Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 4

< 3 November	5 November >

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 speedy delete. Ged UK 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Jones, P.I.[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I requested reliable 3rd party sources many times and the author has been unable to produce them. The current sources are dubious. A Google search brings up nothing. Pdcook (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author just admitted it was a fake. See: Talk:Toronto_Jones,_P.I.#Third_Opinion. Can we nominate this for speedy deletion now? Pdcook (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Jones, P.I.[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I requested reliable 3rd party sources many times and the author has been unable to produce them. The current sources are dubious. A Google search brings up nothing. Pdcook (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author just admitted it was a fake. See: Talk:Toronto_Jones,_P.I.#Third_Opinion. Can we nominate this for speedy deletion now? Pdcook (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator II (Bruno Mattei film)[edit]

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

Unnotable independent film by a barely notable director who apparently has made many such fake sequels in Italy. fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. PROD removed by article creator with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is the review that is already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer, I'm the author); Googling "shocking dark" and "mattei" together (the latter is its alternative name and less likely to generate false hits for the official T2) gives 4320 results. "Barely notable" Mattei's Zombie Creeping Flesh was significant enough to be banned as one of the infamous wave of "video nasties" in the UK ([1]), and the guy apparently replaced Lucio Fulci as director of Zombi 3. FWIW, I created this article because I have on more than one occasion heard about this "alternative" Terminator 2 and wanted to find out about it. (Note also that there *were* two references beforehand- Collectonian, the AFD proposer, removed the original IMDB ref as "unreliable". Okay; possibly fair. But there's enough at that site to indicate to me that it's not just some random nobody's ultra-obscure film). I'd be happier if there was a bit more info out there, but I feel that there's enough indication of notability and information to warrant an article on the subject. Ubcule (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source per project consensus. It is user edited and anyone can get any film listed in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google books brings up a number of mentions[2], and there is potential for the article to be sourced and expanded. A merge might be an option, but there are multiple possible targets,. It's also worth considering when searching that the film appears to have been released under multiple names. At any rate, I have added the rescue tag and intend to do some work on the article later. Artw (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Google book hits seem to be just directory listings of films, which isn't really coverage per se. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nethertheless they give me sufficient reason to beleive the article can be sourced and expanded, at which point I'd most likely change my vote to a stronger keep. Artw (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing; since Collectonian complains about the "unexplained" removal of the prod- while I apologise for not including an edit summary, the template itself requests that the explanation should go on the talk page, and I was smack in the middle of doing just that when I noticed that Collectonian hadn't waited for this, nor even bothered making polite contact to ask about the prod (which I would have done)- she simply rushed it to AFD status without waiting. Not very good faith. Ubcule (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no call to make personal remarks against an editor or to assume bad faith because you removed the prod without actually posting anything to the talk page. First, I did not "complain", I simply noted, which I note in ALL AfDs I do that are former prods. It was not very good faith to just remove it either, considering prod is not an instant delete, but a seven day process. You could have posted whatever you had to say on the talk page first. You also say you would have made polite contact to ask about it, but clearly you yourself did not, simply removing it and saying "see talk" when the article had no talk page at all. When someone removes a prod and points to a non-existent discussion, one is inclined to go ahead with the AfD. Further, if you intended to post what you posted above, I'd have still sent it to AfD. The template also says, very first thing, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so" - you did not address the concerns, but just removed the prod as its creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template stated that (a) it may be removed, and that (b) under such circumstances an explanation can go on the talk page. While I'll admit (with hindsight) that it would have been better to write the explanation first, common sense combined with an assumption that I was editing in good faith would suggest waiting a few minutes for the promised explanation. (FWIW, I note that I hadn't even left the edit summary blank as I thought I'd mistakenly done above).

Rushing it to AFD was equally unnecessary. Further, while you claim that you would have AfDed it anyway given the evidence above, this is beside the principle of good faith- you didn't know the reason at the time, because you didn't wait for it, and you didn't give me a chance to explain myself. Complaining that this (when you yourself raised the "unexplained prod" issue here) assumes bad faith on my part- when it was in fact a minor oversight at worst- is not a personal attack. Please refrain from portraying it as such. Ubcule (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDing an article in the wake of a contested prod is pretty standard, and Collectorian is usually pretty blunt. TBH instead of expending effort on arguing the toss over either of those I would focus on sourcing and expanding the article, which is far more likely to have an effect on it's survival. Artw (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note; I tweaked my above waffle for clarity before I noticed you'd already replied to it- hope this isn't misleading) Ubcule (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it should be noted that Ubcule has posted several messages to article and user talk pages asking for assistance with this AfD, some of which could be construed as being non-neutral.[3][4][5] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was more interested in having interested parties improve the article and references than rallying support directly.

Perhaps you're unaware that AfD outcomes aren't merely the result of simple voting, and that bias and rallying are normally taken into account by the closing administrator anyway.

If you feel this way, it's sufficient to simply draw attention to the issue, rather than also removing them, particularly as you're arguably *not* a neutral party here.

Finally, arguing that a particular motive "could be construed" borders on personal opinion weaseled through via formal, passive language since many things "could be construed" and you chose the one that suits your argument. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully aware of what AfD outcomes are the result of, thank you, and rallying is not an appropriate part. I did draw attention to the issue. I also removed two from article talk pages per WP:TALK as they were not discussions about improving those articles or anything even remotely related to them. And please make up your mind, either you want me to try to assume good faith with your actions, or outright declare that you were canvassing in a non-neutral fashion. Obviously its personal opinion, this whold discussion is a reflection of personal opinions - we are still human. And Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion, only with articles. It seems though that either I'm doomed to be assuming bad faith for acting too quickly and being impolite, or I'm being too weasely and exposing personal opinion if I attempt to assume some good faith. Thanks for all the good faith you've shown me, however. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intentionally rallying or canvassing. I was mainly trying to get interested contributors to improve the article (which honestly wasn't that great, but I thought was a legitimate starting point). On reflection, mentioning the AfD to get discussion going was a mistake as it could be seen in that way (and wouldn't have got a satisfactorily neutral contributorship). FWIW, if I'd been being devious I could have said "as interested parties you may wish to improve this article" and they would have seen the AfD notice anyway.

Anyhow, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that we're disagreeing in good faith (and for an admin to prune any discussion that they feel is offtopic to the issues of the AfD). Ubcule (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The film has enough apparent notoriety that I strongly suspect it warrants a paragraph or two in a print reliable source somewhere, if only to explain what it is not, that would constitute sufficient coverage for notability. The keep is weak because I don't actually have such a source in front of me. gnfnrf (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow, talk about a flip flop. I just deleted my delete vote, solely on the basis of WP:NOTFILM and the section "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." According to the Bruno Mattei main article, the director has gained a cult following for these crap-tacular movies. If the article is not retained, I would urge a merge to the Mattei bio article, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how seedy is it that the film is not only a rip-off of James Cameron, but pretends to be a rip-off of an entirely different film? It's almost awe inspiring for its utter all-round shamelessness. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasonable presumption of the asserted notability. The film has had world-wide release under several different titles. Due to licensing problems it was never released in the United States. This will make it a little difficult to find American reviewers writing about the film, since it will be Italian reviewers wrting about an Italian film and most sources will likely be in Italian. A reasonable presumption of Italian notability would seem to indicate that per guideline the article should be kept and improved through regular editing over the due course of time. Just because it was never released HERE does not mean it is not notable elsewhere. This AfD will need input from Italian Wikiepedians and Italian cinema task force. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Writer and director are both notable enough for their own articles here. They may be obscure, and their creations niche exploitation films, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Geretta Geretta appears to have also worked with Fulci and won "Best Female Director" at MUFF for Sweetiecakes. - BalthCat (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Hordichuk[edit]

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

Peewee league hockey player Fails WP:ATHLETE and general notability guidelines. Seems to be an attack page also (see style of play section). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Looks like A7 to me. It's certainly G7 now. Hairhorn (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (hashish) rosin[edit]

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

I don't think there's any such thing. Google mainly returns the WP article or copies of it. Completely unsourced conjecture doe not belong in encyclopedia. Mjpresson (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move: To Cannabis resin (which is currently a redirect) per [6]. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Why would you merge unsourced material? Also--the link above refers to RESIN not ROSIN.Mjpresson (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Mjpresson has removed all the content from the article, and then nominated it for speedy deletion. I have declined this request because it is bypassing this AfD process; this does not imply any view on my part as to whether the article should be kept, or in what form. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The "all content" was one paragraph. This article has no refs, context, or even content. And R'n'B has restored unverifiable original research to an article, that, on the talk page, has been challenged since it was created. Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced material = original research = policy violation = delete. JBsupreme (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a hoax. TN X Man 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodactylus[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a pterosaur and I can't find any sources to confirm its existence. Apparently named for a Pokemon, and while that is conceivable, to be honest, the only mentions I can find are for the Pokemon and I would tend to think that if a dinosaur had been named for a Pokemon, it would generate both scholarly and news mentions. Also seems to be in part a copy of the Pterodactylus article, although that could just be a case of using an existing article as a template. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied it because it was easier and because I was afraid that I might miss something otherwise. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but there still remains the problem that there are no sources provided and there is nothing out there to support the assertions in the article. Even the humblest, most obscure members of the animal kingdom get a write-up somewhere in an academic journal. Perhaps you could say where you heard about this creature? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any refs to verify this article, appears to be a hoax. --Muchness (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article. Not a sniff of the name has come down the vertebrate paleontology mailing lists or forums. J. Spencer (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Cassius[edit]

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

Extremely minor character who plays almost no role in the overall plot of the series. Not appropriate to merge to a list. Disputed prodded. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge those that aren't independently notable to character list as per well established practice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is verifiable. - Altenmann >t 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. In the case of the primary article being listed here, the character is only in a couple of episodes at the beginning of a 43episode show, only has a few lines and is unlikely to have sufficient coverage to establish independant notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dandy 75.41.166.69 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Tan | 39 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewald Heer[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO as being non-notable. Tan | 39 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tanthalas39 above; fails WP:BIO ~Sp K 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are zero none sources listed. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are papers of his on google books and google scholar. He appear to have been most active in the 1970s and 1980s, so I'm wondering if that explains the lack of google news results? It does read a bit like a resume, but there do seem to be significant indications of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, too. I think we have "indications of indications" of notability, if that makes sense, but nothing concrete that can shoehorn the article into the auspices of WP:BIO. I'm all for reconsidering if sources are shown... Tan | 39 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding loads of reliable sources discussing his work at NASA and his life and background. Sometimes a google news search is simply inadequate. That is the case here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article currently hasn't many reliable sources listed, doesn't qualify it for deletion. The subject did really exist and I think he meets the notability criteria. Let's give the article more time to develop... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep until someone with access to academic databases opines. Has any of those opining to delete taken any of the steps in WP:BEFORE? A Google Scholar search shows many articles by the subject of the article, and a Google Books search finds numerous books by him.

For those and additional reasons, the subject likely satisfies WP:PROF—at first blush, the claims in the article give a presumption of satisfying criteria 1 and 7. Beyond that, he is likely to satisfy several other criteria, but given the time that he was active, is subject to FUTON bias. ^Bongo_matic 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildofMidnight's improvements. Sufficiently notable; the first author just wasn't familiar with wiki norms. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectronomy[edit]

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

I cannot find a source that uses this term in some sort of paranormal context. Requests for reliable and pertinent citations have gone unanswered and I wonder if the author of this article may have invented the term. Pdcook (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support deleting this article. None of the citations provide support evidence for the use of the term 'spectronomy'. The most frequent web hits for spectronomy are all as mis-spellings of the term spectrometry. Without additional supporting documentation from the author, I am skeptical of this usage. ronningt (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the author of this article has requested deletion as well. See the article's talk page. Pdcook (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this could be turned into a disambiguation page. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page for what? We've established that spectronomy is probably a mis-spelling of spectrometry/spectroscopy. Perhaps a redirect from spectronomy to spectroscopy. Pdcook (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't exist. K602 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence. - Altenmann >t 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hair tongs alarm[edit]

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

Not a notable entity "hair+tongs+alarm" 1 "hair+iron+alarm" 2. PROD declined. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any RS, none supplied by article contributors either. The key claim is that these can keep me from using a curling iron that is too cool and risk "potentially life-threatening hair damage"? O...kay. "Many students choose the hair tongs alarm as a project option for electronics GCSE." That seals it...WP:NFT/WP:NEO non-notable school project. DMacks (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a joke article. Certainly not notable enough for an individual article. Polargeo (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to hair iron if this kind of alarm exists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic stats for the article suggest that nobody searched for 'hair tongs alarm' before it was created, so a completely implausible redirect. It does exist as one of 96 suggested electronics projects for a GCSE school course (just in a long list with no description) but I don't think this makes it notable enough to be worth merging this content to 'hair iron'. Polargeo (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no article on hair tongs alarms, and anyone wishing to discover what they do will now be able to use wikipedia to find about them. I think that this article is a valuable part of Wikipedia, it shows that Wikipedia is not only concerned with interesting knowledge, but knowledge in general. By deleting this page Wikipedia may lose credibility as a knowledge database, and this case shows that even the smallest things can make big differences on a wider ethical scale.(Hair tongs alarm fan (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)) --Preceding comment copied from talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – I smell either madeup stuff or an otherwise hoax. MuZemike 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any notability to this, and how can hair damage be life threatening? Also note that hair tongs doesn't exist. —Crazytales (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. I believe reasonable evidence of non-trivial coverage has been demonstrated. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitemare 3D[edit]

