisfying WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:RS all at the same time. Generally, when it is the editorial decision of the Wikipedia community that it is impossible to write an article that follows the pillars of this website, we ask that the article be deleted.

It may be that Rhawn Joseph becomes more famous in the upcoming years. Maybe he will be regarded as the next Deepak Chopra, etc. If that happens, we can recreate the article with third-party evaluation. Until that time, I don't think that there is enough to keep an article.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note made after filing: this discussion may be of relevance. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet our standards of notability, either professionally or as a crackpot. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rhawn Joseph is a well known academic with 1000s of references for his work on neruropsychology which can found online, he is well spoken of, just look on google books, he is even mentioned in mainstream neuroscience textbooks. How can you say he is fringe when Roger Penrose has peer reviewed some of his neuroscience publications? Dr. Rhawn Joseph PhD has over 120 peer reviewed publications in all kinds of journals. The user 76.119.90.74 is a sock account of a user "headbomb", he has a vendetta against Rhawn Joseph as Rhawn Joseph is in opposition to the Big Bang and this user headbomb is Catholic who does not like an eternal universe he is also a fascist calling anyone who believes in a different idea a "crackpot". Also see how this user has called rhawn joseph and his work "crackpot" on the Journal of Cosmology article, this user is not neutral, six other users have also said this user is not neutral, he has a vendetta against Joseph and anyone working for the JOC. I would also point out, that panspermia apart from Hoyle and Chandra has little advocates on wikipedia, Joseph should be on wikipedia, wikipedia is a free knowledge website, why supress information from it? Joseph is a scholar he should be on wiki.

IndianNationalist (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — IndianNationalist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IndianNationalist, please don't make personal comments about other users. That kind of talk just weakens your arguments, and if you make a habit of it, it can get you banned. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to back that up with reliable sources? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(editorial aside) That Roger Penrose has descended into, to put it charitably, advocacy of highly unorthodox ideas with respect to the study of consciousness is something that is well-known. Having Penrose as a fellow-traveler in that regard isn't very surprising, though I wonder what Penrose would say about Joseph's strident hatred of Big Bang cosmology if he knew about it. Penrose, while questioning the necessity for inflationary cosmology, essentially accepts the facts outlined at Big Bang. This is somewhat off-topic, of course, but suffice to say that having had Roger Penrose read something you wrote is no more a mark of notability than having anyone else read something you wrote. What matters are what the sources themselves are verified to have published, as The Blade of the Northern Lights implies. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IndianNationalist (talk · contribs) has been blocked as one of a set of POV-pushing sockpuppets, but appears to be the only one of them who commented on this AfD (unless I missed something in my reading). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are deep in the realms of Californian kookery, but with a GS h-index of 21 in biomed there may be a WP:Prof#C1 case for a weak keep. The case is not helped by abuse of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Did you eliminate self-citations from that search? He is prolific seeing as how he is well-connected to the Journal of Cosmology, but it does not appear to me that he is widely cited by others. Third-party notice should be the standard, I think, not easily manipulable h-index. Still, if you can find some sources that aren't Joseph himself or obvious associates, that would be a good argument. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be valuable if you would give us citation data with self-citations removed. On the first GS hit with 175 cites there do not seem to be any self-citations on the first page at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, you make a good point in showing that there is another aspect to this fellow's publication history that may warrant further study, but I still come to the conclusion that he is essentially not all that notable. The work to which you are referring is a textbook that is appreciated by certain segments of the psychology and especially the psychoanalytical community, but not the hard neuroscience community. As it is, it doesn't appear referenced in the usual neuroscience journals but rather as one of the pile of references used in the logorrheic citations lists that seem somewhat peculiar to the psychoanalytical world. Let's look at the first page of of GS citations you mention:

Four rather famous works on the psychoanalytical idea of affect regulation by Schore, a UCLA neuropsychoanalyst.
An exhaustive textbook by Walsh on Neuropsychology that seems to make passing mention as part of the psychoanalysis aspect of the text.
A text arguing for a connection between psychotherapy and neuroscience based on some sort of metasynthesis of the subjects by a psychologist at Pepperdine who is an expert on schizophrenia.
Saver and Rabin somewhat famous work deconstructing religious experiences as delusions where they cite the book as a basis for their statement that certain kinds of epilepsy share characteristics with religious euphoria.
Georg Northoff's investigation of catatonia criticizes Joseph's textbook explicitly: "Other authors (Joseph et al. 1985, Wilcox 1991) observed a cerebellar atrophy in catatonic patients which however was neither investigated systematically nor quantitatively. To my knowledge no study specifically investigating catatonic syndrome (and not only catatonic schizophrenia as a subtype) has been published so far."
Devinsky, NYU Medical Center researcher, writes another article on epilepsy making nods to Saver and Rabin as well as many of the people they cite.
A Psychoanalysis Journal on emotion and the "Mind-Body connection".

I see the borderline-iness of this situation here, but I'm still inclined to be swayed that writing an article about this person may not be possible. That some of his texts and papers are cited by others is interesting, but they don't seem to take enough notice for us to squeeze out a reliable BLP for the guy.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability from the very first sentence, "Rhawn Joseph is a neuropsychologist at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California." But the staff listing of the VA Palo Alto Health Care System does not include him. The only clickable links at the article are self-referential. He has a lot of articles and books at Google Scholar; the most cited ones seem to be from the 1980s (perhaps when his ideas were more mainstream?); but overall does not seem to fulfill WP:SCHOLAR. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plaudits to Melanie for this detective work. The BLP is so favorable to its subject that one wonders about its provenance. There is a darker side [10] to be explored. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Great find with that link, Xxanthippe - in which a noted skeptic suggests that she was tricked into contributing a chapter to a book of Joseph's. Even more interesting is the publisher of that book, listed as "University Press, California" which is easy to mistake for the highly respectable University of California Press. In fact "University Press California" seems to publish e-books, all of them by Rhawn Joseph - in other words, it's a somewhat deceptively named format for self-publishing. That seals it as far as I am concerned; this article, and this person, do not belong in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the cabal of crazies decided to make things personal, let me just clarify that science doesn't care about the religious background of someone who proposes a theory, and neither do I. I'm not a 60 years old Catholic, I'm a 27 year old atheist, and I couldn't give two shits about the religious background of Georges Lemaître's (who was the original proposer of the Big Bang theory). I'm no more a Catholic because I consider Big Bang-denial prima facie evidence of kookery, than I am a Muslim for believing the basic rules of algebra are sound.

Regarding whether or not Joseph is notable is another thing. It's a known name in Astrobiology circles, but not one you'd know for reasons favourable to Joseph. His astrobiology publications are certainly not taken seriously, and you can really only find them cited in Journal of Cosmology, by authors closely associated with J Cosmology, or by Joseph himself. He's got several books published, but those are mostly self-publications or in the realm of vanity press. I have no idea what his reputation in neurology-related fields is however (I am utterly unimpressed with his treatment of the mind/religion/whatever, however). He made some waves in the blogosphere, but nothing particularly remarkable. All in all it doesn't really matter to me if we have an article on Joseph. It'd be useful to warm people about him, but we could say that about any quack out there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Delete, I don't see him pass WP:PROF for his work in neurology, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG for his pseudoscientific work either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS lists a book published by Williams & Wilkins (a respectable publisher) that has been cited 175 times. There are a few articles in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, Behavioral Biology (now: Neurobiology of Learning and Memory), and Child Psychiatry and Human Development that have been cited around 100 times. These are all respectable scientific journals. On the other hand, this is a heavily cited field and these articles are old (so have had a long time to collect citations). In addition, GS is notoriously unreliable regarding citation scores (many double hits, counting stuff that should not be counted, etc; see also Ike Antkare). Unfortunately, the Web of Science lists over 600 authors named "R. Joseph", so that it would take much more time than I have at the moment to get some more reliable data from that database. I have no opinion on whether Joseph meets our notability guidelines as a fringe/pseudo-scientist. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Take a look at the talk page of the article here, which appears to be an authentic appeal from the person the article is based upon to delete the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The information in the discussion page is about slander concerns. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to verify the person's claim to be Rhawn Joseph? (And doesn't it seem odd that someone who appears to be so self-promoting in terms of his publications should now claim that he is "not a public figure"?) BTW I notice that the same IP address has also made "slander" allegations with regard to the Journal of Cosmology article - in that case including threats of legal action which could have led to the blocking of the IP. With regard to the article about Joseph himself - the one under discussion here - there is nothing remotely negative or slanderous in the article; if anything it is a puff piece. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is Rhawn Joseph himself who's pissed he can't control what his article say about him and is concerned that mainstream opinions about his non-mainstream cosmology-related work will be given due weight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't matter if it really is him or not - since the article will be kept or deleted based on Wikipedia criteria like notability and verifiability, not on the wishes of the subject. The article as it stands is highly favorable to him, but maybe he is concerned that some of the things in this discussion might make their way into the page if it stays. He is clearly following this discussion; in his comment at the talk page, he responded to my discovery (above) that he is not actually on the staff at the Palo Alto VA Medical Center. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As notability is, at best, marginal, there is no harm in acceding to subject's request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can wait until next year and see if Joseph becomes a media darling. We can wait until the year after that or still another year to see if he becomes sufficiently notable. Meanwhile, there is no harm in not having the article. Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. As it stands, the article looks very much like a WP:MEMORIAL, but there might be enough sources to salvage it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zola Levitt

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

An article on a televangelist which has a profound lack of reliable independent sources. No evidence of actual significance. Seems to violate WP:MEMORIAL. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic notability requirements. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article notes he was the author of more than 50 books, 200 songs, and 2 musicals. He was the host of a weekly program on hundreds of TV stations and formerly the host of two top-rated radio talk shows. The charge of WP:MEMORIAL is specious: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The article existed when he was alive and well. The assertion of non-notability is erroneous. An assessment from a peer: http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/other/zola "You are the best-known and best-loved messianic Jew in the world." - Ac44ck (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article is deficient in citations to reliable sources, but Levitt was one of the more significant figures in the promotion of Messianic Judaism and there's quite a bit of material about him available at gBooks[11] and gScholar [12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:MEMORIAL. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the way in which you think it violates WP:MEMORIAL. - Ac44ck (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how they might meet notability guidelines. --On the counter (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - Article is written like a WP:MEMORIAL and an advertisement. It needs help. This person does not have significant coverage in secular print but moderate in religious Evangelical circles. Usually AfD start on the Talk Page and ask/discuss improvement. This seems very quick. Basileias (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing special about him, just a televangelist. All his info comes from himself or his friends. He does not deserve recognition in an Encyclopedia.--Calliphoria (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I am concerned about the treatment of articles who are about Jews tied with Christianity. Like in the article recently deleted (Michael L. Brown), we are having a few Single-purpose account accounts springing up submitting them for deletion or voting to delete. See here. This is concerning. I would suggest this vote not be counted. Basileias (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote, but I strongly suggest that you tag SPAs.Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Ipsign (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and Basileias. It's a complete hot mess, so incubation of the article may be necessary. However, my look-see into the potential sources shows lots of possible additions and citations. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 21 September 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep— it's a little hard to sort out the books by this guy from the books about this guy in the google books search, but it can be done. he is notable in the sense that he is discussed in at least two independent and reliable sources. i added two from google books to the article in the (newly-created) further reading section (instead of just linking to the searches here, because they were hard to find). there are certainly also reliable sources in the news search, but i don't have time right now to sort them out of the nonsense. anyway, two third-party rs is enough for the gng, despite the sorry state of the article. note: i am not counting that jewsforjesus.org source among the sources. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable in the sense that he has not done anything much notable. For the most part, there is very little about this person that is not from the evangelical world.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— i'm not sure what you mean here. could you point to some part of WP:GNG that excludes sources from the evangelical world, or from any world, for purposes of establishing notability? he wrote some books and then people wrote about those books in third-party sources, making more than just passing mentions. one of the sources i added to the article is published by zondervan. it is an evangelical publishing house, yes, but i can't see how anyone would argue that it's not reputable, independent of its subjects, and thus WP:RELIABLE. likewise with the encyclopedia of evangelism. when we evaluate scientists, we accept the writing of other scientists, so why not evangelicals writing on evangelicals? of course evangelicals will be the ones to write about evangelicals. possibly no one else cares enough to write. if they produce reliable sources, their subjects will meet the gng. anyway, it's not like evangelical christians are some kind of fringe group. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is miles away from perfect, but as indicated by Alf above the sources already cited do seem to meet WP:GNG. Definitely something to work with and third-party news reports satisfy notifiability. Also as mentioned above, there is no reason to suggest sources published "in the evangelist world" don't satisfy WP:GNG.basalisk (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person fails notability. --Iairsometimes (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written like a WP:MEMORIAL and looks like an advertisement. This person does not have significant coverage. --Kylfingers (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague claims from User:Arxiloxos (g books this and g scholar that) that he has made no attempt to add to the article are unimpressive completely. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—anyway, i trimmed out all the unsourceable crap from the article and made it encyclopedic, at least to my eye. it seems to me, as i said before, that two solid reliable sources makes the dude meet the gng. i'm not even counting worldnetdaily as reliable, but just leaving it in to verify date of death.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Cowley