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

Delete. If evidence can be found that this is notable, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will promptly withdraw. That said, I have searched all over Google News (and Google in general) and cannot find any evidence of this video game receiving anything that resembles non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. This excludes, automatically, user-submitted/generated content sites. Given that this game is apparently non-notable it should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, looks like a re-skin of Wolfenstein. Miami33139 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 1994 game cannot be expected to turn up much in online sources; online sources don't tend to cover stuff before their time beyond acknowledging their existence (for instance: GameSpot's coverage of Wolfenstein 3D, despite that one's influence on later games). Such an article needs to rely on contemporary print sources, a Google search is a waste of time for most games pre-1998. Did you attempt to look for any print sources that may have covered it? -- Sabre (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A relevant note, but a 1994 game that had any lasting popularity would have internet sources. Why did the people who have written this article over the last few years not include any sources? Miami33139 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't think of a good reason to delete this article. It would be one thing if it was a totally obscure game that no one had ever heard of, but it was created by David Gray (publisher of Hugo's House of Horrors and its two sequels), and is fondly remembered by many of my website's visitors. It is not based on the Wolfenstein-3D engine. It is an original First Person Shooter written by a well-known shareware author. The shareware version could be found on any BBS at the time and was played by thousands of people. Probably very few people paid for the full version, but that would be true of most shareware games, and the shareware industry in general. Nitemare-3D is not some random, unknown game. DOSGuy (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason would be non-notable. There are hordes of shareware games that were played by hundreds or maybe even thousands of people but that doesn't guarantee you a Wikipedia article. We have policies restricting original research and requiring that each and every article be backed by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, this is not a non-notable game. Thousands of shareware games were created but never widely played, but this isn't one of them. It was created by a well-known shareware author, was widely played, and is still remembered. This is not some random, unknown game. DOSGuy (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you prove what you are saying? Seriously, you need to substantiate your claims, as much as I'd like to take your word at face value that is not how Wikipedia works. We would be doing a huge disservice to our readers if we did. JBsupreme (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the real question is "how notable does a game have to be to deserve an article?" A game that no one has heard of obviously doesn't deserve an article. A game that many people played and still remember is "notable", so how high do you think the bar should be? This AfD wreaks of deletion for the sake of deletion. Being too ambitious about deletion is a disservice to our readers. cd.textfiles.com is a collection of "shovelware" CDs, which are those discs that advertised having "10,000 games!", many of which were created by a high school student who either gave the game away or asked you to send him $5 if you liked it. Play one of those games and you'll say, "This game is crap". Play Nitemare-3D and you can tell it meets a certain minimal level of quality. Ken Silverman (best remembered for his contributions to the Build engine) wrote his own 3D engine for Ken's Labyrinth. David Gray, similarly, wrote a 3D engine for this game. There were only a handful of 3D FPS engines when N3D was made, and those are the only two I can think of that were created by a single person. If you're only used to modern games, you may not be qualified to assess the quality of this game. If you played games at the time, it's absolutely obvious that N3D was a quality game by the standards of the day. It was widely played and is still fondly remembered. The only proof that I can offer you is that you have only to play the game to be able to tell that it's notable -- again, with the qualifier that you would have to have been a gamer at the time to be qualified to judge a game from that era. DOSGuy (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not how notability on Wikipedia works. I'd suggest you go read the guideline at WP:N. On Wikipedia, something is only considered notable if covered in reliable, secondary sources, not from our own experiences of topics. -- Sabre (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant game in relation to the Hugo series (i.e. the final Hugo game). Per Sabre's comment, internet sourcing is bound to be scant. A search of Google Books reveals coverage in numerous print sources. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's some coverage in these print sources. These don't include contemporary magazine articles though, which would be the strongest sources, but these are a start:
- Beatty, Grace J.; Gardner, David C.; Sauer, David A. (1995). Cruising America Online 2.5. Prima. p. 110 onwards. ISBN 0761503021.
- Flopping: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. ICON Group International, Inc. 2008. p. 32. ISBN 0546705944.
- Lyons, Eric R. (1995). Black art of Windows game programming. Waite Group Press. p. xxix and p. 277. ISBN 1878739956.
- Desjardins, Dawn (1997). Suchowski, Amy R (ed.). CD-ROMs in print 1998. Gale. p. 658, p. 1008 and p. 1286. ISBN 0787610593.
- Rating video games: a parent's guide to games. U.S. G.P.O. 1995. p. 236. ISBN 016046563X.
- -- Sabre (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps worth noting that the game also receives significant coverage in Polish sources such as the gaming magazine Komputery i Biuo, circa 1995, and is covered in a 2009 article from CD Projekt's gram.pl. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an interview with David P. Gray that gives coverage of this game [7] There is a variable amount of coverage in each of these four books. [8] [9] [10] [11] There should be more than enough in these to deal with any questions of verifiability, and anything left such as general hardware/software requirements, etc. can be sourced to the game's own documentation. There is also brief mention of the game in the Wolfenstein 3D / Spear of Destiny FAQ [12] which also should be briefly mentioned in the article.
I would also suggest someone with the time check the back issues of CD-ROM Today for more coverage as I'm fairly certain the game was given coverage in that magazine and distributed on the included CD-ROM disc.
Note that the Websters quotations book mentioned by Sabre above should not be used as a reference for this article as it contains material reprinted from Wikipedia and if it were used would amount to an Ouroboros.
While I saw this article cross the WP:VG article alerts system, I originally wasn't going to !vote here due to who the nom is but at the present time, there is now little reason for me not to present additional information that may be of use to others who are working to improving the article.
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like there are plenty of print sources that establish notability here. MuZemike 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling[edit]

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

Contested PROD. From GaryColemanfan's prod reasoning: This is totally subjective, as there is no agreed definition of what makes a "world championship." This article can never be accurate, let alone complete. ArcAngel (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't be fully sourced, and too many world titles to every become fully accurate. More like point of view according to the criteria mentioned in the article.--WillC 21:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I gave in the PROD, particularly the fact that there is no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when no one can give a good definition for what is included in the list and what is not it becomes nothing but a subjective listcrufty article and is better off deleted. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the unclear definition of a World Title. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is poorly defined then this list (though well put together) cannot be fully formed. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. This is already adequately covered in the articles on the individual titles. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 11:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westbang[edit]

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

Article was speedily deleted, then restored, but I think it's probably worth to have a real discussion on what kind of coverage iPhone apps needs for notability, thus I'll pass it on for wider input in a discussion here.

There are fairly in depth reviews for it, mainly at sites which specializes in iphone software reviews. No mainstream old-media coverage.

And as one reviewer notes: "Westbang does nothing really new, we have a bunch of shooting gallery games for the iPhone". He does however go on to say that this one is better than most. henrik•talk 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are countless iPhone apps available (well, more than I'd want to count) but not every one gets reviews in both Macworld and PC World, two major computer magazines with a large international circulation. I think this meets WP:N and the article merits inclusion by that alone. -- Atama頭 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the PC World link because it is a copy of the MacWorld review. I also added a Pocket Gamer review and a CIO (magazine) review. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think that even with only one review from a major magazine, that combined with the other reviews would let this squeak by with notability. -- Atama頭 21:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bank Panic - the game is a clone of that with a name derived from another clone (West Bank). Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Atama. Review in MacWorld and other reviews make this pass notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like there are sufficient sources there for notability, especially the two big ones. MuZemike 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1982_Australian_network_television_schedule_(weekday). Topic is not encyclopedic, unreferenced, and misleading, as it (if it can be verified) reflects only part of 1977 (Autumn/Spring) and only part of Australia (Melb & Syd). The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a matter of policy, I don't think that its unencyclopedic, or that articles of this nature are barred. I think there's an exception in WP:NOTDIR, section 4, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." Still, this seems to have more problems than the 1982 schedule that got booed off the stage in August. As nominator points out, it's not verified; maybe these reruns were seen nationwide and not just in Victoria. I guess it illustrates the dearth of original programming back then, but it doesn't look much different from the daytime listings for what you'd find on a Los Angeles TV schedule back in 1977. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A directory. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Mandsford. A national TV schedule can be encyclopedic. Perhaps someone could check for references, in the form of Australian TV columnists discussing the scheduling decisions back in the day, or books about the history of TV in that country. There is an explicit niche left for such an article in WP:NOTDIR. This is an international encyclopedia, so the NOTDIR mention of the US schedules does not limit notability to that one country. Edison (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous decision was an error & totally ourt of line both with our policy and our general practice, and should be clearly repudiated here; then we can work on reconstructing it. It is not a directory--a directory would list each show on each station in full detail, and this is a summary of the major shows on the network. Given that being a network show is in practice enough to make even an individual show notable, I do not see a a table correlating these notable shows is the least indiscriminate. Many such pages have been upheld. There is nothing peculiarly less notable about australian television than elsewhere. The very example given in the NOTDIR specifically , literally , and deliberately permits articles like this. There should be no problem verifying--did no australian newspapers list tv shows in the 70s? DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't count. I don't care that the US network schedules are acceptable. Prove that Australia had a national network in the 70s - I remember (WP:OR) that in the 80s, Melbourne TV was different to Perth TV. Verify that columnists reflect on past schedules. Show that it is notable. Show that is accurate for at least most of the year and it wasn't variable during the year. I think it has too many holes and question marks to be suitable for wikipedia. I would assume that the article creator got the list from some source... why didn't he reference it?The-Pope (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. ABC, Seven and Nine were national networks but in Perth and possibly elsewhere Seven had some Ten shows until NEW-10 was created in 1988. That being said, such can be accounted for by notations in the text or table - it's no reason to delete. Perth TV guides can be easily accessed at both the Battye Library in Perth, and numerous state libraries in other cities. Orderinchaos 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On doing some literature reading it appears that the TVW-7 and STW-9 stations were only affiliated rather than members of the network. I'm not sure when TVW-7 joined the Seven Network. (In fact, this is still the case for STW-9, unlike any other commercial station in metropolitan Australia.) Orderinchaos 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can this even be verified? I see no sources listed. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - by anyone who has access to newspapers of the period. Unfortunately those are not online, but anyone with access to a newspaper archive or a state library in Australia can look at back copies of The Age. If discussion of the content are needed, articles in publications such as the National Times and Australian Women's Weekly can also be accessed. Orderinchaos 07:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it can be verified some day, but it presently is not. In which case I am reaffirming my delete, and strongly so. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and per The-Pope's arguments - I'm certain that there wasn't a single national TV schedule in Australia in 1977 and it's obvious that the same programs weren't shown every week. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards "keep" if there was evidence that there were coordinated and consistent national schedules in that era for televison in Australia. But evidence suggests otherwise for the commercial stations. As an example, compare the television guides for channels 7,9 & 0 on 17 June 1978 (in winter of the following year) for Melbourne and Brisbane: 17 June 1978 Melbourne 17 June 1978 Brisbane. I would therefore suggest to delete. Melburnian (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR, WP:V, and Melburnian above me. It's impossible to have a factual article about a subject if the subject was always in flux. We can only discuss TV schedules if they are static, and even then we need to discuss the historic reception of the schedules, not just list what aired at what time. We can't have articles about subjects which cannot be verified, or elude verification. Them From Space 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates the letter and spirit of WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism and hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hurstfield[edit]

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

This is an unverifiable biography of a living person. I can find no notable coverage of him outside of web sites affiliated with him, or social networking sites like MySpace. If he truly was nominated for a Juno Award and other awards as claimed you would expect there to be at least a mention of his name in the news. Nothing can be found on Allmusic either. He also doesn't satisfy any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. The Hitmakers, his reality show, seems to be not actually broadcast on any network. The claim that he won a 2008 Canadian Radio Music Award is false as neither he is not mentioned as a winner (only Elise is). -- Atama頭 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fluffy vanity. The Hitmakers is apparently a YouTube series, whereas HollyScoop seems to be a vlog site ([13]). No indication that Hurstfield has ever won any Juno or Western Canadian Music award. (In fact, the article states that Hurstfield won the award in 1999, but the award program's own website notes that the award was first presented in 2003.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:MUSICBIO ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete some of the "facts" mentioned to establish some notability for this guy appear to be false. For instance he was not nominated for a Juno award, an artist he produces for was. He is not even mentioned on the Juno awards website though under her nomination. I verified that the western canadian music awards did not even exist during the year this article claims he was awarded one. What chart did that "push it up" single reach number #1 on? Who was that song even by and can it be verified that he produced on that track? His "reality TV series" is just a youtube channel. Once you remove all of the bullshit there is nothing left. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible, particularly given the presence of apparently fabricated facts. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable. Rees11 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arvi Aasmaa[edit]

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

Person doesn't seem to qualify as notable neither by WP:BIO nor by more specific WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Martintg (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative ICE fuel generator[edit]

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

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on alternative fuel and oxyhydrogen, it is a copy of ICE fuel conversion Mion (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the spam links / refs from this page. The remaining content is redundant with articles mentioned above, but is less inclusive (or I would suggest merging).--E8 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mion's argument is compelling.--OMCV (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear effort at whitewashing the reputation a highly dubious industry. SteveBaker (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable topic. First several pages of Google hits for "Alternative ICE fuel generator" are all wiki-clones and other non-reliable sources. No news.google archive hits either. Also per nom. This article presents a scam/science fiction as though it is legitimate technology. There's nothing here that isn't already covered more appropriately in water-fueled car and oxyhydrogen.Yilloslime ^T_C 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It is clear that the main argument against this article is that the name doesn't generate many hits in a search engine. However the article is still very important regarding energy storage; the info is focused on the production of fuels that can be produced locally (eg using water, from the air, ...). Nowhere at wikipedia is any such article present already. In addition, the information is very important regarding environmentalism. KVDP (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Yilloslimes comments. Petecarney (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for KVDP: Can you find a more suitable, notable name, and good sources? For better or worse, any topic needs to meet those criteria on Wikipedia, or it won't survive a deletion proposal. How about you develop it further at Appropedia, and find good sources, then if becomes suitable under Wikipedia's terms, it can be transwikied here? (The one problem with that idea is with attribution of the individual editors, so it may be better to develop it in your userspace here, or else do it on Appropedia and accept that it will need substantial rewriting if it's re-imported to Wikipedia - which is probably the case anyway. Happy to explain that further if needed, via our talk pages.) --Chriswaterguy talk 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already duplicated the article at Appropedia a while ago, having been a bit wary of this moment, thus the article improving was already a possibility at Appropedia, but having the article here aswell was (I believe) also very useful for the Wikipedia articles, and allowed more people to see the (indeed far from finished) info, and thus improve it faster. Regarding the name, quite franckly, I haven't found one which is used frequently used for this and thus I decided to settle with a name close towards the ones already present at other wikipedia articles. However any suggestions on the renaming are more than welcome.

KVDP (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at risk for being called an apologist for pseudoscience but I say keep it. This is why, 1) Alternative fuels are not pseudoscience 2) The machines which produce alternative fuels are very real, diverse, and interesting 3) removal of an article should have nothing to do with the first author, but instead it should be based on the merit of the topic, 4) none of the above listed articles review, as far as I can tell, the subject of processing/producing alternative fuels 5) this topic has been making interesting news and television every Thanksgiving since I was, like, 12. Here is a discovermagazine link to this topic. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/nov/25-anything-into-oil And if you search "turning turkey blood into fuel" in google scholar you will see it already has a diverse, and peer-reviewed, literature.TheThomas (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Just to be clear, none of the articles on biofuels, alcohol fuels, alternative fuels, etc. include more than a cursory sentence about how to produce these fuels. Not simply "from corn, barley..." but the process of drying, heating, boiling, compressing is not mentioned. I know the process from a college physical sciences course I took, but I cannot see it anywhere in wikipedia links. If it does exist elsewhere, then by all means merge it--or delete if it is redundant. And, I suggest a name change. Alternative ICE Fuel Generators could be a subheading of Alternative Fuel Generators. ...where's that damn tilde...TheThomas (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

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

Delete. Once again, we are an encyclopedia not a directory of non-notable mobile-capable chat clients. JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial control This list in its current form is indiscriminate. AfD is not supposed to be for cleanup, but the article owner should exercise some restraint. Maybe AfD can provide a centralized discussion for content direction in this case. Removing all redlinks until articles exist is a good start. Entries with minor notability (one point of uniqueness, but not notable by itself) should exist without a link. Miami33139 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is not indiscriminate (it lists exactly what it says it does and does not allow other entries that are unrelated). You are correct, AFD is not cleanup, so I would avoid trying to make it so. Neither you nor the nominating user even attempted to rectify the alleged problems by editing (per WP:BEFORE) and AFD should not be used for content discussion. If you think the article can be cleaned, don't bring it here; if you haven't brought it here, don't argue for it to stay here. As for redlinks, they should stay per Wikipedia:Red link to encourage article creation. Regards So Why 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not keep red links for things that will never have articles. Miami33139 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients--Milowent (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparison pages like this are widely considered as acceptable here. What is not notable enough for a whole article, may nevertheless be an appropriate part of a broader article. if mobile IRC clients is a notable subject, the comparison of the individual ones is legit., It's only directory if it tries to include literally every one, and there most be 10 x as many out there. I would not like to judge which of the ones included here would never have articles--I don;t think anyone here is able to do that kind of technological forecasting with authority. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are indeed 100s of these type of programs. When it comes to mobile clients, many are also derived from each other. This comparison article really only covers those that are or have been popular and are substantially different from each other. Minor forks are easy to note under one of the tables with a footnote. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. This comparison is intentionally separate from Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients due to page size and the fact that mobile clients have completely different operating system requirements. The nom is welcome to help create some related articles or start a glossary-style article where we can redirect some of these. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: I have always considered these articles encyclopedic. Joe Chill (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Joe Chill on this point, listings of specific solutions are of great use in wikipedia. Sumdeus (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICE fuel conversion[edit]

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

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on alternative fuel and oxyhydrogen Mion (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC). Update, related article Alternative ICE fuel generator. Mion (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the spam links / refs from this page. The remaining content is redundant with articles mentioned above, but is less inclusive (or I would suggest merging). This topic should send Wikipedians directly to Alternative fuel page.--E8 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mion's argument is compelling.--OMCV (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear effort at whitewashing the reputation a highly dubious industry. SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I made the article, I never intented to legitimize water-fueled car scams. I didn't even refer to these at all, rather I refered to simple oxyhydrogen and liquid nitrogen internal combustion conversions, ... (meaning simply that oxyhydrogen is burnt in the conventional IC engine rather than gasoline, ...) I only wished to improve coverage on oxyhydrogen, hydrogen and liquid nitrogen for use as a fuel (in transport, ...). As you noted out before, you removed some of the "spam links/refs", which contained in effect some video's, ... on how a conversion to these alternative fuels is done. Indeed little then remains of what I actually wished to describe in the article (especially as I have gotten little cooperation from other editors in the matter). If however the entire article is removed, there will be no more article on which the built, and the knowledge on this (very important) green technology will be partly lost at Wikipedia. For example at Alternative_fuel_vehicle, and Automotive the use of oxyhydrogen isn't even mentioned.

Thus, rather than deleting it, I would try to keep it and improve it (especially as there are already articles on electric vehicle conversions, ...). If no consensus on this can be reached however, instead merge the article info to Alternative_fuel_vehicle, and Automotive KVDP (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote "I never intented to legitimize water-fueled car scams. I didn't even refer to these at all..." now to quote the page "* unverified [[Water-fueled car|conversions with water]]". Burning oxyhydrogen in cars is already dealt with on oxyhydrogen and water-fueled car. Anything not discussed there should be discussed on Alternative fuel vehicle rather than producing a WP:POV fork. In the end there is little to merge since the text is either spam or ill informed.--OMCV (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternative fuel or Alternative fuel vehicle is the correct place for any of the content which is verifiable. Petecarney (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take issue with the reason given ("This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams") - I see nothing in KVDP's contributions here to justify this, and this kind of attack on the motives of another editor should be avoided. Please stick to the merits or lack of merit of the article. (As it happens, KVDP is a diligent and serious contributor here and at Appropedia, even if I disagree with him sometimes. He is no spammer - a better assumption is that his judgment of certain links may differ from yours or mine.) However, this article title may be a neologism, and Petecarney's suggestion is one option; another option is to keep and maybe rename the page, if no other page exists listing & describing various fuel conversions - there is a place for lists & summaries on Wikipedia. I'm not voting as I'm short of time to get better informed - but as I often say, anything on this topic that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia is often suitable for Appropedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the articles listed in the intro include instructions for or, as far as I can tell, even mention the idea of engine conversion. I recently read a very interesting article in "Mechanical Engineering" on this same topic. This industry does have a lot of kooks, but alternative fuels (biodiesel, ethanol) are a very real and important part of our future. Let the article sort between the crap and the facts, but this article should stay. Although, I would change the name.TheThomas (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Alternative fuel would be a good name.--OMCV (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue about Brown's gas, see the original setup of this page [[14]] is handled at the oxyhydrogen page and more the talkpage of it, Wikipedia has a linking policy against product linking "Kits can be found trough sites as Hydrogencarconversion[[15]" As we see later on it quickly attracts the term "hydrogen booster" a well known term in the sales of these kits. The provided links to the oxyhydrogen fuel generator images by KVDP [[16]] and [[17]] are only here educational purposes. In itself, this is not ment as a personal attack, it is following Wikipedia:Spam, Talk:Oxyhydrogen and Hydrogen fuel enhancement, and i hope this project attracts more creative, diligent and serious contributors like KVDP. Mion (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online Shipping Charges[edit]

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

Article appears to be primarily original research, non-neutral and a WP:COATRACK for the site freeshipping.org/com. I42 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is another example of the site being promoted by the same editor. I42 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article presently reads like a copy-paste from another source. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Unambiguous copyvio of [18]. I've tagged it accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I made a mistake. On further checking, the first paragraph is an unambiguous copyvio, but the rest of it is not. Untagged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. The statistics quoted from FreeShipping.org are copy-pasted wholesale from http://www.freeshipping.org/statistics, which is footnoted as a reference. But copy-paste is hardly a ref. Therefore, Delete as copy-paste, copyvio of multiple sources. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Veiled spam. Non-notable subject. Essay. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and promotional coatrack. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. all of the above--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom-man[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable, likely self-promotional article on NN superhero. Sourcing is alleged by PROD decliner, but I fail to see any assertion of notability in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into an article on the author, A.P. Fuchs A.P. Fuchs. He is the ntoable author of several novels and writes from Winnipeg, Manitoba. Among his most recent are The Way of the Fog, Still About A Girl, Magic Man and April, which was written under the pseudonym, Peter Fox. His work is discussed here [19], and here "The market is getting more and more zombie titles every week," says A.P. Fuchs, publisher and author with Coscom Entertainment" [20]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews appear with a simple Google search -there is a lot of cruft from Amazon and similar sites but genuine reviews exist too. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something important to note here is that this author is apparently self-publishing everything he writes from a company he created for this purpose. You can find the info online. There is no real notability here. Amazon/google reviews appear to be from people associated with the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.228.20 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also think would be a good idea to merge this with an A.P. Fuchs article if not keeping it separate. Bosco (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Goto (religious persecution)[edit]

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

Not sourced. He is said to be a victim of kidnapping and other crimes by his family members. This may be true but without reliable sources that amounts to a personal attack against them, not allowed by WP:BLP. Redddogg (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reliable source that has turned up to date is a bare mention in the German edition of a Baltic States newspaper. {{find}} does not appear to turn up any relevant hits (let alone relevant hits to reliable sources), but vast numbers of irrelevant ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this could be a personal attack on his family members since their names are not mentioned. At best it is an allegation that remains unproved in court. I interviewed Goto personally for three hours in Japan, so at least I can vouch that he makes these allegations. As I mentioned somewhere else, I'm willing to edit the article to ensure that any disputed facts are stated as allegations only. I'd appeal to those arguing for deletion to watch the video about his case at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1GPUTJUUZo . The photos there by the Japanese journalist K Yonemoto verify that Goto was seriously abused. Yonemoto himself has been a strong critic of the Unification Church in Japan but recently began writing against deprogramming. His book Our Displeasing Neighbors: Tragedies of Women “Saved” from the Unification Church was published by Joho Center Publishing (6/29/08). It was published just around the time that Goto was released, and Yonemoto took the pictures at the hospital where Goto was being treated. I am in the process of obtained permission to use them in the article. I will check to see if he or other non-UC journalists have published articles about Goto's case. Dan Fefferman (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Your interview is unpublished WP:OR (as well as being WP:PRIMARY), so not suitable. Likewise Youtube is not a reliable source. As Yonemoto's book does not mention Goto, it likewise does not confer any notability on him. (ii) You have a WP:COI on this topic, so should not be participating in this deletion discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their names don't have to be mentioned. However if more published sources are found then no problem if the article only reports what they (the sources) say, and it is shown that Mr. Goto's case is indeed important. Redddogg (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Also agree with analysis above by Hrafn (talk · contribs) and Redddogg (talk · contribs). The whole thing appears to be an excuse for a POV WP:COATRACK, not a good use for a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is one of the worst individual cases of religious persecution in recent history. The difficulty in getting references should not be an excuse for censoring the information. Just leave it tagged, while we all work on it. Please do not hold UC-related articles to a higher standard than fluff like popular culture, just because you personally disagree with the church. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic rebuttal: requiring WP:Notability is not WP:CENSORship (as has been pointed out to you a number of times in the past). Pretending otherwise is a violation of WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for highlighting pet cases. Kindly restrict yourself to the applicable notability guidelines: WP:GNG & WP:BIO, which you have completely failed to address. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely - I said, "one of the worst individual cases of religious persecution in recent history". That makes it notable, to all those readers who regard persecution as worthy of note. If you personally don't regard persecution as noteworthy, you should withdraw from this discussion per WP:COI. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor (talk · contribs), once again, WP:GNG & WP:BIO are the guidelines here, not whether someone's personal opinion is or is not that they "regard persecution as noteworthy", which seems to be an artificial construct created by you, in the absence of consideration of WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Numerous cases of religious persecution resulting in death (e.g. death penalties for apostasy) are arguably worse "individual cases of religious persecution in recent history". In any case this does not constitute addressing any notability guideline (which generally require reliable sources to back them up). Your implication that I "personally don't regard persecution as noteworthy" is WP:Complete bollocks. Likewise your conclusion that, even if I did hold this opinion, that it would constitute WP:COI is WP:Complete bollocks. Ed Poor, you have (i) failed to address any notability guideline, (ii) failed to raise any reliable source that might have relevance to these guidelines & (iii) engaged in a litany of baseless and uncivil accusations having no relevance to this AfD. Your comments are thus without merit or weight & amount to little more than 'spitting the dummy' at the fact that this article is almost certain to be deleted, by almost-unanimous consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Article can be always recreated when notability has been established and all controversial accusations properly sourced.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and a BLP nightmare. ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, and the fact that no reliable sources seem to be available in Japanese either, just a bunch of blogs and similar internet flotsam [21]. (I don't consider this article in the Sekai Nippo as a reliable source --- for those who don't know, it's basically the Japanese equivalent of The Washington Times: [22]). cab (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No legitimate sources Czolgolz (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I nominated the article for deletion because of its lack of sources. I don't have any reason to question the accuracy of Mr. Goto's story. In fact I suspect it to be true. Redddogg (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. I clicked on the link for the one citation given and it doesn't even mention Goto's name. Unless someone can find multiple reliable sources to establish notability, it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could someone kindly clarify for me if there is really a rule that a person is barred from discussing the question of deletion if they are alleged to have a conflict of interest? Specifically, are members or a religious group not allowed to enter to discussions on articles relating to those groups? Dan Fefferman (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Catholics are allowed to edit articles on the Pope, Democrats on President Obama, etc. Redddogg (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment by Hrafn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Members" would probably not be a problem, senior officials (such as yourself), would. As Redddogg says "Democrats on President Obama" wouldn't be a problem" -- but Obama editing on the Democrats would. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also possible that WP:BLP1E would apply here as well. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan's participation'. Regarding Hrafn's comment, I'm not challenging his assertion that I could be considered to have a conflict of interest. I'm asking about whether it's true as Hrafn asserts above that I "should not be participating in this deletion."Dan Fefferman (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,' but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when: … Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" -- WP:COI

- Thanks for this clarification. So the policy is that I may participate in the discussion if I exercise great caution. I will continue to do so. Dan Fefferman (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was "avoid, or exercise great caution" (my emphasis) -- with the clear inference of a preference for you to avoid doing so altogether. Hence also my original wording of "should not be participating", not "must not…". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that the initially presented reference sources have been sifted through and dismissed as irrelevant, this article has no reliable sources to support the claims made, and it does appear to be a WP:BLP1E case as well. --DAJF (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitby Seafoods Ltd[edit]

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

This article looks as though it has been completely abandoned unfinished by the company that created it. In view of what Brad Patrick has said [23], I suggest it just gets deleted. Aspro (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google turns up a good deal of food trade media coverage [24]. A rewrite for the article is in order. Warrah (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Being able to afford to fill up cyberspace with a lot of paid for Advertorials is not the same thing as legitimate trade news coverage. WP is not a trade directory although many people are trying to make it so. If they were happy enough to start it why should we have to finnish it off for them? It teaching them the wrong thing--Aspro (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was CoI at the time and I can't see anything that indicates particular notability. Thedarxide (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no evidence that the references are advertorials, and CoI is not a reason for deletion. The article is adequately referenced. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's blatant advertorial. The Retail section is particularly out of place. Langcliffe (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tonnage of frozen battered and breadcrumbed seafood sold. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to be notable enough by references though badly written and in need of work but that is no reason for deletion. Keith D (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Bikfalvi[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria WP:Notability (academics) Polargeo (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Kevin (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys-Taylor[edit]