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

British Army officer who is not notable Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject appears to be a recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal, which may or may not indicate notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deceased person has been awarded with Distinguished Conduct Medal and was known for his activities in world war II. Due to unavailability of references somehow i managed to add 1 reference that might support article and would clear notability guidelines. Dr meetsingh Talk 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dr meetsingh Talk 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Delete. Recipients of single second-level decorations are not considered automatically notable and Cowley was a relatively junior officer. The reference from the Daily Telegraph is actually just an announcement of death; had it been an actual obituary I would change my opinion. The other two sources are just mentions of the man's name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was this the same guy? [13] The article mentions him active in the Middle East, but not there specifically. How notable are these awards he has won? Would he get anything other than local newspaper coverage for winning them? Dream Focus 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The DCM is a second-level gallantry award, comparable to the DSO or CGC. High, but not automatically notable enough for an article (although winning a bar probably would be). The OBE is a fourth-level service award often awarded to mid-ranking civil servants and senior military officers below colonel rank, for example. Again, one is not automatically notable for having been awarded it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable war hero also honoured for his services after the war. I have added another citation. Warden (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Both of the writers of that book are notable for their work, and I have added links to their Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in passing in a book does not make one notable, however notable the authors! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention is one that is tangential to the main topic. That is not the case here as the source in this case covers the history of the subject's regiment and details a notable exploit of his, which furthered the regiment's cause. It is therefore not passing. Warden (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was mentioned in a book by a notable historian, his accomplishments something worth recording for history, plus all the notable awards he has won. Dream Focus 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I also found this passing mention, for what it is worth. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very passing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. It would be nice to find something really substantial. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if this biographical article gave some context for the action which led to his medal. From reading Coldstream Guards I see this engagement occured immediately before Operation Market Garden, but I can't tell whether it was in response to a German counterattack -- which would strongly support his notability -- or simply part of the forward advance which followed D-Day -- which in itself would not. -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won the Distinguished Conduct Medal, a second level military decoration. He was leader of a company in the Coldstream Guards during WWII and later Camp Commandant for a Brigade of the same. He reached the rank of Major before retirement and was later appointed a Military Knight of Windsor. Not to mention the other stuff later. Silver seren^C 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Dyse Vujic

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

Phantom soccer player that was placed in Shakhtar Donetsk teamlist. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as a blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As above. Complete nonsense. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant hoax. Jogurney (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - I've deleted the article as a blatant hoax. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems

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

Uninformative advertisement for a global company specializing in software product development services. While the article claims that the business works closely with pioneering start-ups, innovative enterprises and the world’s largest technology brands, all I know about what they make or do after reading the article is that it must have something to do with computers. Only claims to minimal importance are listings on the Bombay and India stock exchanges, and references to petty trade awards and Top 100/500 lists of "Leaders", "Excellence", or "Managing Health at Workplace". Referenced to press releases.

Even if this business is notable, this article is entirely unhelpful, and presents no information that could be worked into anything better. Most Google News results relate to the stock going up or down. Deleted once at AfD (bundled: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reachwell Software Services Private), overturned at WP:DRV here, more recent AfD was closed as no consensus. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the nominator totally fails to mention in a totally inaccurate rationale is that the company meets WP:CORP by a big margin. This and this are already enough to meet the fundamental requirement of signficant coverage in non-local relialbe sources and are in no way press releases. The fully-sourced history section contains useful and relevant information, so the argument that the content isn't worth preserving (which goes against WP:Editing policy) doesn't hold water. More sources are easy to find, as a simple GNews search shows. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:CORP addresses notability. Even if this business were notable, the current article is an advertisement that seeks to promote this business while telling us next to nothing about it. And one of your sources is indeed yet another press release announcing a petty IT-business trade award for "Innovation": Persistent Systems on Wednesday announced that they have won the NASSCOM Innovation award for 2008, in the market facing - business process and business model category. NASSCOM has recognised Persistent’s innovative mobile strategy.... The other is a press release based story announcing a routine deal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a seriously weird definition of what a press release is if you think that the Indian Express article is one, since it obviously isn't written by a member of the company but by an independent journalist. There's also absolutely no evidence that The Times of India story is based on a press release, and since when was taking over a company with 200 employees routine by even the strictest standards? As for the "it's an advertisement" argument... read the article again. Except for maybe half of the second sentence, none of the article actually promotes the company but instead describes it in a neutral fashion, which is exactly what it should do. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a story says that it is reporting an announcement from a company, I tend to believe that it is in fact reporting an announcement from a company. Especially when the subject is a routine announcement that we won a non-notable trade award for "innovation" in "the market facing - business process and business model category". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NB -- I came here to better understand nom's thoughts, and how the community has reacted to them at other AfDs, given his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoldenSource. At that article he made a similar statement as to sources. I believe that Alzarian's view here is more in keeping with wp policy, and also don't understand nom's denigrating sources--without any evidence, or explanation other than what he tends to believe-- by calling them "a press release based story". We are within wp guidelines when we work with what we know that is verifiable, not with OR or what we tend to believe.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The story begins with the words Persistent Systems on Wednesday announced that.... I don't think it's a large leap to conclude that it's based on a press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Perhaps other editors can address nom's concerns. Epeefleche (talk) 3:31 am, Today (UTC−4)
Keep 320 news results to go through, but it seems to get ample coverage based on its stock, and they talk to the CEO in places about the company. Thousands of people work for this company, so it must be large and profitable(yes, that does matter by rule of common sense). This company is clearly notable. Dream Focus 11:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan S. Günsel

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

Non-notable individual, a check of notability via findsources confirms that there are no grounds for an article, not even at WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I've tagged the page as being a likely copyvio from original http://www.ydu.edu.tr/node/1409. --Lambiam 07:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underdog Syndrome

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

Recently formed group with a single EP release and no discernable press coverage. Fails WP:BAND Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are from the band's website, which means the article falls short of guidelines on self-published research and independent sources straight away. Nothing notable in the press either.basalisk (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction Industry Solutions Ltd

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

Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Unreferenced, promotional article about a back office software business that specialises in the design, development and delivery of business systems software to all sectors of the Construction, Service and Property Development industries. No verification of its claim to be the "UK market leader in its sectors of operation". Google News finds only its internal site and a routine press release announcing a routine acquisition. No showing of any technical, historical, or cultural significance. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found directories and press releases. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources than these two, but they don't actually focus on the company's history. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal Clott

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

Unremarkable comic strip character. No claims of significance or notability outside the magazine. Tried redirecting to The Dandy, but another editor reverted. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character and comic strip definetly notable as it is a long running comic strip which started in 1960 and has been revived a number of times most recently in 2011. The character is one of the comic's most popular characters and has had whole comics devoted to him such as the 82nd issue of Dandy Comic Libraries. Cover is here [[14]]. Also a number of less notable comic strips already have articles and if this one were to be deleted it wouldn't be good for the coverage of British Comics, such as The Dandy from which this character and comic strip originates, on Wikipedia. Eopsid (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books turns up coverage in various books. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above, this is a long running strip, in the oldest surviving British comic. I agree with Eopsid's opinion. Digifiend (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was going to do a speedy delete on G13 (incorrect use of an apostrophe in a possessive pronoun), but I decided to correct that instead. Seriously .... notable things stay notable on Wikipedia after they've faded from public memory. If Dennis the Menace was axed, we wouldn't delete the article ten years later, and I don't see why this should be any different. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought i was doing good by creating this article, then some big bully came over and bulldozed it. Now you turncoats want to keep it, and that's why i vandalised it. Oh, by the way, i'm Oliver Forde of yahoo answers, so if you've heard of me, be afraid, be very afraid! Beandand (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because i like to see people talking about comic strips, i love the beano and the dandy! Beandand (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can safely ignore the above indecisive troll called Beandand. Seriously, why vote to delete your own page? Crazy! Digifiend (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long running strip. If we're going to prune the far excessive number of very minor Beano & Dandy strip articles (and about time too), then this isn't the one to start with. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also please remember that AfD is not for cleanup The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of BBC television idents

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

The article has been going through the motions for a while now, with users removing all the images as violations of the fair use policy, and others reverting. It seems clear that the problem will not go away the way things are, but by deleting this article, non of the images relating to BBC One and BBC Two (the oldest BBC channels) will be lost and the information regarding them can be merged into their own articles. It will be necessary to create a separate article for CBBC idents in a similar vein to the individual articles for BBC One and Two's idents. This article is however, providing to be a stumbling block, and the way it is now, I can't see a widely agreed upon solution coming up for a long time. I'd like to also point out that I created this article as 'BBC television idents' several years ago, which I now consider to be a mistake, given how it has only really meant content that could be housed elsewhere has been spread out in this way.

It is also worth noting this article was nominated for deletion as part of a group, when ITV Idents and Presentation was nominated. This was on 17 December 2006 with the result "Delete, unless cleaned up". I'd say those initial reasons for the nomination still exist today. Cloudbound (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the article is significantly different and significantly more selective that it was when nominated in 2006. [15]. Also the article has been essentially stable, with much the selection of images it currently has. There has not been an ongoing tug-of-war of removals and reinstatements. Those who have looked at the article, some of whom take a distinctively strong line on NFC, have by and large left it as they have found it. Jheald (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's proposal makes no sense. He thinks it's worthwhile having a separate article on each iteration of the BBC's main channels' branding. But far more valuable is to have an article showing how that has evolved over time, preserving and maintaining particular visual cues, to allow the reader to assess for themselves that development, and see such stages in context of the whole. This is an article which is informative, and well used, on a subject of considerable interest to people particularly in the UK, where the BBC and by extension its main branding has the status of a symbol of the nation. (Note also the article's assessment by the BBC project as "mid-importance", not just low-importance trivia). This is a valuable article which readers find useful and should be kept. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather not have any of the separate ident articles either. Cloudbound (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when you say "none of the images relating to BBC One and BBC Two (the oldest BBC channels) will be lost and the information regarding them can be merged into their own articles", you are talking about articles you would actually want to see deleted? That seems to me to be not playing entirely straight. Jheald (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about what's happening at present. By deleting this article alone, none of the images would be lost. A future review of the individual pages may mean that later on, some images are deleted. Cloudbound (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I return to my point that it makes much more sense to have an article that brings this development over time together, into one place where it is reviewed, as we have now and have had for the last five years, rather than throwing it to the winds. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's in a mess. Cloudbound (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? It seems to me that it does substantially what it says on the tin: it gives the reader a sense of what the idents have been, and how and when and why they have evolved. Which seems to me pretty much what one looks up such an article to find out. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for five years as you say, and yet the argument over the number of images continues. Cloudbound (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on the talk page, I think the way some of the additional BBC satellite and digital channels are dealt with could and should be streamlined [16], with fewer images. But it seems to me that the treatment of the most important part of the article, the BBC's core visual identities -- those for BBC 1 and BBC 2 -- is about right, given that this is the topic of the article, and a topic (in my view) that is indeed worth covering. WP:NFC requires us to use no more images than significantly add to reader understanding about the topic. In my view, that is exactly the balance the BBC 1 and BBC 2 images achieve. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the images for the other channels. Wouldn't the individual articles for BBC One and Two's idents be sufficient, with the navigation boxes at the bottom? Cloudbound (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles you'd like to get rid of, you mean? :-) No, I don't think so. I think there is much more value, for somebody looking, in having the information in one place, so that they can get a reasonably complete overview from one article, which they can print out, or store and read offline if they want to. And that is also why such an article should be reasonably self-sufficient. Jheald (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article we have now is almost two or three articles in one already. Perhaps the separate articles on BBC One idents can be merged into one, and the same for BBC Two, with this article deleted. Deleting this article should end the ongoing dispute over the amount of images, which can't be a bad thing. Cloudbound (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I read the nom right, the suggestion is to delete the article because consensus on what to do with it can't be found? It's true the article is poorly referenced, and has issues like the use of Galleries, but that can be fixed. The topic is notable, and whether it should be split into separate articles (and I think it probably should) is a matter for consensus or WP:Mediation if none can be found. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the intention is to simply break this up into a number of sub articles, delete if not. As is, the article is lightly referenced, with 1/3rd of the references being primary references and a number of others going to fan/tribute sites. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see a problem with the article how it is. This is no different to how an article would look if every section had been expanded and split off into a separate article - the original article is still valuable as a summary of all the different sections, just as the lead paragraph of an article is useful even though it repeats information in the body text. The lack of references isn't a huge issue - you can check the sub-articles for the references there. I'd also put the images back in the article - it's within our fair use policy, the chance of the copyright holder suing us is near zero, and it makes the article so much easier to follow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't retain non-free content because we believe the chance of the Wikimedia Foundation being sued is low. We retain non-free content only when we absolutely must in order to achieve our mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that putting all the images through the year on one page greatly increases the usability of these pages (as opposed to clicking through every page individually), which furthers Wikimedia's mission that way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is in my opinion appropriate that the system stands like this: Pages with the idents and presentation package looked at in detail, and a short summary in one page which can link between all of the others and provide a reference point for the big picture. Some clean up needs to be done with the images, but I couldn't say what. The only thing I do know is that removing this page would be a backwards step and would make the topic, which is extremely important to the context of the BBC, innacessable to the general public. Rafmarham (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with the above points, and I find it hard to believe that a 52,382 byte article is up for deletion in the first place, it's usually stub class articles. Too much work has gone into this article to just wipe it all out in one go. Digifiend (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite all of you who have voted keep to assist in the improvement of the article, so that the improper use of copyright material tag can be removed. Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not quite sure this merits salting - if it pops up again, speedy+salt for sure. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axway

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

Article re-created after a prior deletion discussion resulted in speedy deletion as unambigous advertising.

This version is also unambiguous advertising that's written deliberately vaguely and can't be improved with editing (a global software company that provides multi-enterprise solutions and business-to-business (B2B) integration applications for the financial services, healthcare, automotive, retail/CPG, logistics/transportation, and government industries. Axway’s solutions feature a flexible integration and B2B framework, analytics, services and customized applications, and many of these solutions are available in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model.)