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

I stumbled upon this article and did some clean up but when I tried to move it to Rhys Taylor I found the target page was salted which led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Taylor. Not sure if circumstances have changed so I'm bringing it here for community input. If the article is kept it should be moved to Rhys Taylor. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He would appear to currently meet the notability guideline for sports figures since he plays for Chelsea F.C. now. News search would appear, however, to disclose other potentially notable Rhys Taylors, including a clarinettist (who seems to have even more news coverage than the soccer player) and a minor-league baseball pitcher. I suspect we'd eventually have to move this to something like Rhys Taylor (goalkeeper) if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's played for Chelsea then yes, close as a speedy keep and move. However in the article it says he's made zero appearances for the club. That's why I'm unsure. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE unless someone shows evidence that he has actually played for Chelsea. On their website he's in the reserves, not one of the 20 members of the first team squad. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He hasn't played a first-team game yet [25], closest he's got is as an unused sub [26]. Don't think that's very different from where his career was at the time of the last AFD, although I'd have no objection to WP:IAR here since he seems to be very close [27]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He's been in a few reasonably large newspapers (and the Mirror) and a few of the articles have been solely about him and he's on the team for a professional major-league sport. Seems like he barely passes notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the Mirror but the article needs more sources - where did you find the ones solely about him? Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this: [28], [29], [30]. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That Mirror "could-make-debut-today" quote is from nine months ago (they do their dates the British way round); and he's not "on the team", he's in the reserves. We keep getting "he's bound to play soon, so why not an article now" footballers - e.g. the seven times this has been deleted as Rhys_Taylor; I think we should stick to the WP:ATHLETE principle - he gets an article after he has actually played. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has yet to make a first-team appearance for Chelsea (unused subs don't count), and has thus failed Wp:ATHLETE. *sigh* DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Palos Verdes High School. NW (Talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palos Verdes Cross Country[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced, appears to be paste of an article from a school newspaper. MuffledThud (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A high school team, with no evidence of notability. Also it is mostly trivial information which have to be removed if the article were kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – copyvio, a good portion of the text copied from [31]. ttonyb (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep - I've cleaned up the article (and thus hopefully removed all of the copyright content) and added a NY Times article about the team. If you look at Google News archives you'll see there are lots of articles about this team. I can't read them though (pay-per-view). But they seem notable! Article still needs a lot of work though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this the more I think it should be kept and at the very minimum merged. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Assuming it isn't speedy deleted can we change the name to something vaguely sensible like Palos Verdes Cross County Team - I think this might help its case. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand the motivation to create this article; the students of Palos Verdes High School, being from extremely well-off families, and having the unpolluted ocean air and rolling hills of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to train in, win statewide track (and other sporting) championships with regularity. However, this information should be in the article on the high school. That article is not very long. Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how the team being from well-off families means there's a motivation to create the article. (Although I would happily agree that there was a clear COI to the article before it was cleaned up) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation to create the article is that they win. The reasons that they win are their good health and their access to better coaches and training. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palos Verdes High School. Perhaps one of the most famous cross country teams of the past 50 years is York Community High School in Illinois, where the team is easily addressed within the high school article.--Milowent (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palos Verdes High School per Milowent. JBsupreme (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on condition that Panyd, or someone else, shows me two reliable sources in line with WP:N, ideally under this note! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first reference would obviously be the NY Times article as for a second reference I would point to a Google news archive search which turns up a lot of results, all of which appear to be non-trivial and discussing the team at length and none of which appear to be press releases. The trouble is that I cannot read the articles in their entirety as I haven't paid the necessary fee to access them. However, I think just because we can't read them doesn't mean we should discount them entirely. Especially as there is a multitude. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article was to stay, we should keep in mind that we'll potentially be facing huge numbers of articles for high school football teams. Many of the google news results appear to be articles about the team getting close to winning a title and such, e.g., from 1986, " The big news at Palos Verdes High School is that the boys' cross-country team is in contention to win the Southern Section 4-A championship." you can find such things about most any successful team.--Milowent (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect even with sources, this is the ideal solution. Miami33139 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the high school. Or possibly a subpage on its athletic programs. An article for each team is a bit much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Palos Verdes High School, as outlined above.--Pink Bull 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kaelin[edit]

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

I declined a no assertion of significance speedy deletion nomination for this article, but after a brief search I am not convinced the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Skomorokh, barbarian 12:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC assuming none of those albums charted in any mainstream chart, but even if they did it probably wouldn't make the subject individually notable. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject is not notable yet. Appearing on American Ido is not enough, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Being on American Idol isn't enough to have your own article and although she has appeared in a few articles in the New York Times that coverage doesn't seem substantial enough to make her notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this list is indiscriminate in that it lacks a clear definition to work from with extra helpings of not being particularly encylopedic and being too reliant on a single source Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of airports[edit]

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

Looks to be an indiscriminate list of facts from a single source with no clear encyclopedic purpose refer Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources are welcomed on that list. The purpose is clear: an attempt to show the level of development of airtransport in the country, though this parameter doesn't explains everything. Greyhood (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't really show that. Larger countries will appear higher in the list and so do some smaller ones that had a large number of airbases due to the Second World War. On the other hand it would be hard to put any more airports in Luxembourg as they would probably be at the peak of airport development in their country. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CambridgeBayWeather - this list only shows the number of airports, not the level of air development. It would be very difficult, for example, to argue that Dubai, which has one of the busiest and most advanced central international airports in the world, is actually lagging Chad. Kate (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my comment from Talk:List of countries by number of airports: I have added in the intro how CIA World Factbook defines airports and I have explained my position above. Personally, I don't think that CIA information in the case of airports is quite correct, but if we delete this list, we should as well delete half of other lists of countries, most of which are based on CIA World Factbook and alike sources. Better not do it, because this list and others provide maybe not quite right, but still some information on many subjects, and make this information navigable on Wikipedia. Greyhood (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not navigable from the list though. All the links go directly to the country rather than to "List of airports in ...". Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage

Comment Perhaps the sister article List of countries by number of heliports should also be considered for deletion as that is also an indiscriminate list with no real purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an un-encyclopedic indiscriminate list. As the source notes the list may include airport that are either closed or abandoned while an open airfield that is not recognisable from the air is not included. Currently in Canada NAV CANADA lists about 1,500 registered and certified aerodromes that are in operation. However, the CIA says there is 1,388 airports both operating and closed. That makes the list misleading and useless for the encyclopaedia but kind of interesting trivia. However, if the list is to exist then it should be based on official figures of registered/certified airports from each country rather than the somewhat arbitrary list provided by the CIA. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, OK, delete the list. And the heliports list too. Anyway I couldn't believe that United States have so many airports under any definition, while other large countries have too much less.Hm, I was too fast on approving the deletion of the articles created by myself. After some consideration and reading the comments, I need to clarify my position in this way: I believe the lists in question pass WP:LIST and can be quite usable and encyclopedic, just like other Lists of countries. We need some aviation-related list on Template:Transport country lists. However, though in most cases CIA provides not bad info, here we have somewhat misleading numbers, in opinion of many people and myself. So I propose either to delete the list by number of aiports, or to keep and rework it, using Airports - with unpaved runways and Airports - with paved runways or perhaps some non-CIA data if there is any.Greyhood (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-encyclopedic and more than that it doesn't define airport (I know someone linked to the CIA Factbook definition but is that definitive?). If the article was kept you could change the article to List of Countries by number of commercial airports. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being a useful comparison. A list of countries per number of airports per capita would be a bit more useful, and a list that somehow worked in population density as well would be more useful (although I can't work out in two minutes of musing how that would be done). Also the misleading definition of airport apparently used doesn't help matters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy in order to~~ Weak keep, but repurpose the list as "List of number of aviation facilities by country" (or something like that) - My first reaction was "delete; the existing airport lists are a better resource than this will ever be." However, then I poked around in List of airports and Category:Lists of airports by country, and discovered that Wikipedia has no other master list identifying the number of aviation facilities in each country. A sortable table giving the number of airports (and possibly heliports, if a decent data source exists) in each country, with separate counts for each ICAO Class, could be a useful addition to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you might find Category:Airports by country a lot more use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That doesn't rank which is what we need. --Triadian (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sortable table can be sorted by the data in any column, so the countries could be ranked by total number of airports, number of ICAO Class B airports, or any other data column that might exist. --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- seems a pointless list to me, particularly as it must be highly questionable at the lower end what is and is not an airport, as opposed to a field where aircraft sometimes land. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Thus far it seems like I'm in the minority, but let's interject policy here like WP:LIST. It seems to pass all criteria laid out there as much as I understand it. Plus, look at this:

Airports seem to be just as important a topic as railways and merchant marine, etc so by association, a vote for deletion of this list is essentially a vote for deletion of all these articles which I would argue also pass WP:LIST, keeping WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind. I do not believe that there is no use for such rankings in an encyclopedic setting. It shows the level of infrastructure for countries, as do all similar lists which is important to logistics articles. Does this article need to become more detailed, yes, but I don't believe it should be deleted. I would be willing to accept a previously suggested solution that the article be repurposed as "List of number of aviation facilities by country" or some derivative of that. It doesn't have to be userfied to do that though. As for the solitary source, the definition of "airport" needs to be defined and other sources should be incorporated in the list in adjacent columns. Delete? Nah. --Triadian (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Apparently, some people place greater value on rankings than I do. After seeing the other lists on that template, I can think of several interesting rankings for aviation, including annual number of airline passengers, annaul tonnage of cargo, airline miles flown annually by commercial airliners, and total annual traffic movements.
I've changed my opinion from "userfy" to "weak keep", but if it's kept it needs to be something more than a regurgitation of the CIA World Factbook list. Inclusion of counts for ICAO Class B and Class C airports (in addition to the counts for airports recognizable from the air, as listed by the CIA) would make this list a much more worthwhile article for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, CIA also has info on Airports - with unpaved runways and Airports - with paved runways. Greyhood (talk)

Comment: I concur, Orlady. --Triadian (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps rename to something like CIA list of countries by number of airports to emphasize that the list uses CIA criteria. This rename may mollify some of the concerns raised above. --Pink Bull 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem is it is not a list of airports. It's a CIA list of active and inactive aerodromes by country that are visible from the air. It does not include active aerodromes that are not visible from the air. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - raw number of airports/heliports is an absurd and irrelevant statistic; and the fact that it's extracted from a single source leads me to believe that it also fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Skomorokh, barbarian 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge[edit]

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

Notability not verified - the only source appears to be the company responsible for the book/system/whatever it is (I'm not exactly clear) plus (see talkpage) a company that sells this product, which keeps spamming the page. If this is "an internationally recognised standard" I don't seem to be able to find evidence of it. Article has been unreferenced since 2007 when it survived last AfD on the promise of references. At the beginning of October, an editor who claimed to be a project management professional who used this product (not known if he worked for the company or not) said he would find references, but he has not returned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have alerted three editors to this AfD, as they were involved in previous recent discussions over its notability, including a WP:3O request. Just noting this here. Those users are: User:DoriSmith, User:Pm master and User:RegentsPark --Taelus (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, after looking through all the evidence again. Concensus seemed to be that the topic potentially has notability according to those in the field, and as such time was given for the article to assert its notability with additional sources. However, after the filings on WQA, and the article talk page went stale with no sources being found and added, it seems that nothing has changed. The article may be able to gain notability from some reviews on the web, but it would need to be substantially cut down as little of its content is verifiable currently. --Taelus (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in advance to those who will again claim notability: Please find the sources and add them, this discussion will last 7 days. If you do know where to find some good sources please do add them and I will happily !vote to Keep the article, however as we have discussed this before, the article cannot really be kept without any sources. --Taelus (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I'm generally open to keeping articles on books but the complete lack of references is concerning. I looked at 4 or 5 pages of google search results for this specific title and can only see booksellers offering the book. No third-party or independent sources appear to have commented on it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the last version of the page (this one) I edited had one reference, but I wasn't able to find anything else then or now. In the article's favor, WorldCat says it's held at 676 libraries, and it appears to be (or has been) used as a text book at numerous colleges. But without any third-party sources, I'm just not seeing how an article can be written. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, it is widely held which lends credibility to the assertion that is used as course text. I realize fully that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but our own article on Project Management Professional supports the assertion it is a key course text but it does have a reference to a PDF which I seem not to be abel to open right now. If another editor could give it a try, this might help verify the assertion. The book is often known as the "PMBOK Guide". Using this as a search turns up this entry in The Wiley Guide to Project Organization and Project Management Competencies and notes that its publication oin 1996 "marked a major milestone in the development of project management as a field of practice". A google scholar search for it turns up these results. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any article that contains texts like:

The PMBOK Guide is process-based, meaning it describes work as being accomplished by processes. ...Processes overlap and interact throughout a project or its various phases. Processes are described in terms of:

* Inputs (documents, plans, designs, etc.)
* Tools and Techniques (mechanisms applied to inputs)
* Outputs (documents, products, etc.)