I am uncertain whether this business is notable, but it is referenced only to a directory listing, and an initial Google News search brings forth only press releases on the first several pages. Notable or not, the current text is both unacceptable and unimprovable as written. Recommend protection against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling, I was only able to find routine, uncritical coverage of the subject's press releases. I agree with nom that the article appears deliberately vague and offers little hope of improvement. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases do not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you want sources to be taken into consideration, you must list them explicitly so that other participants can evaluate them, rather than linking to search results and referring to them arbitrarily. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Tabke

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

Not known much outside of own webpage, pubcon and interview with himself Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't contain anything that would suggest notability. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources, let alone in independent ones. He is thanked a lot in book introductions, but that's not enough. Hans Adler 07:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete — per nom and Hans Adler. big fish in little pond of techblogolandia, but not himself a topic of significant discussion. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:39, 5 September 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) 13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I'm re-opening it on a good faith request by Jehochman. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMOTION. DonCalo (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article can be improved through editing. This is not a reason to delete. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brett Tabke is one of the best known experts on the World Wide Web. He runs PubCon, possibly the most popular webmaster conference. A Google book search returns many hits for possible sources - http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Brett+Tabke%22 - including texts in English, Italian and German. The fact that he is being covered, cited or mentioned around the world in reliable sources is a strong indication of notability. Wikipedia's natural hatred for SEOs - yes, some of them do occasionally spam us - should not cause an overreaction. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: He was also featured in the Biography Channel special on the Google founders. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply unsupported attribution: while you're entitled to your own opinion, you did not provide method and data used to substantiate your claim that he is "one of the best known experts" and your assumption "possibly the most popular webmaster conference". They're not attributed and to me they sound like unattributed voice in favor. Your disagreement with editorial consensus is not a reason to make a claim that its a natural hate or we're overreacting. Any persons of biography articles should have the same scrutiny of verification. Many journalists are quoted in many places, yet not all of them have WP pages dedicated to them. "SEOs" are not an exception to guidelines. Claiming bias for "dusty books" is not a good reason for circumventing reliable editorial control that many blog and personal sites are lacking. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— i did do that google books search, but the trouble i saw with it is that none of those books discuss the guy. at best they quote him on stuff, and many of them are mentions of his name in acknowledgements and from blurbs that he wrote for the purpose of advertising books. it's not that his name isn't out there in the world, but there doesn't seem to be much if anything written about him. i haven't seen the biography channel thing, but from the worldcat entry you provide, it looks like it features tabke talking about brin and page, not people talking about tabke, which again isn't especially relevant to the question of notability. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being frequently cited is an indication of notability - not a determination, but an indication. One problem we have writing about webmasters and web marketers is that they tend to produce a lot of fluff and buzz about themselves which tends to drown out the reliable sources. It is necessary to look beyond all the noise to find the sources. They are there. Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if they're there, would you mind linking to them? the google books search doesn't seem to have them in it. i would be happy to change my mind, but i really need to see something that discusses him. i don't think that this is a case of fluff and buzz drowning stuff out; there are 20 or fewer hits on google books and fewer than 200 on google news. i didn't look all the way to the bitter end of the news search, but nothing on the early pages looked at all promising. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite busy in real life. Cantaloup2 nominated most of our articles about famous webmasters for deletion all at once. Too many discussions have been going on at once to do much more than try to raise the issue and hope that others will carry some of the burden to find sources. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah. well, i don't have time to think of an appropriate, dignified, and incisive response to your request that i just believe you that sources exist, even though i can't find them. i'm sure that such a response exists, though, so perhaps you can just believe me and proceed as if i'd placed it in this space. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). This seems very clear cut, and I don't understand why the debate was re-opened. HairyWombat 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of non-notability? A Google Book search returns a large number of hits. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Brett+Tabke%22 It looks like there is enough there to be able to write an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a counting exercise; please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly WP:CREATIVE. What I see in the Google Book search you cited is a bunch of SEO people quoting each other. I do not see how this makes any of them notable. What I don't see is: Any biography, any well-known and significant award or honor, any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, more than a few citings (not quotes) by peers or successors, any significant new concept, theory or technique. HairyWombat 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On any esoteric topic you find a lot of literature where the experts are quoting each other. Your argument is not based in policy at all. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—HairyWombat's argument seems to me to be solidly based in the actual policies he cites in his remark. your argument, which seems to be essentially that there are a lot of google hits and that you don't have time to specify which of them are reliable and relevant sources, strikes me to be specifically contrary to long-standing consensus regarding deletion discussions, esp WP:GOOGLEHITS. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement, "Your argument is not based in policy at all.", by user Jehochman seems very strange given that my post was mostly cut & pasted from the relevant policy. I must suggest that the discussion would be aided if user Jehochman re-read the appropriate guidelines. HairyWombat 18:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G12 by DGG (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIPAA vs The Cloud

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

Unsourced personal essay comprising original research; PROD removed without reason by article creator. Yunshui (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of [17]; article so tagged. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE machine

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

The entire premise of this article is that the term "IEEE machine" describes any computer which implements IEEE floating point artithmetic. It does this in three unreferenced sentences, then adds some padding about what floating point artithmetic is. This does not justify a separate article, and if this was a recognised term then redirect to IEEE 754-2008 would be appropriate. However,I can find no evidence that the term is used at all; still less that it specifically refers to this particular IEEE standard - all occurrences of the phrase online appear to be mirrors of wikipedia, or part of something else (eg "IEEE machine learning"). At best this is a neologism; more likely it is madeup. Therefore, even a redirect is inappropriate and the article should be deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with the nom. I'm convinced this term is WP:MADEUP. I've certainly never heard it, but more important, neither has Google: The term doesn't appear anywhere in the literature (Google books or scholar). Common usage is IEEE floating point, which redirects to IEEE 754-2008. Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ruud 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not made up necessarily, but more precisely slang or jargon. Perhaps a valid subtopic might be something like a list of early machines that used the 754 standard (with dates and citations), and issues like the bug. But now it is so common to not be notable, and would make more sense to be part of another article anyway. For that matter, we seem to have a plethora of badly-cited articles already on this subject. As noted, IEEE floating point (which is what I would agree is the common name) redirects to IEEE 754-2008, while IEEE 754 revision describes the process that led to the 2008 edition, and IEEE 754-1985 that desribes the original edition. I would favor merging them all into the common named article, perhaps starting by appending -1985 the revision, and -2008 and moving the result. My reasoning is that even with, say, very notable books, we do not have separate articles on each edition. I have been working on merging some of the duplicate standards articles but do not have the cycles to do it now. Since we already have articles on the Intel 8087 and the Pentium FDIV bug no information would be lost if this is just deleted and the merge discussed as a separate issue. There might be enough material to support two articles, but three or four seems redundant. It does seem this has been proposed but trying to find a discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add it seems to be assigned as homework for three students in Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Computer Organization and Advanced Microprocessing even though content is from 2005. W Nowicki (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

On the articles IEEE 754-2008, IEEE 754 revision, and IEEE 754-1985 -- it might make sense to merge the first and third, but a lot of new material would need to be added to get the 2008 additions covered as well as the 'old' basics from 1985. This would make it very big and long -- perhaps a different structure altogether is needed: the 2008 article as top-level, pointing to "IEEE 754 binary formats" and "IEEE 754 decimal formats" which detail the bits and bytes.

I think the revision article is definitely best kept separate as it refers to the history and process rather than the content. Important stuff, but not what most readers will be looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 September 2011

Above comment was by User:Mfc who was editor of the actual standard. As for the other three related articles, yes, the precedent would be something like IEEE 802.16 which describes the standardization effort, and WiMAX which describes the products. I would imagine one IEEE floating point article that discusses the formats, and one IEEE 754 that discusses the standards efforts, for example. Anyway, getting off the subject of the delete discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Even though it is a jargon term, some Wikipedia users may be looking for a definition or explanation; a redirect would be friendly. But definitely no need for a separate article. Freederick (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kulesh

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

This nomination is in response to a technical request for help from Warrenking (talk · contribs) on my talk page; I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. Note that the previous AfD was speedily closed (by me) due to being a malformed nomination.

The gist of the rationale for deletion is that this person fails WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. A more complete explanation is available on the article talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 15 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMOTION. DonCalo (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does seem to have created a body of work, but it's not clear that it's received sufficient attention to be deemed notable. Gets some hits in the blogosphere, but seem to be mostly brief mentions and WP:ROUTINE listings. This is about as solid as it gets. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Beauty and the Geek Australia. Consensus to delete; seems fair enough as a redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Reading

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

Nominated due to lack of notability. This person's achievements are not important enough to warrant a separate page; the page is thus orphaned. Many sources are almost impossibly to verify, especially content on high school and other academic achievements and balloon modelling. Mike3685 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMOTION. DonCalo (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. YA RLY. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-Prime (software)

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

A software suite written up in spammy tone and with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software for "paradigm creation"? What the hell? It offers control over almost every aspect of paradigm creation, and is temporally accurate to within a few milliseconds, a crucial aspect of control for many research needs. One of the benefits to E-Prime is its user base of over ten thousand. When it's unambiguous advertising like this, notability isn't even an issue. Pity, too; this software is apparently used to run some kind of psychological testing, and if technical rather than PR people had written it, some useful information about an interesting field might have slipped in inadvertently. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that we can't add a {{humor}} banner ;-) Boghog (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear cut G11, (spam) tagged as such Secret ^account 04:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AVer Information Inc.

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

COI, self-published and primary sources, promotional. Was seriously considering speedying this, but it's borderline Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's pure spam. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. They do make a lot of claims that they've gotten awards, including several for Excellence! I bet they got a lot of gold stars in school, too. They call themselves a major global provider of presentation and education solutions, security surveillance solutions and video conferencing solutions, but they don't really say what these "solutions" look like. They apparently actually make overhead presentation projectors, video cameras, and accessories. Brimming with internal links to all the products. Probably not speedyable for insufficient claims of importance, but when the advertising is this bad, notability isn't really a consideration. Speedily delete this without prejudice to making a proper article, focused on any technical innovation and carefully avoiding "solution" as a description of any product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't look encyclopedic at all and nearly all the sources are the company's website. If this article were rewritten, it'd be better to start on a new slate. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. delete King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mame Mbar Diouf

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

Article listed for deletion, since the person is not notable, haven't played a match in a fully professional league Mentoz86 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I gather from the source cited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the Adeccoligaen is a semi-pro league (teams and players require professional licences yet not all players are professional) and that is is where the subject has played his football. Does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to have ever played for Senegalese national team, and I did not find him listed on curent squad or recent call-ups. Has played a few games in second-division Norwegian football, but that achieves nothing for notability. Was previously employed at first division, as well, but never managed to get in a game. Fails WP:NFOOTY. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't appear to meet any of the relevant notability criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian expatriate footballers

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

This article fails WP:OR and WP:V, no source proofing their Indonesian nationality or Indonesian descent. This article also fails WP:N, by listing non-notable footballers, including youth and futsal players. — MT (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being of Indonesian descent and being an Indonesian expatriate are NOT the same thing; regardless, as the nom says, this article is massively under-referenced and unverified (and probably unverifiable), and I see no merit to having it on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 02:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; screams original research by miles. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research and cruft. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense & unencyclopedic 'article'. Keb25 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and listcruft. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Silkie. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silkie bantam

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

This article is is not required. It covers an obscure species of bantam chicken,when the topic should be covered instead by the mother page, Silkie, instead. It also includes zero references and includes only one paragraph of writing, which is vague in meaning and substance. Anjwalker (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows extensive coverage in reliable sources going back over 100 years, so the topic is notable. I didn't see it described as "obscure". The solution to the shortcomings in the current article is to improve, expand and reference it. Deletion is not the solution when the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been a Silkie Bantam club in the United States since 1923, and they are the must popular form of Silkie in this country. In other parts of the world, the full size Silkie is more popular. Perhaps that's the source of the nominator's opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Silkie. There's more information there on the breed as a whole, so users wishing to gain information on the bantam would be better served by an addition to the larger article. Yunshui (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Silkie. I'm not sure if there'll be enough reliable info to justify a separate article, plus it'll be useful for the reader if it gets merged Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Silkie, which already has a brief discussion in the Characteristics section of the bantam/full size chicken debate. Generally, even full size silkies (at least here in the US) are only 3-4 lbs, so I'm not sure why the "bantam silkie" article says that they are "small" at 3-4 lbs. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Silkie. Most chicken breed articles do not provide an alternative article for the bantam variety of a breed, since other than those chicken breeds which are naturally bantam-sized only it is not different enough to merit a separate article. Also, as others pointed out, the "Characteristics" section covers the topic. Steven Walling • talk 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. She barely fails WP:GNG because the AllBusiness source is not quite independent, and barely fails WP:ENT because the roles are just not significant enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Anderson

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

Does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress played a starring role in an episode of Louie (TV series) and it appears she has been a part of older films and t.v shows. Definitely meets the minimum threshold for notability. Add some third party sources to secure verifiability requirement. Eunice Anderson, who is a senior and has been in the business for a long time, and the agents just gobbled her up.. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:55, 17 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Starring in a single TV episode is not sufficient to establish notability. Pburka (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable. Bazj (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - im not sure why people are saying she only stared in one tv episode her imdb listing is huge and not even complete. shes quite notable as Wikifan said Bouket (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that only one of her credits on IMDB has both a first and last name, and that character appeared in a single episode of Law & Order. Most of her credits have no name at all (e.g. Grandma, Woman, Neighbor). This suggests that she is primarily a supporting actress and is less likely to meet the notability guidelines. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A quote from someone effectively acting as her agent that she's gotten a lot of business is not entirely an independent source. At least [18] and [19] suggest she's an actress and are cleanly independent. But more importantly, I do not see " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that quote isn't large enough to my mind to be signficant), "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", (single episode appearances are rarely signficant), "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.". I'm willing to change my mind with sources that actually back up any one of these four claims, but remember that notability and verifiability are not isolated concepts, that instead, notability requires verifiable evidence. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunathan Parali