Each of the nine knowledge areas contains the processes that need to be accomplished within its discipline in order to achieve an effective project management program. Each of these processes also falls into one of the five basic process groups, creating a matrix structure such that every process can be related to one knowledge area and one process group.

whatever else it is, is no contribution to any body of knowledge. Most of these articles about meaningless management theories are there to promote somebody's product or consulting business, in my impression. If this article about the book has to stretch such small ideas into such long sentences, and construct elaborate rhetorical tautologies and trivialisms, I wince to think what the full text is like. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The field of project management may be mostly full of crap, but what we need to determine is whether this is notable regardless of its other merits. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The PMBOK is a recognised industry-style of standard. An earlier version is an IEEE standard but I don't have the details handy. The article could be improved a lot though V29 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for that, because it's kind of the crux of the debate. I know it's *not* an industry standard in the UK and Europe, but I can't find evidence that it *is* an industry standard in North America. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PMBOK is an IEEE Guide 1490-1998 and -2003. I do not have which PMBOK version which corresponds to which IEEE versions handy. See http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=6238 V29 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why I've removed that citation from the article several times now, as I discussed on the talk page. Namely, it's because that standard was withdrawn on 26-Jan-2009, and consequently, it's irrelevant. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if we are looking at notability, this does establish an historical fact about the guide, which is that a subset of its material was used and endorsed by the IEEE as a standard regardless of the fact that it has since been withdrawn. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with IEEE and the PMBoK might be more complex than it appears. See the IEEE Software & Systems Engineering Standards Committee status page at http://standards.computer.org/sesc/s2esc_mgtboard/Standards_Status/Standards-Status-2009-01-13.xls, which says that the next task will be to adopt the 2008 version of the PMBoK. Cxbrx (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The process to adopt PMBOK 2008 (4th edition) as an IEEE standard is ongoing as the PAR (Project Approval Request in IEEE standardization lingo) was approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board 11-13 May 2009 (http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/5-09.html) V29 (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerdis of Thingyme. Crafty (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sourcing - Looking at notability for books, this should fall into the area of academic text as it relates to the study of project management. Whether the field of project management is full of consultants who speak fluent bafflegab is not realyl relevant. In addition to the Wiley text noted above, there is also [32], [33], and [34] all stating that this is one of the key works in the field of project management which meets the guidelines in WP:NB. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:NB, the PMBoK is a required text for almost all the Berkeley Extension Project Management Classes. Google Scholar shows that the PMBoK is cited 43 times (not a lot, but enough). Amazon shows that it is the #334 on the book list. Compare this with Design Patterns (book), which is #2609. Searching Google is not necessarily a good measure of notability, but searching just google books turns up 880 hits. I'm a project manager and consider this book to be the primary text in the area. Project Management Professional says that there are 359,973 certified Project Management Professionals, all of whom presumably studied one of the 4 versions of this book. The Project Management Professional exam is based on the material in the PMBoK, the Project Management Professional article says "Most of the questions reference the PMI A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (aka the PMBOK Guide).[4]" Before deleting this article, it would be good to have some Project Management Subject Matter Experts weigh in. (Disclaimers: I work for UC Berkeley, I've taken UC Berkeley Extension classes, I own four copies of the PMBoK, I'm taking the PMP exam in two days.) Cxbrx (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this ended up at AfD in the first place is because previously those with knowledge of the subject area stated they would add references, but nothing happened to the article for a month. The article needs referencing. --Taelus (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator JForget 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Black (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn a further entry has been found. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Bergonzi (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cesare Battisti (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bernstein (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call me crazy, but I'd rather see these disambiguation pages expanded. What about this guy [35]? There's also a Judge Charles Bernstein challenging the retirement age of 70. I think these disambigs should be kept and expanded, but I am willing to consider counter arguments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Avery (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete, unnecessary page; The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic (WP:MOSDAB). I put a hatnote at the primary to the only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete; in situations such as these I imagine PROD is the way to go. Not much of a reason for a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment was prodded, but anon removed it. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek McGrath (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete, unnecessary page; The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic (WP:MOSDAB). I put a hatnote at the primary to the only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, dab was prodded, but de-prodded by anon. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of its creation, the page had three links, the third being for a former rugby player, now executive. That link was later deleted. I'm not a sports guy, much less a rugby guy, but I suspect at some point this page will resurface anyway. Circeus (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may well be re-written and meet the guidelines, but if so it will take two seconds to recreate the page. We need to judge it as it is at the moment, not on what might, possibly, be added in the future. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I gather there's currently only two articles, yes? Then I'd say delete, per WP:MOSDAB. Hatnotes are enough for only two entries, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bellingham (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is exactly the type of disambiguation that a hatnote serves. I note also that the nominator could have instead installed the hatnotes on the listed articles, and then requested speedy deletion under WP:CSD G6 using {{Db-disambig}} ("disambiguates two or fewer Wikipedia topics and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)'"). Although this way is perhaps more considerate, it is also more time-consuming. TJRC (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I had been informed by an experienced editor that {db-disambig} wasn't valid, so had stopped using it and went for prod (which was removed by anon). However, I see no evidence that the editor was correct, and now use {db-disambig} again. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator JForget 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bentley (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn one mention of another WB has been found - she doesn't have her own article, but is, just about, a valid entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Berg (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom highly unnecessary. JBsupreme (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of "primary use" is highly subjective here (the term is not even explicitly defined in Wikipedia policy) - I claim that there is no predominant use of the name - complete disambiguation would be a more prudent way to go than an arbitrary assignment of so-called "primary use." In addition, redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion. The better choice is to make Elizabeth Berg the dab and Elizabeth Berg (disambiguation) a redirect to it instead. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a primary is usually judged on page views, plus a few other factors. Putting dab at primary page would mean that if you are looking for either, you need to go through two clicks and are delayed; at the moment, that isn't the case. This page clearly doesn't meet MOS:DAB; in fact it meets the criteria for a speedy, with {db-disambig}. Boleyn3 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:ATHLETE failure (could have been a G4 speedy as well). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvijs Putniņš[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:N as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Neutral, pending further discussion: This player meets notability guidelines in the Wikipedia Football Project as seen here[36]. ~~These guidelines are extremely specific about players needing to play for a team at a particular level in the UK leagues 1-15 system. Level 5 or higher is considered national level,~~ and this player currently plays for a level 2 team-- second-highest league in the country. Their wording is very clear. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) / edit ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would however note that this is WP:FOOTY's essay on how notability should be dealt with, and as such, is not an accepted guideline or policy. Also, I think it is important to note that the player in question has not actually played in a first team game. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeable, and obviously you've already got my talk page. I'm going to change my opinion to neutral for now pending further discussion and hopefully some extra insight people might give here, and from in the project would be all the better. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE (as he has yet to actually play in a competititve, first-team game in a fully-pro league) as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ without prejudice to recreation should he ever actually play in a match for a professional club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, ramp it up to speedy delete, as nothing material has changed since his article was deleted via AfD in August, and the content is essentially the same. Still allow recreation should he ever actually play in a match for a professional club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give him a while and see what happens. It would be stupid to delete it now and have to come back and re-write it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How long should we keep it before? Six months? A year? Two years? There are plenty of young players who get signed by pro clubs but then never play for the team, so it's by no means guaranteed that he'll ever see game time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few weeks.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CRYSTALBALL... Barocci 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's already been with the club for well over a year without ever being chosen to play, what makes you think anything's going to change in the next few weeks..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've a really good feeling he'll play in the next few weeks.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why? Radek Černý and Tom Heaton appear to be fit, so what you're saying is just speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've got a really good feeling I'm gonna win the lottery, but I doubt it'll happen. However, if I do, I guarantee you I will buy QPR and will give Putniņš his pro debut. Giant Snowman 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Jesus lads I was messing. If he has been there for a year then there's no point in keeping it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvijs Putniņš, still no professional appearances. Barocci 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated re: lack of professional appearances. --Stormbay (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to being on a team at the second level of English footballk, he meets WP:N [37] so the discussion of whether he has started or not isn't important. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:N based on one source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are numerous more ... I only referenced one. Here's a couple more [38], and[39]. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how this player has received any degree of significant coverage in secondary sources. He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG and that can't be disputed. Strongest possible delete. Spiderone 15:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Technical Alliance. Redirecting seems like the reasonable compromise here. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Survey of North America[edit]

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

Unfortunately this is non-notable redundant cruft. No reliable sources, and much of the content overlaps with Technical Alliance. Johnfos (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. An effort is being made to strip articles from Wikipedia connected to energy economics by mainstream editors and their cohorts. User:Johnfos, is part of that group that wants to delete anything related to that. See this as to Wikistalking people involved in these articles see this on that users behavior. This is malicious editing at its worse. People that have a pov against notable information and are systematically removing that notable information. This is happening also on multiple articles related. This article documents the origin of the study of biophysical economics in North America. It is very important. M. King Hubbert geo scientist was a member of this group along with Thorstein Veblen and many other notables. See this discussion for more details on a group of editors tandem editing articles for mainstream views here and here. skip sievert (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Skipeievert is a primary contributor to this article. Despite this, s/he has decided to not disclose this common courtesy which is asked of editors on the WP:AFD main policy page. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. User:Skipsievert blocked indefinitely, by User:Moreschi, for "massive POV-pushing", see [40]. -- Johnfos (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Attacks at AfD -- Johnfos (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technical Alliance Yet more multiply redundant trivia. There's nothing in the article to suggest that the survey was published or that it produced any results of interest. After the first sentence, the article is just the same old stuff, with no clear link to the survey it's supposed to be about.JQ (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It was published as the Technocracy Study Course. This formed the basis of the concept of energy accounting in biophysical economics. skip sievert (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technical Alliance or maybe Technocracy Incorporated. Only first three sentences are about the energy survey as such, which is not enough to keep a separate article. Beagel (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Beagel you tandem edit with Johnphos and L.K, and J.Q. those editors are systematically removing references to this notable material for unknown reasons, (pov?), but see the note here on that subject from Economics project page. Accordingly you are a canvassed voice here. See this thread about a possible topic ban for that groups leader.

Skip, I would have to repeat my similar request to remove your personal attack and baseless accusations. I never had have any contact with L.K. or J.Q., and never discussed with Johnfos you or your edits. This is irrelevant, but my last contact with Johnfos was several months ago about creation of the article about the Gujarat solar park. Your accusation about tandem edit is a nonsense and your disruptive editorial behavior does not help to achieve the aim of Wikipedia. As of canvassing, I think that as of a member of the WP:Energy, you should knews that there is an automatic notice on the project website about proposed deletions of articles tagged with the project banner. So, once again, please remove your baseless accusations and personal attack. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that I have never encountered Beagel before this, and had never encountered User:Johnfos until about a week ago. The fact is, Skip, that you are causing trouble to so many different people on so many different topics that you can't keep track. JQ (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic is a keeper - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Merge photo. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the item has historical significance, there will be (probably paper) secondary sources verifying that significance. However, the only refs are to a very small group with no known reliability. If warranted, merge one or two sentences to Technical Alliance. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why we have separate articles at this title and at Technical Alliance. Surely one should be a redirect to the other.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Technical Alliance - There might be something in this article that's worth merging but there's certainly nothing to assert that the subject is notable on its own. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The energy survey is real and I have held it in my hands. If consensus must state this article to be 'non-notable' I support a redirect to another Technocracy article. Trfs (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Bone (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Beckett (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Beaton (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB. Only one article on a 'Janet Beaton', at the primary title. The primary already has a hatnote on Janet Beaton, Countess of Arran's husband, as the only article to mention her. This page serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as creator. Unnecessary. - PKM (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Barry (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Blight (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to say "per nom" here. As much as I hate saying it, there's no point in typing out the whole reason, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bobo (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Beazley (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Becker (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep a number of people called Ludwig Becker are notable. See also de:Ludwig Becker (Begriffsklärung). I would expect that some of them would make it into the English Wiki. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be others of this name who are notable, and one day an article on one may be created. If so, it would take two seconds to create a dab. We have to judge the page as it is, not what there is a possibility it may become in the future. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Tonnies[edit]

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

~~Contested Prod - Par WP:N and WP:NOTMEMORIAL~~ Nomination withdrawn, clearly notable. (Though how did i miss it in the first place?) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It honestly breaks my heart to hear about someone dying at such a young age, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the article fails the notability guideline, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was profiled in the local paper in 1995[41] and there a number of eulogies on various blogs now, but it's hard to argue that he's notable.Prezbo (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I'm going to stay out of this. There might be enough information in the two newspaper articles about him for an article.Prezbo (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The article was created essentially as an obituary, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Subsequent edits have improved the article but not adequately addressed the basic notability concern. —Caesura ^(t) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems you guys aren't exactly familiar with Mac Tonnies, or his work. Mac had revolutionary, controversial, and singular views in the field of ufology. His book "After the Martian Apocalypse" was just the beginning of this, and he was on the cusp of becoming a real force in fortean literature. His new one, "The Cryptoterrestrials," will be released posthumously, and is likely to be much more influential. Mac's ideas will undoubtedly influence ufologists and forteans for generations to come. I think this makes him very "notable." Add to this the fact that he was beloved by so many for his wonderful and prolific blog, and I think he deserves a Wikipedia entry. It shouldn't be hard at all to flesh it out with biographical information, career details and more on his theories. I'd do it myself, if I knew more about him. Just give his family and colleagues a chance to process his passing first. - slowave 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
'Strong Keep Oodles of coverage [42] for this author, futurist, and freak (Wired calls him "undeniably a bit of a weirdo." :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven results. Most of them are trivial mentions, press releases, or about different people.Prezbo (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired notes one of his books and says: "Mac Tonnies is undeniably a bit of a weirdo. Perhaps that’s why I like him so much, though I agree with nearly nothing that he writes. His subject is largely the future of humanity: he enthusiastically imagines a future, sometimes hopefully, sometimes apocalyptically, where the transhuman is real." He's published by Simon and Schuster. He's featured in a Canadian documentary series "Life from Other Planets" [43] and I haven't even gotten to the google books sources yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The google books results are a couple books where he's listed in the acknowledgments, his own books, and one book[44] which has a sentence about him.Prezbo (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book credits him with reviving the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis and recommends his book. The acknowledgments support his being influential. I think it's plenty of coverage especially considering the limitations of google searches. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This delete message came only because of the first memorial edition....but now slowly we ll do it better. Mr J.G.Ballard this year called Mac Tonnies as a friend, who continues his Ballardian work. Many other famous writers did the same. 77.49.180.248 (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Beltrame (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bolton (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB. Only one entry has this name, and it has a hatnote to the similar name. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Arnold (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete, unnecessary page; The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic (WP:MOSDAB). I put a hatnote at the primary to the only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Bennett (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bearer (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only toher entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Blanchard (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote onn primary to only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~redirect to Licky~~. Delete as it is an unlikely search term JForget 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Shontelle album)[edit]

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

Contested prod - WP:CRYSTAL. And i assume TBA stands for "To Be Annouunced", instead of being a title. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all Wikipedia guidelines for albums. ---Shadow (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be superseded by Licky article. PamD (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Licky, as discovered by PamD, two pages for the same album. J04n(talk page) 00:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely search term if a named album exists now. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G6. The Public Record (newspaper contains all the information that is in The Public Record (newspaper) plus some more. The nominator, DThomsen8, is the only contributor to the correctly titled page and the only significant contributor to the one with the missing closing parenthesis. The easiest way to sort this out will be to delete the article with less content and then move the bigger article to it's place (the correct title) without a redirect. Please leave a note on my talk page if anyone disagrees with this unilateral action. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Record (newspaper[edit]

The_Public_Record_(newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article is an accidental duplicate of The Public Record (newspaper). Please note the missing ) in the title. As the creator of The Public Record (newspaper) article, I see no reason not to delete this accidental duplicate. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation[edit]