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

Doesn't appear to be especially notable and the sources do not suggest otherwise, 2 are to facebook photo albums and the other barely mentions him, prod was declined by an apparent spa Jac16888 ^Talk 18:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to give the editors a few weeks to come up with reliable sources and establish notability. They are obviously inexperienced, and it seems to me possible (if only a little bit likely) that the subject is indeed notable in Kerala. I have added the page to Wikiproject India to see if anybody takes an interest. (Question: if there are three SPAs which together serve one purpose, does that mean they are properly third-of-a-purpose accounts?) M.boli (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm changing my vote to delete. The creators and editors of this article have done very little to establish notability since the article was first AfD nominated, and seem to have given up trying. Furthermore there doesn't seem to be an article on Raghunathan Parali in the Malayalam Wikipedia, which would be a natural home for one. (Somebody who can read the language may correct me on that.) The one week discussion period is almost up. M.boli (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 15 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a translator and minor literary critic. Can't see any notable work as an author. Salih (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Corner

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

does not meet the notability criteria for a television program Dartroom (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including an entry in The complete directory to prime time network and cable TV shows, 1946-present and a lengthy review in the May 1, 1992 issue of Variety, which were quickly revealed by a Google search. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 15 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rlendog. Also, it was reviewed by Robert Goldberg in The Wall Street Journal. JORGENEV 05:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Dartroom, how does it not meet the notability criteria for a television program? It has significant coverage in very reliable different third-party sources. I do not agree with this AfD nomination at all. Keep. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Thomas

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

Non-notable author of non-notable books. The article is unverified, and I cannot find reliable sources to establish the notability of the books in question. The claim about one book being the source for the Edge of Love movie is unsubstantiated. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure: he is the co-author of a book that was discussed in The Guardian. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that The Edge of Love is based on one of his books is correct. It can be confirmed from an acknowledgement at the end of the film production notes. It is also worth noting that Mr Thomas has written fairly extensively on Dylan Thomas. Whether those are sufficent for notability I'm unsure, but there are plenty of references to the author in a Google search. --AJHingston (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AJHingston, passed criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Yunshui (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wrote a book on which was based a major (if not particularly well-received) feature film. Appears to meet the notability threshhold, although possibly only weakly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn with thanks to AJHingston: as far as I am concerned, that pushes it over the edge. Maybe someone can close this--I gotta run right now. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. v/r - T P 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line Integral Convolution

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

Not sure this 'product' even exists - and only refs are to its creators' publication, and their "tutorial" pages. "Line Integral Convolution (LIC) is a Scientific Visualization technique proposed (?) by Brian Cabral and Leith Leedom"

Almost certainly written by creators (see wording "we are [doing x,y,z]"), and about something which apparently doesn't yet exist! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. Although the article is very poorly written and almost incomprehensible GS picks up some hefty cites for the term. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
keep— the article is indeed a trainwreck (although does contain enough sources to establish notability in my opinion). nevertheless this is a hugely important algorithmic technique in computer graphics, as the scholar search in the find sources template indicates. it seems that it's perhaps even more notable than the scholar search might tell, as this google search suggests. it's possible that the first person plural in the article represents copyvio rather than coi, but i can't find it if it does. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wrote this article while I was learning for one of my CS courses at ETH Zurich. I am sorry that it's such a poor article, but even this would have helped me somehow understand the topic. It's one of my first articles, so please forgive me that I used "we" a lot, I will try to not do that in the future. As you already found out, Line Integral Convolution is quite an important technique and heavily cited in Scientific Visualization. The reason why you probably think this product does not exist is, that is really isn't a product but a technique. The exact output will depend on the implementation of this technique. That said, I would be very happy If you could help in pointing out what is bad at this article, so I could understand how to do it better. Tobo (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK - we all have to start somewhere! I've dropped some helpful information onto your talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 1500 hits on Google Scholar. —Ruud 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are reliable sources, and it seems the nom now agrees that this is probably not appropriate for deletion. WP:SNOW anyone? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry Withdrawing nom - yes, I'm happy to withdraw this nom. Real life overtook me - I should, of course, have done this earlier. Not sure if there's an "official" way to withdraw it, but take this as such, please! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Mahato

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

clearly fails WP:VICTIM. there is no longstanding notability of this crime. people get murdered all the time and we don't create articles for each case. seems a run of the mill murder "and he had died from a single gunshot wound. Durham police considered Mahato's slaying a random crime – with robbery being the motive" LibStar (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Harsh, but LibStar is absolutely right - fails WP:VICTIM completely. Yunshui (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad but not notable murder - fails WP:VICTIM. - DonCalo (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So he is murdered, but it's not notable, yet the article that links to it, of a white girl murdered, and a suspect is the murderer of this man, is notable? I'll give that terrible things and murder happen all the time, but it's hard not to look at that and immediately conclude "tragic white girl murder? NOTABLE. tragic indian foreign exchange student murder? Come on, this shit happens all the time."

please read WP:VICTIM. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Murder of Eve Carson also seems to fail the notability criteria at first glance. I will read it through, double-check policy, and open an AfD discussion on it if appropriate. Yunshui (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there have already been three AfDs on Eve Carson, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Eve Carson (snow keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (no consensus, default keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (2nd nomination) (speedy close per first nom). Personally I don't think she warrants inclusion under WP:VICTIM, but consensus seems to think otherwise. I have therefore not opened a new AfD. Yunshui (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted Pritam: The murder of Abhijit Mahato shouldn't be seen as just another case. He represents a section of student community from India who come to US for higher studies. He was a brilliant student and scholar, who got a chance to study at Duke university solely based on his merits. His case also shows the ignorance of US police and Indian embassy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritam.osu (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep sspadhee: Abhijit is not just another random guy. He was the best brain in his batch. Being a 10/10 is not easy in an IIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sspadhee (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears that this murder was for gain and nothing exceptional to warrant an article for the victim. Fails WP:VICTIM. Salih (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's fifth studio album

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation, in the form of WP:HAMMER. No title. No release date. Tracklist cobbled together from copyright notices and tweets. —Kww(talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION. This is a press release for a WP:CRYSTALBALL future album. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Item in question doesn't exist.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Perley

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

Nominating for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy for the following reasons :

The subject likely fails the notability criteria, with only one source of substance cited. Furthermore the source is self-published (by a family descendant), which means it cannot be used to establish notability; it could probably be used for verifiability but not if used alone, per #5 of WP:ABOUTSELF.
Wikipedia is not a memorial. There is an astonishing amount of non-encyclopedic content in this article, starting with the full transcript of the subject's will, the estate inventory, what the tombstones say, etc.
Disregarding the fact that the source cited likely fails WP:RS (per above), there seems to be some amount of original research (unattributed statements), especially in the Settling to section. That all Perleys in North America are descendants of the subject (see Because of Allan Perley) is also a fairly bold claim, which should definitely be attributed to a reliable source.

Based on the points above, particularly 1 and 2, I think this article is of little encyclopedic value and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a family tree. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 01:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Sources provided are self-published genealogical records. Respectfully, this subject is only significant to his descendants. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it can be shown that this person is something other than just another immigrant. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of such pages created by descendants for their favorite ancestor, just because. The comment on the talk page suggests that the creator's intent is to have the page serve as a forum for the discussion of their ancestor. If kept, it has to be pared down significantly. Agricolae (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everything here is of purely genealogical interest. The subject's only claim to notability seems to be as the ancestor of a family that does not appear to include any really famous members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Yunshui (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a lot of research has gone into this, but sadly this gentleman appears to be of interest only to genealogists researching his family. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Can you userfy this page for me other than deletion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this wouldn't qualify as "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article," described at WP:UPNO as inappropriate for a User page. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Agricolae (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Israeli legislative election

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

I respect the article creator's decision to create an article on this topic, but I'm not sure there's material to base an article on at this time - pretty much everything here is "background" (like that Netanyahu is the leader of Likud and that Barak resigned from Labor in January 2011) rather than material actually about the election, either speculative or concrete.

The title is also a problem - if kept, the article would have to be moved (to something like "Israeli legislative election 2013") and to have the original title deleted, because titles/redirects with "next" go out of date. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Marokwitz (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep look. There are lots of "westminister-style" governments that have articles like this. They are listed as "The next whomever's election" and nobody has deleted them. We don't know when the election will take place, but the preliminaries have already started. I figure that this is a stub of sorts and by the time that it is finished, it won't look anything like the way it is now, but we have to start somewhere, and that's what wikipedia is all about...Ericl (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—article might theoretically be viable, but at this point it needs a complete 100% rewrite to be so, and therefore there's no point in keeping it. The lead describes the conditions for early elections, which may or may not be relevant here (WP:CRYSTAL). Same with the other stuff—do we know that Livni and Netanyahu will be running in the next election? Maybe just one of them, or neither? Also, the entire article is OR and not supported by reliable sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Better a title that will go out of date than one that's plain wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bring it back when the elections are called or 2-3 months before its date. Happy138 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like these are fairly common. They also, however, tend to be a lot more fleshed out, with opinion polling and issues and whatnot. This article needs a ton of improvement from someone familiar with the topic, but deletion is a poor substitute for the stub tag. 209.6.164.8 (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't actually say anything about the next elections. All it includes is a little background information on major Israeli political parties. Poliocretes (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all pure speculation and opinion. It is way too early to see if any of this will pan out. --Kylfingers (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people in Xinghua，Jiangsu Province

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

Contested prod. Borderline speedy A10 for Xinghua, Jiangsu, and whatever isn't in the latter could easily be merged there. Unreferenced and poorly formatted, even using Chinese parentheses and commas instead of the corresponding basic ASCII characters. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cut and paste with attribution in edit summary to Xinghua, Jiangsu. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Xinghua, Jiangsu has a notable people section with only one person, but this page doesn't have much useable text. I have added the names to that section for the folks notable enough to already have their own WP articles. Shi Nai'an for one may or may not be from Xinghua, I found one source stating he's from Suzhou, wikipedia repeats this claim. I did not find sources that state he his from Xinghua. Article doesn't have any unique and verifiable encyclopedic content. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. I didn't read it very carefully yesterday. I only had a short time to dedicate to the matter, as I was overwhelmed with many tasks. I trust your judgement. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that Shi Nai'an is from Xinghua. Maybe I hadn't expressed this clearly. But Shi Nai'an did write the Water Margin in Xinghua. There is a museum which shows this. I knew it because I'm just from Xinghua. I'm still searching for the exact evidence to prove it. Please give me some time.Thank you!NNU-11-22100510 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)NNU-11-22100510NNU-11-22100510 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as redundant to Xinghua, Jiangsu#Notable people, and the material is unreferenced. Any referenced material can be added directly to the section of the city article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary copy of Xinghua,_Jiangsu#Notable_people. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webtease

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

No reliable sources, orphan, original research Handcuffed (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't establish notability outside of a small community, appears to probably be promotional. OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, text in unsalvageable combination of OR and promotion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness News

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

Drive-by tagged for cleanup for 3 years. Concerns over original research and synthesis — this isn't a unified "brand", just a name shared by many news networks. Compare NewsChannel, which was nominated for the same reason. The sources may verify that the various news programs use the name "Eyewitness News", but since none of the sources show a correlation among the many "Eyewitness News" programs, the article is inherently OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may well be parts of this article that are OR or unsourceable. But there are dozens, or even hundreds, of reliable sources for the original development and influence of the "Eyewitness News" brand under the guidance of Al Primo.[20] That's enough to demonstrate the notability of the topic; the rest is editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. See this for starters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic seems to be substantial and notable, there are some sources although I didn't really check them out. Mostly news media do not report on news media so this kind of article is always going to be difficult to get good sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. "Eyewitness News" is at least a famous name for local news programs, and news packages such as this have done reasonably well at AfD in the past. However, this article is almost completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the nominator is correct. The fact that a number of different TV stations use the same generic name for their local newscasts is not, on its own terms, encyclopedic. The lack of appropriate sourcing doesn't help. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google book search please. [21] News is people: the rise of local TV news and the fall of news from New York By Craig Allen chapter 6 explains it all quite well. [22] Encyclopedia of television news By Michael D. Murray page 73, explains it also calling it a "particular style of television newscast." And explaining "It was very significant because it humanized the news and diverted from the more strict and traditional "man-on-camera" newscast seen on the network level." Dream Focus 12:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. Jheald (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eyewitness News was not just a random assortment of local newscasts that happened to share a name, it was a specific format of new programming that was introduced and used that these stations. Unfortunately not available for preview, but Journalism Quarterly covered it. New York Magazine notes how the format gained some traction for ABC. The Encyclopedia of Television has an extensive amount of information about this particular news format. Managing Television News describes how the news format had reporters closest to the story appearing on camera to "take the viewer there". This style of reporting is confirmed in Crime and Local Television News which states that the format "emphasized reporting from the scene of events and use of film and video". -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep as a notable format of news. The article suffers from OR and synthesis but this is not—as claimed by the nom—inherent to the subject (as shown by the sources provided above by DreamFocus and Whpq) and therefore it is not a valid argument for deletion.— CharlieEchoTango — 05:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll never understand the rush to delete non-controversial wiki topics (short of a copyright infringement) based on claims of substandard content or sourcing. I went to the page because I was interested, and I found what I needed to know. It should remain in place until someone decides to provide something better. AlvinVoider (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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