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

Notified Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#External_links Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability criteria met for the Foundation itself, good research. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Non Notable Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:CLUB: a non-commercial organisation of international scope and information verifiable by third party sources. --Martintg (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLUB actually says: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." The "museum" does not have branches thoughout the American nation, let alone overseas branches. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not the role of Wikpedia to provide free advertising to commercial ventures. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non commercial - non-profit organization Bobanni (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability comes from the foundation being created through an act of the American Congress with responsibility for the creation of a memorial in Washington, D.C., as well as an eventual bricks-and-mortar museum. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no reliable sources for this article just a website. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two websites. And I added a third to make you happy. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need a third party to verify it. Articles should not be based upon websites that do not have independant verification. Please see reliable sources to explain. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I added one. You can do it, too. It's not hard. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Basically this avoids two things: providing greater coverage to an organization than it has received in mainstream sources and ensuring that there is sufficient coverage so that an NPOV article can be written. I notice that Lee Edwards, who the Heritage Foundation says "is widely regarded as the chief historian of the American conservative movement" is the chairman, so I am sure that reliable sources would question the neutrality of the site, if it had received any notice at all. It is best to leave it as a redirect to the Edwards article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg provided the links above showing significant coverage. The article is a stub. We don't delete stubs because they are stubs. The reason this was nominated for deletion, non-notability, has been shown to be incorrect. Your reason for wanting deletion, that it is a commercial venture getting free advertising on wikipedia, has also been shown to be incorrect. But you just ignore these things. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The no. 1 hit is www.victinsofcommunism.org and the rest were mirror sites or sites that Lee Edwards writes for. However it has today (Nov. 2nd, 2009) been written up in the New York Times which allows us to write an NPOV article.[45] However it still lacks notability. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I find mention of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in the Washington Times, Jerusalem Post, National Review, Evening Standard, Philippine Star, Taipei Times, etc, etc, [46]. What search engine are you using? --Martintg (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources were written before the museum was set up. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~It is weird~~I find it unusual to describe an organization established by an Act of the U.S. Congress as nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument for notability is intensely provincial. And, to expand, can someone locate the title and text of the act, possibly even cite it? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your criticism in plain words, so that I could improve my argument. Please keep in mind that 90% of world population lives in "province" according to someone's high-brow opinion, so I see nothing wrong in provincial arguments. Just the same, I can look up an insulting adjective for the opposite kind of arguments. I am aware that there is an opinion that US Congress profusely wastes money of American taxpayers, but still, the activities of top power echelons are...er... of interest to public, even if to criticize, hence notable. - Altenmann >t 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication the VCMF is an owned corporate entity, operating instrumentality, or subunit of a department of the US Government. Parliamentary institutions of all kinds pass all kinds of acts, the notability doesn't inhere in a particular act, or a particular parliamentary forum, but in other features of the Act. Claiming a US forum is particularly notable is the provincial aspect. Is the Act in question more than just a salutory act; or more than the last five lines of an omnibus act like a budget. If the act is something more along the lines of VCMF Establishment Act, or some other specific concession, naming right, etc, ie: a unique act of establishment, then that's towards notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand your arguments. However I disagree about "provincial": we are not talking about "a US forum" we are talking about US gov't, and I am not saying it is "particularly" notable. I would say that gov't instruments of any state are notable, not because I am banana-eating Zamunda provincial, but because I maintain an opinion that governments influence lives of whole nations, hence their activities are inherently notable. You are free to disagree. - Altenmann >t 02:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Section 905 of Public Law 103-199 of .December 17, 1993 I guess it is searchable, whoever knows how to navigate in US Law databases. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See section 905 of Public Law 103-199, which authorises the establishment of the foundation as an independent entity for the construction of the memorial. --Martintg (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says in part, "there is a danger that the heroic sacrifices of the victims of communism may be forgotten as international communism and its imperial bases continue to collapse and crumble", and indeed, it seems that beating the dead horse of Communism is not so fashionable already: it was expected to raise $100 mln for the memorial and museum, but barely got 1% of the sum, i.e., 1c instead of $1 per victim of communism. Of course, underwear of Britney Spears is more notable from non-provincial point of view, I guess. - Altenmann >t 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

905b1B only encourages the National Captive Nations Committee to form such an organisation. The NCNC is authorised to construct a monument. The VCMF isn't established by an Act of Congress at all. I'd suggest seeking notability in sources which actually name the VCMF. I really have no interest in the underwear. Governments may influence the lives of nations, but this act doesn't create the VCMF, or order anyone to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Congress specifies that "The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial." That entity is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The onus is on you to show how a foundation instrumental in creating a national monument in Washington D.C. relating to the victims of the international communist movement,[47] the dedication of which was performed by the president and attended by foreign ambassadors and parliamentarians from Eastern Europe,[48] which has national and international advisory councils including top names from around the globe,[49][50] which has created an online Global Museum on Communism with articles written by academics from institutions and universities across the country,[51][52][53][54][55] which is in the process of raising money to build a national museum is non-notable.[56][57] How did you come to that conclusion?AmateurEditor (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cites please, from RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted links into my previous post. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about something from an academic journal: P Williams, The Afterlife of Communist Statuary: Hungary's Szoborpark and Lithuania's Grutas Park, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 2008, Volume 44, Number 2, Pp. 185-198. --Martintg (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the organisation is discussing in passing in footnote 37. "37 If Szoborpark and Grutas Park reflect a wry eulogy to state socialism, a very different strategy informs the recent dedication, on 12 June 2007, of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism on the Mall in Washington D.C. (the geographic centre of American monumental pageantry). In 1993 the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was given approval by an Act of Congress to build a memorial to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism. The memorial will feature a paved plaza of approximately 900 square feet with a 10-foot-high figural sculpture atop a simple stone pedestal 3' 6 high. The sculpture is a bronze female figure based on the "Goddess of Democracy" statue erected in 1989 by the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. " Williams (2008) fn37. A number of independent newspaper articles at different times (to avoid press release duplicate articles) focused specifically on the VCMF would be sufficient citation. Passing references really aren't suitable. If they are what they have been said to be, these should be available. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Russian news outlet Kommersant or the Taiwanese Taipei Times --Martintg (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marting and others, please don't assume that the main goal is to convince Fifelfoo that he is wrong. The main goal is to make a good article. Why don't you rather spend your time to expand the text and put the refs you cite into the article. I am doing my piece. - Altenmann >t 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. (BTW, like that outdent template, pretty cool) --Martintg (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tapei Times is RS and Kommersant appears to be RS. They're non US, so it demonstrates the international scope of the notability. (They should go into the article). They're still only one moment of time, the dedication of the statue. Maybe searching around the time that Congress passed the law? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Added Taipei & Kommersant. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should think WP:NOBLECAUSE would apply here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found, and added, several news sources discussing this foundation. Clearly passes WP:GNG due to extensive news coverage over the past 16 years. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you have. Well done! Keep owing to the new sources, which are sufficient.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep , based on e.g. act of congress. what was the reason for nominating this? Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Act of Congress is suffient in and of itself in this case. As for any claim that no museum which does not have overseas branches somehow does not meet WP requirements -- 90% of all museums would get pulled. [58] dedicated by President G. W. Bush. Multiple mentions in the NYT over the years. 72 mentions in googlebooks cites. [59] mentioned in Congressional Record multiple times. [60] tracking resolutions in Congress. Numerous other mentions. Not even a conceivable deletion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Victims of Communism Memorial. Everything placed in the public realm by financial subscription will have some sort of trust or committee associated with it, and the Foundation's activities apart from the sculpture don't seem significant. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeymount[edit]

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

This is a hoax - there is no such place, and there is no "Viscount Hammonds" - see List of Viscounts. Such a large estate would be well known, but a search for Abbeymount "Viscount Hammonds" returns no results - compare some real viscounts with landed estates: [61] [62] [63]. The only other contribution of the author Lancsjoe (talk · contribs) is another hoax article Chelmswood, also at AfD here, which awards the same Viscount another 12,000 acre estate in Lancashire. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 700 year old estate of this size and wealth would be well documented, but there's nothing, and "east Lancashire" is a pretty vague location for an article which otherwise contains some very specific details. No Google hits for "Viscount Edward Hewitt Hammonds" outside Wikipedia; ditto for "Rt Hon Viscount Lewis Hewitt Hammonds". Obvious hoax. Small-town hero (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable WP:HOAX. All indications are that Viscount Hammond(s) is also a hoax title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable hoax or fictional estate; searches, see, e.g., [64] find nothing relevant online. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they also appear to live here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmswood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luminita Soare[edit]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added per request. The delete "votes" No, they are not votes, but for the lack of a better word, I shall refer to "comments that were weighed by the closing admin" as votes largely argued that the article met did not meet DICDEF's standards. However, many of the deletes were made before the rewrite of the article, and those editors did not update or reaffirm their position afterwards, leading me to weigh their arguments a little less. On the other hand, after the rewrite came a vast influx of policy-based keep "votes" who felt that the article passed DICDEF's standards and had enough proper encyclopedic content to stay as an article. I felt that more weight should be accorded to the keep side for that reason, as nearly all of them analyzed the article as it existed towards the end of the AfD. NW (Talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing contest[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide, but that's what the article seems to be about. It's not even a particularly useful dictionary entry, combining a convoluted original research explanation and what looks like a random sampling of Google search results as usage examples. Some content might conceivably be salvaged for wikt:Pissing contest. Sandstein 09:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the extent that the nominator's observations are correct, they suggest expansion, not deletion. Many phrases that have definitions in dictionaries are also suited to encyclopedia entries. I am not sure that the information presented in the article is accurate (let alone well-sourced), but the phrase is plausibly one of note and import beyond just its definition. ^Bongo_matic 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases themselves are not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles, a single underlying concept is suitable, but this article is about the phrase, and is being used in the article in incompatible ways; a ego-driven verbal discussion is not the same as a urination contest for the purposes of the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a misinterpretation of policy; phrases as articles may exist if they contain things other than mere definitions, like origins and evolution of use; see Feck. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF- I'm not looking at that article, I'm looking at policies like I'm supposed to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then look at WP:DICT: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well". This article is not a mere definition. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to pick one sentence out of the policy, it has to meet the whole policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to have articles on two or more distinct meanings of the article name. The article is about both a fight involving urination AND a verbal fight. You can't do that in the wikipedia. An encyclopedia article is on "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." This article fails that completely.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be translatable- this one is about a language specific idiom. That's fine in a dictionary, not fine in an encyclopedia. Imagine what would happen if you tried to translate it into Russian or something, half the article becomes garbage to a Russian. That's because they're not the same thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment regarding language specificity is (a) not supported by policy and (b) patently false. For analogy, is red comprehensible by a blind person? Is tone language understandable to a speaker of English? For a more comparable example, is Red herring something that, in translation, a Russian could understand? ^Bongo_matic 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring is wp:otherstuff and is a lousy article. My point is not that idioms are not allowed, it's that you can't correctly have two different topics in one article that are bridged only by a word or phrase. That's the primary difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in encyclopedia: Although the line between dictionary and encyclopedia is somewhat blurry, one test is that because an encyclopedia article's name can usually take many equivalent forms, it can typically be easily translated into other languages, whereas a dictionary entry, which is a linguistic work specifically about the entry's name, cannot.Modern lexicography By Henri Béjoint pg 30 This article is specifically about an English phrase, and cannot be easily translated into a foreign language.- Wolfkeeper 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong that translating an article about an idiom or practice in one language results in nonsense. This example is cited not as an example of a great encyclopedia article, but simply to demonstrate that it is abundantly possible to translate information about language-specific idioms into another language. See Three men make a tiger. Don't start OTHERSTUFFING again—this isn't about why the article should or shouldn't be kept, but why one of your now oft-repeated arguments fails. ^Bongo_matic 01:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in ad hominen attack towards me in this way. You are not supposed to be referring to me, you are supposed to be referring to policy and facts. As the reliable source states, in the opinion of the published expert, encyclopedias are translateable, whereas dictionaries are not. A pissing contest as both a contest about urination and a discussion mode (because Wikipedia articles are on one topic, this article essentially claims they are the same thing) does not translate, and this is strong evidence that this article is not currently encyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I refer to you and your argument, it is not an ad hominem (for future reference, note correct spelling—and note that this Wikipedia entry is another demonstration of the the fallaciousness of the argument on translation) attack. You are the editor who advanced this line of inquiry. Again, you are conflating different threads of your article. You asked and wrongly answered, "Imagine what would happen if you tried to translate it into Russian or something, half the article becomes garbage to a Russian", an answer that has been demonstrated wrong. ^Bongo_matic 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still attacking me, not the argument. In Three men make a tiger, the article takes the phrase in a single way. It does not talk about putting three men in a tiger costume or three men making a tiger out of paper mache or any other such thing. Because it's only on one thing, that's (in most cases) a valid article. When it's on two essentially unrelated things that happened, by accident or history, to be called the same, then they're dicdefs.- Wolfkeeper 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you have two different meanings you need two different articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same policy given by the nominator. While the list of examples is not enough, the information on the origin of the term coming from actual pissing contests on walls means that this article "provide[s] other types of information about that topic as well". I would like to see some information on when the term first being used in this manner, however, and possibly info on the original literal pissing contests. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - slang term that isn't particularly world-centric. Article attempts to inflate importance by referring to an entirely different slang term, presumably to pad the list of available references. Concept much better described with article on competition. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could obviously do with some expansion, but it should not have been brought here so precipitously. There is a history behind the term, as Scapler says, both as the original game and in its modern adoption. That the article does not yet develop those themes coherently is an argument for expansion, not deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it is just a colloquial term for competition. Many similar colloquial terms for competitions and duels exist that are of this nature. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite; it's a term used to describe "any contest which is futile or purposeless, esp. one pursued in a conspicuously aggressive manner". That doesn't sound like a definition of "competition" to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still a colloquial term that is more suited to (and exists within) Wiktionary. The only references likely to be found are of use of the term, rather than its origin. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial in what regard, its use in news and book writing suggests that it is not "only appropriate for casual casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation" (from Colloquialism). --kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the opposite was the case. I doubt the term crops up in formal writing very often - rare exceptions, perhaps. My own brief research on this term (before !voting) lead me to believe that the term came into use in the '80s, growing out of the more prominent term "pissing match" from the '70s. Most dictionaries refer to the terms as "slang", which follows on from what the nominator was saying. Either way, this is material for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the origin of the term that make it interesting. The first recorded use of the term occurred in the modern sense was during a 1943 Senate hearing, predating your "pissing match" hypothesis by 30 years. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't refer to my words as a "hypothesis". As I indicated above, my conclusions were based on some limited research, not pure guesswork. I take AfD more seriously than that. That being said, it is still slang, and thus the proper place for this is Wiktionary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "hypothesis", but more importantly your hypothesis is incorrect. That "pissing contest" is a slang term is neither here nor there. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean to use the word as in "conjecture", then that is reasonable and I have no objection. I am quite happy to be proven wrong by new data, but that doesn't change the fact that this is slang more appropriate for a different wiki. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is however, nothing preventing slang expressions from existing on Wikipedia, I believe that it is best that the two of you agree to disagree on whether or not slang expressions have a place here, lest you begin your own pissing contest (last part added entirely for humourous purposes).--kelapstick (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the existence of slang expressions on Wikipedia is in conflict with Policy. Many of the articles in that category are tagged as being duplicates of Wiktionary articles - with good reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase didn't originate in the 80s. The OED has it down to 1943, and as Malleus points out Pope mentioned the compound several centuries earlier. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase is part of the English vernacular, and may have interesting origins. There were quite a few medieval streets in London called Pissing Alley, and part of me wonders if the two aren't related. I'll try and find more. Parrot of Doom 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the various places named "Pissing Alley" were so named because there were certain places that people congregated to piss in the street before the Great Fire of London. A particular favorite of mine (of similar ilk) is Gropecunt Lane. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I've a vague memory of having seen Gropecunt Lane before ... --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how Pissing Alley got into that article... The English language is a strange thing. The term may have developed originally from the activities taking place on such streets. One never knows until one investigates. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NAD is pretty clear on this matter. Wikipedia is for "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." Wiktionary is "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." This clearly falls under the latter definition. To my mind, this is similar in nature to "pissing in the wind". Neither of these should have Wikipedia articles. "Penis extension" (slang for a man's sports car, fancy yacht, etc.) is another example. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clear to me as well. "Pissing contest" is a concept, thus meeting your criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a thing. There are, after all, literal as well as figurative pissing contests. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) - Er... no. "Pissing contest" is a slang term to describe a type of competition between rivals. And they are Wikipedia's criteria, not my own. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I am not allowed to respond directly to CoM's comment above, since we are both under an editor interaction restriction. As a general remark, however, I would point out that there are literal as well as figurative cases of "pissing in the wind" as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be advisable then for you to offer no further input at this AfD, lest it may be interpreted by some as personally motivated rather than on the merits of the case. Your deletion vote has been cast. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this to me, or to ChildofMidnight? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that now my agent provocateur has joined the conversation, I should leave it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting to you that as this is an article created earlier today by your "agent provocateur", some may be inclined to suspect your motives in arguing so persistently for its deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of who created the article until well into the conversation above, but that has no bearing on the issue. I came to this AfD from here. As a self-described deletionist, I regularly peruse AfD lists for things which take my fancy. Your insinuation above is unwarranted and unwelcome in an AfD discussion. If you insist on assuming bad faith ("some may be inclined" fails to mitigate your obvious assumption), then I respectfully suggest that it is you who should consider removing yourself from this process. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be determined to misunderstand. So be it. I have insinuated nothing, I simply offered you an interpretation of events that some less generously minded than myself may find persuasive, whether you find that unwelcome or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were the one who came up with the "interpretation". Nobody else has made any statements of bad faith. These remarks of yours are wholly inappropriate for an AfD discussion. Please confine yourself to the topic at hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone can actually come up with sources to support an article on actual pissing contests, fine, but this is a non-article simply about a phrase that could be adequately and more appropriately covered in Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Pope describes a pissing contest in his satire The Dunciad, published in 1728. Did you never see or take part in a pissing contest when you were at school? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. But not a reliable source, since it's a work of satire. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, no, we tended towards football, marbles, and fighting. Not that this would have any relevance whatsoever to this discussion.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant you that it is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, certainly, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is, or has been, a popular diversion particularly amongst adolescent schoolboys. Hence this is not just an article about a slang phrase; it's an article about a pastime that has become a slang phrase. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the same can be said for many things of this nature, such as comparing penis size. The issue here is that "pissing contest" is a slang term to describe a competition between rivals, that has its roots in a non-notable adolescent activity. There is nothing encyclopedic here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now the argument is that the activity is not notable, rather than that it doesn't exist? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec with Michig) - The article is about the slang term ("Pissing contest or pissing match is a slang idiom used metaphorically..."), not the act itself. The term belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. If the article is going to be changed into being about the act of a pissing contest, then (as stated by Michig above), reliable sources would have to be found that describe the activity (which I doubt would pass the notability test). I'm not suggesting that actual pissing contests don't happen - of course they do, but that is not what the article is about. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs to be about one subject. Actual pissing contests (not covered in the article when it was nominated) and the phrase/concept are two separate topics.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the actual contests were mentioned at the time of nomination or not is irrelevant; they're mentioned now. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're completely wrong. Several opinions early on in the discussion were based solely on an article about the phrase (or concept if you must). So now we're discussing an article on a different subject. Or at least two subjects. Not really helpful. The 'actual' PC stuff should be moved to a separate article and judged on its own merits.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's you that's wrong. The actual contest was most certainly not mentioned in the article at the time of this nomination, and the development of the slang from the event is obviously relevant to this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michig was correctly stating that most of the above discussion developed while the article was describing the slang term, not the actual pissing contest. You must have misunderstood, MF. Michig further stated that this new material (concerning the pissing contests themselves) should be moved to a different article and judged independently. That is entirely appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting look at the history, but seems much more suitable for Wiktionary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. Including a list of people who've used the phrase doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase goes beyond simple slang. It is widely used, notable, humorous and very old. In my modest opinion it is encyclopedic and something worthy of baeing a part of the human knowledge database. You know, it could almost be said that this discussion is one...Turqoise127 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but you'd have to explain the analogy/allegory: what, in this discussion, is the urine, and how is "far" defined? Drmies (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article is defined by the scope at the top. As currently scoped this is about the term, not any underlying meaning, so according to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it must be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary material SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and well-sourced article. Look forward to seeing its expansion. More historical and folklore examples particularly... On a related note, I've always thought the Latrinalia "Here I sit all broken-hearted..." deserved a Featured Article. I think Alan Dundes wrote an essay on it back in the '60s... there's an interesting project for someone... Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can describe this article as "well-sourced", to be honest. Most of the sources are simply colloquial, incidental uses of the term in some literature and articles that aren't directly related to the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some editors here have made an astonishing number of contributions to this discussion, many repetitive. While it is neither policy nor guideline, WP:BLUDGEON would seem to be recommended reading for such editors. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the meta statement. That's more suitable for the talk page of this AfD. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this is a significant AfD because it could, potentially, open the floodgates for all kinds of sayings, neologisms, colloquialisms and slang - that probably explains the keen interest. It's certainly what attracted me to the AfD to !vote in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please understand that just because a term might appear in a dictionary, its article isn't necessarily a "dictionary definition". This article goes into an in-depth encyclopedic discussion of the term's history and etymology, which is not in such detail appropriate for en.wiktionary. Although much of this article does need to be cleaned up, I think it's clearly a valid and acceptable topic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is that encyclopedia articles are not simply deeper or more detailed dictionary articles, just because you've lengthened a dictionary article doesn't make it encyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all the history and etymology info is sourced from dictionary's does suggest that this is a dictionary definition. Epbr123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides notable information about the phrase outside of that which can be found in a dictionary, thus making it an acceptable article. As I said, an article can only be deemed a "dictionary definition" if it's just that, and nothing more –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, there's no such policy. You don't get encyclopedia articles just by adding to dictionary articles.- Wolfkeeper 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there a policy that states articles on phrases that happen to be in a dictionary must be removed. As with all articles, if there are reliable sources on a phrase, it becomes notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That at least is more or less correct; you're allowed articles with titles that are phrases; what you can't do is make the article cover two different meanings of the title. You need two articles for that. This article is trying to do too much, and hence is unencyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a valid argument for deletion. If a page requires editorial cleanup, the proper solution is to clean it up, which I've done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As defined, this article is still inherently a dictionary definition.- Wolfkeeper 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's false; please substantiate your argument. A "dictionary definition" is an article that focuses solely on the definition of a term, whereas this article explores the history and etymology of the phrase. "Dictionary definition" can not blindly be applied to any article which covers a word or phrase. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Please state which bit of WP:NAD says that a dicdef is "an article that focuses solely on the definition of a term"; as there is absolutely no part of that policy which states that.- Wolfkeeper 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of said guideline itself is sufficient; an article cannot possibly be deemed a dictionary entry if it provides context additional to that of an actual dictionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been substantially altered since nomination, and the actual subject of the article is now different from that which formed the basis of the nomination; however, the result is an article that seems confused about its focus. The sourcing is terribly poor, with most seemingly citing uses of the slang term (which is no longer the subject of the article). I now believe that this AfD has effectively been invalidated, because half the !votes and comments concern an article that is utterly dissimilar to what exists now. This cannot be the first time something like this has happened during an AfD discussion. What is the procedure for dealing with an AfD where the subject of the article changes in the middle of discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People can change their vote if they want.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, the article is now about one half about the slang term, one fourth about literal pissing contests among humans, and one fourth about (I kid you not) literal pissing contests among lobsters. I believe that in this form, the article should be deleted (but userfied on request) as an indiscriminate collection of information in addition to being a dicdef; one can't just throw together everything under the sun that has ever been referred to as a "pissing contest" into an article just in the hope that enough people will find something in this WP:SYNTH hodgepodge interesting enough to want to keep it. I do not object to an article being created specifically about literally pissing humans (or pissing lobsters, for that matter), if these topics pass WP:GNG, but this is not it. I don't think the AfD is invalid; the closing administrator just needs to assess whether the earlier opinions remain pertinent. In my opinion, they do, because the dicdef content is still there. Sandstein 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification - and I am in broad agreement with your comments. Perhaps the content should be split into Pissing contest (activity), Pissing contest (slang) and Pissing contest (awesome lobster behavior) for independent assessment! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of focus, unencyclopedic, slang dicdef. Not a viable encyclopedia article, sorry. --John (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've stubbified this article so it now focuses on the term itself rather than... lobsters peeing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But now it's basically back to the original dictionary definition, and thus more appropriate for Wiktionary. I can't help wondering if the English lobsters engaged in pissing contests when they should've been fighting for the King! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true. I've just added info taken from a book source (definitely not a dictionary) and I have quite a few more reliable sources I intend to incorporate into the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the lead to restore the reference to the actual game that you removed Julian. That's got to be there, else the arguments of those saying this should be in wiktionary carry some weight. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. I hadn't realized I accidentally removed it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough; you have to completely remove every other interpretation other than one from the lead, and the body cannot cover anything except that definition. And an encyclopedia article must cover basically everything about that definition, so if it's too broad you have to pull other things in as well.- Wolfkeeper 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? There's no rule that says an article has to cover a particular topic in only the most narrow sense. In this case, a brief background on the origins of the term—obviously, an actual pissing competition—is likely necessary to comprehensively describe the term itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. That's just plain and simple rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with MF) - But that's the problem right there. Most entries of actual figures of speech (rather than types of figures of speech) in Category:Figures of speech have a problem with them. Most are tagged for being DICDEFs or needing mergers. That's because figures of speech belong in Wiktionary. If there is actually a notable pissing contest out there, an article could be made for that. Then the figure of speech could be alluded to within the article, I suppose. But not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a figure of speech different from any other topic? WP:N states than if multiple secondary reliable sources cover a topic, it's usually notable enough for inclusion. Given that this article is comprised of info derived from reliable sources, it's perfectly acceptable to be on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two dictionary sources (one each for the activity and the term), a source related to the Urban Dictionary (not reliable) and another source I cannot access (and so I'm not exactly sure what it is supposed to reference). Only one source is related to the actual subject (currently the activity, although this apparently changes on an hourly basis according to how this discussion is going), and the others relate to the figure of speech. This looks like nothing more than a desperate scramble to keep a poor article that has no proper focus, attempting to justify its pitiful existence by hopping from one leg to another like a lizard on the hot sands of the Sahara. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't reliable about Urban dictionary: fularious street slang defined? Please note that it's different from the website Urban Dictionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems to support the "term", not the subject of the article. So it isn't a reliable source for the subject of the article (as it currently stands). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the book is written by the guy who created the website, and who is a computer science major - hardly an authority on the term or the contest! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine; the information presented is of an uncontroversial nature (I don't think anyone would reasonably question the definition of a "pissing contest"...) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about questioning the term - of course it is a legitimate figure of speech. The problem is that the source does not support the subject of the article. Wikipedia relies on sources, not "truth". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? The Urban Dictionary book is being used to cite its own definition of the term, so it's perfectly reasonable to use it as a source. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely ridiculous. The Urban Dictionary is a user-generated website that gets no peer review. We are using a book written by the creator of the site to reference a definition from the site - a definition that isn't even about the subject of the article in the first place. That's like using this article as a reference for what an eye is, or what an apple is. Utter nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand unfortunately. This article uses the Urban Dictionary book to cite its own quote, so it cannot possibly be considered unreliable within the context it's being used in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A figure of speech is a pattern of words/letters in a particular language. An encyclopedia article is about what words/letters refer to, and what it refers to must be a single thing. Just like we don't allow articles on 'apples and spanners'. That's what you're trying to do here; you're linking things together based on the letters/words only, not on what they are; a urination contest is not the same as a heated discussion, even if we call them by the same phrase for them both. In the wikipedia things are grouped on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.- Wolfkeeper 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only encourage you to help out then by improving the article's focus. I think we've established that the phrase is adequately notable, we just need to bring the article up to standard and decide how much weight to give to the physical pissing contest itself. Deletion doesn't seem like the most productive course of action here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles can be theoretically saved by renaming, redefining and rewriting. However that would then be a different article. The AFD is on this one.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, only notable topics such as this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the only reasonable result from this mess. Let me highlight the focus problem alluded to by Wolfkeeper by asking about categorization. Should it be categorized as a figure of speech or a game of physical skill, for example? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A figure of speech obviously, as that's the most notable usage of the phrase. It isn't really that difficult. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Categorization isn't a binary activity. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid article and not really suitable for Wiktionary because of all the background info. Anyone who attempted to expand wikt:pissing contest to take on the extra information found in this article would probably be quickly reverted, so to "transwiki" this article would be effectively to delete it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be deleted, because right now this is an article about two separate subjects that are united because they cannot stand alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be deleted then? If there's a disagreement as to where the article's focus should lie, the logical solution is to seek editorial consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article seems to be wobbling back and forth between a stubbish 4000-byte thing and 10000+ bytes or more, I'd like to clarify that my preference right now is for the minimal version, but that I would welcome the addition of further content provided it is eventually agreed upon on the talk page. But I'm not in favor of deletion of any form of the article at any time. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep This is both a notable competitive game, and a closely related phrase based on that game has its own interesting and significant history. The idea that a subject shouldn't be covered in a way that includes it's role in lunguistics and popular culture is absolute nonsense. Are we allowed to note that a slam dunk also refers to a sure thing? Can we point out that driving fast and spinning out in a tight circle is referred to as a donut? Can we note that rap is a form of music that is also a refers to chatter? Absolutely. This example is even clearer because the game and the meaning of the phrase are so closely related. And as far as objections to the sourced content noting that lobsters engage in pissing matches, we should base article content on what the reliable sources say not the original research and personal whims of the disgruntled and uninformed, who for whatever reason, don't happen to like this subject and want it deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? A notable competitive game? Do you think it is a contender for inclusion in the Olympics, for example? --John (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No more likely than tiddlywinks or shove ha'penny probably, but so what? Are you proposing that all games that have no chance of being fearured in the Olympics should be deleted? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Lots of games are included in encyclopedias that aren't part of the Olympics? Should we delete the article on hopscotch? Kickball? High fives? Headbutts? I don't see how deleting this subject improve the encyclopedia. Is it important that people be prevented from learning about what a pissing contest is, how it is used as a colloquial phrase, how it came about, and that lobsters have their own form of it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, car donut is not valid in doughnut which is about pastries, and a sure thing is not allowed in the basketball article slam dunk. Thanks for pointing out these eroneous contributions.- Wolfkeeper 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, what's this about? I obviously have an opinion on this article, but no matter the outcome you have to respect consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the result will represent consensus about how the article (doesn't) accord with policy, so it will not be necessary to go to DRV. I remind you and everyone that this is not a vote.- Wolfkeeper 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article has been substantially improved over the past two days. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article goes beyond a dictionary definition, the phrase has a long and colorful history and the page is well sourced. J04n(talk page) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been greatly improved since the nomination. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FFS is this the Wikipedia or the urbandictionary? Obvious dictionary-ish slang that is being stretched mighty thin with supposed examples and historical usage. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per expansion and wide use of the term. WP:RS used, and has encyclopedic content, rather than just dictionary content. This AFD looks like a pissing contest. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is a bureaucratic problem, split the article into two - one for the literal meaning and the other for the figurative one
Comment to closing admin this is not a vote, and none of the 6 !vote's immediately above this (including the delete vote) quote any policy at all, they therefore need to be discarded out of hand. Thanks!- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not a vote, please keep your !vote's to discussing how the article does or does not follow the policies of the wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a vote either. I cite policy clearly, even linking to such policy. Please expand on how you say that these votes (I see another that cites policy) don't cover policy. I can see that you just can't wait to see the article deleted, but making broad assumptions about votes isn't the best way to do things on AFD. If you want I can cite tons of policy that would allow such an article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notable phrase, notable concept, and the article looks better and better all the time. (Particularly like the newly-added lobster section.) Having articles like this is one of the things that makes Wikipedia so great, imho. It's well beyond a Wiktionary entry at this point. Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the "Among females" section would fit into Wictionary, and it shows quite clearly that the article is encyclopedic, not dictionaric (not to mention uric). Wikipedia needs to cover this, even more than so many of us apparently need to participate in it. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you genuinely can add multiple different definitions to single articles like this then articles like flight need information about arrow flights added onto them, rocket needs to add information about people running around quickly; jumping up in the air; and driving fast. In fact, lots and lots of articles suddenly look horribly incomplete, and many, many, many things need to be copied repetitively across the whole wikipedia, and there's no policy to stop them; there's no policy that forces mergers at all, and no policy about the 'best' place to put them. The article on Paris needs to cover Paris, Texas. Articles like back need to cover all the 19 different meanings in wiktionary:back including the 'reverse side'. It seems to be a really radical change that the keep votes are effectively calling for.- Wolfkeeper 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you've already made your point several times. I see no merit in continually repeating it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've made this point. If as you Malleus state above that "Pissing contest" is a concept then the simple word "back" is also and hence all possible interpretations must or may, for completeness, be added as well? Is this not the point you were making? Words are concepts? Human back, and reverse, to go rearwards, these are all highly related, and hence must be in the back article?- Wolfkeeper 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the meanings of "back" are related which is why we have disambiguation pages. Sometimes subjects are best merged and other times they need to be split up or differentiated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all absolutely and completely related by the English word back. The English Wikipedia is about the English language??? The term 'pissing contest' relates in English to a urination contest or a verbal disagreement. Because they are related by a term like that, they need to go in the same article, and the same with the back article????- Wolfkeeper 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wolfkeeper, I think the flight article already includes coverage of the motion through air achieved in launching arrows. And if it doesn't, it should. It's possible that an article like that might need to be broken up (disambiguated) into bird flight, lift, propulsion, spaceflight etc. but I think it probably treats the subject broadly and points to those subtopics. They are methods of flight achieved by very different means, but they are related. The article on rockets could certainly mention that the word has also been adapted to refer to anything that's very fast and that rockets are used as a team mascot (if those things aren't already included). As long as concepts are related it seems to be a matter of sourcing, weight and how best to include the information. I'm not sure how adding this type content makes an article less good. Why would it make sense for this article to only relainclude literal aspects of the subject? Or to exclude examples in animals? Certainly readers understand that humans in a pissing match are not the same as lobsters. Paris and Paris, Texas are two different places. But if one is named after the other that could certainly be mentioned (perhaps in both articles). It's a question of weight and what's worth including. If Paris, Texas is named after Paris, France, that's probably worth noting in the Paris, Texas article. I don't know if it's significant for the Paris, France article, that seems like a judgment call. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flight article does not including information about the feathers on arrows which are referred to as 'flights', even though they help it fly, nor does the wikipedia cover flights of stairs. In English, these are related by the word flight, and this is the English Wikipedia. What's the difference to this article?- Wolfkeeper 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the closing admin decide who has made the better case. Isn't that the way that AfD is supposed to work? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, topic formed into an encyclopedic entry. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is now, it seems to be an exact version of what's described in the WP:DICT section here[65]. Even after reading all the discussion above, I still don't know what would describe it any better than that. There's always disambiguation, but that seems really pointless when the social use is a direct extension of a literal use and then one would actually be a dictionary definition and nothing more. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are faults with this article which could be corrected, making it a suitable candidate for inclusion in Wikitionary. The urban dictionary ^[1] already has such an article. It is not a good article for Wikipedia because of the first pillar of Wikipedia which indicates that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary style articles include more than just the definition of a word. They can include derivation, part of speech, declension, conjugation, usage examples, synonyms and antonyms. All information about "pissing contest" falls into one of two categories. It is dictionary style material or it is off topic.

There is a lack of consensus for the inclusion of dictionary style material as indicated by the lack of consensus in this AfD. Dictionary style articles increase the administrative difficulty by introducing different standards of quality than are used in encyclopedia style articles. That increases the difficulty for editors in general since we all share a portion of the administrative burden.

This sort of article is inappropriate because some(addition) are offended by the vulgarity of such an article and do not want to find one when choosing the random article function. It lowers respect of Wikipedia by giving the impression that it is written by authors who have the need most prominently seen in adolescents to demonstrate their independence by violating conventions and the restrictions of authority. People who want such articles can go to the other web sites that have such articles. If such web sites do not have as high reputation of Wikipedia, it is an indication that such web sites are not so desired by people in general. It is not an indication that Wikipedia's status should be dragged down to their level.--Fartherred (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia articles are required to be of one topic. If they are of two topics one of the topics is off topic.--Fartherred (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

^ http://www.urbandictionary.com

Delete. This article is confused as to its topic. While it attempts to describe literal pissing contests, it references no reliable sources that are primarily about that topic. Referencing a dictionary in the lead is particularly telling. The other references are mere uses of the phrase, not discourses on the topic; thus, assembling an article out of those references is practically original research. The rest of the article is a mishmash of topics that are tangentially related to the main topic, and thus do not belong.
But let me make a few things clear. First and foremost, our policy that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not only prohibit dictionary definitions. It is astonishing how often that fallacy is trotted out -- "oh, this is more than just a definition!" I wish we could abolish that damned "DICDEF" shortcut once and for all, since that seems to be the source of the problem. NAD prohibits dictionary entries, and a dictionary entry is much more than just a definition. A dictionary entry includes definitions, pronunciation, etymology, usage notes, and usage examples. No matter how much text one includes in an article, if it all falls into those five categories, it's still a dictionary entry. Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether "en.wiktionary" would take the content verbatim or not. The policy is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" not "Wikipedia is not Wiktionary".
Please take some time to read what the NAD policy actually says and try to understand why it says it. Don't pay attention just to the words but to the intent. Powers ^T 13:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take some time to understand why NAD was originally written. Here is where it started. Read through Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 1 for further edification. Discuss further at WT:NAD. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedic treatment, not a dictionary entry. They don't want this information at Wiktionary (See Angr's comment). There is a strong disagreement (spanning many months) that the nom understands NAD 'correctly'. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do Wiktionary's inclusion standards have to do with ours? Just because Wiktionary doesn't "want it" doesn't mean we do. Powers ^T 20:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  This debate is based on the idea that "This information belongs in a dictionary". If our WP:Sister project (Meta) which is a dictionary disagrees with that, and says that this is "encyclopedic information" - then - there is a flaw in the reasoning somewhere.
  I'm suggesting the flaw is in anyone's understanding our NAD policy to be overly strictly exclusionary (e.g "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers").
  The NAD policy is intended to explain that some content may be better moved to Wiktionary. This is crucial.
  Therefor: If the information is valuable/relevant/worthy-of-recording-somewhere (which in this and many of the other cases it clearly is) - if it is either encyclopedic information or dictionary-information - then it must belong in one of these 2 places. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Point of fact, the Wiktionary has an article on this at: Wiktionary:pissing contest and covers much the same ground, which seems to imply pretty strongly that they do in fact think it is a dictionary topic. But even if they didn't, the principle in WP:NAD states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not that it is not Wiktionary.. At the end of the day, the Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every failed dictionary article that couldn't cut it at Wiktionary, for any reason at all (including being too long, short or any other reason).- Wolfkeeper 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  In point of fact the wiktionary entry is rather poor in comparison to this article, but this getting rather confusing. Is your argument that "pissing contest" should be in either wiktionary or here, not both? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither. The policy says that whether it is in Wiktionary or not is not a valid issue here. Every wikiproject makes its own inclusion criteria.- Wolfkeeper 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Right. So are you proposing that, for instance, the lobster pissing information isn't encyclopedic, and neither are the literary references to actual pissing contests? Let's remind ourselves what the nominator's objection to this article were; a poor dictionary definition, and original research, both of which have now been invalidated by the work that's been done on this article since its nomination. There are a great many legal phrases that have wikipedia entries, without any underlying basis in an actual game like this one does. Do you propose to crusade for their deletion as well? If not, why not? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The article is exactly as bad as it has ever been, and has not been in any way fixed. It defines the topic to be both urination contests (literal definition of article) as well as the metaphorical use. You can't do both of those in one article. You need two articles. It's the fact that the legal phrases do not cover the underlying basis like this one that makes them OK. Sure you can mention the basis; you can even link to it, you just can't cover it; that would be done in a different article.- Wolfkeeper 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You keep beating the same drum, without explaining why it is that an article shouldn't be comprehensive in describing the origins and current usage of a phrase. Is that because youy can't? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  As I understand it, nothing about this process tries to force people that may or may not be pretending to not to understand the policy (i.e. you), to have to declare that they suddenly agree by persuasion by me or others. I only have to point out that an article fails to meet the relevant policy. Whether you like it or not, it does not meet the relevant policy and is therefore eligible for deletion. You have until this closes to make it do so.- Wolfkeeper 03:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This discussion should be about the deletion of "Pissing_contest" not the possible future deletions of other articles, no matter how desired such deletions might be.--Fartherred (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It ought also to consider the implications of deleting this article on the many articles on Latin legal phrases, which really are nothing more than dictionary definitions. One can't help but wonder why so many haven't pursued them to the grave; could it possibly have anything to do with a certain puritan distaste for the vulgar? Surely not. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have an example feel free to nominate though.- Wolfkeeper 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the stupidities of wikipedia is its lack of respect for precedent. Would you be joining me in a howling match to have Prout patet per recordum deleted? Isn't that the epitomy of a dictionary definition? The answer of course is that no, you wouldn't, because it doesn't contain the word "pissing". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't the stupid part. This is necessitated by the lack of a hierarchy. We don't want to be bound by precedent created by a small subset of editors, which is what AfD discussions are. So the stupid part is the main good part—lack of hierarchy, lack of an effective procedural bureaucracy that prevents people from doing stuff. ^Bongo_matic 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed. Thank you. Feel free to point out any other articles you think are similar. (Although I hasten to point out that an article created yesterday should hardly be held up as an example of a precedent we ought to be following.) Powers ^T 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that your crusade is going to make you rather busy.[66] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so since I nominated one, I must nominate them all or I'm being inconsistent, is that it? Powers ^T 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary entry with tortured and synthetic examples. PhGustaf (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are neither "tortured" nor "synthetic". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have made you opinion abundantly clear by now, what with a dozen+ replies to various entries of others above and all. Attempting to refute everyone who you disagree with in a XfD is going a bit overboard, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to correct those who are mistakenly interpreting a policy they only half understood is not "going overboard" in my book, so I will continue to refute whatever I choose whenever I choose. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with believing your right vs. knowing you're right. But hey, good luck with that. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi I already voted, just wish to go on record with my opinion of one above stated comment. I think this activity should DEFINITELY become an olympic sport. The ratings would be unprecedented. Heck, I would even go to a prequalification contest myself... Turqoise127 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is even a substantial WP:content fork of an article created by the same person at nearly the same time (Battle of egos).- Wolfkeeper 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't inherently problematic. POV forks are bad, content forks are perfectly good if implemented properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says: Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.- Wolfkeeper 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article.- Wolfkeeper 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying all sub-articles should be merged with their main page? Barack Obama would crash a few browsers... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're saying that. I'm saying these aren't sub-articles. Sub articles aren't content forks.- Wolfkeeper 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be two articles on the same topic to me. It's not that one is a subarticle of the other (and even if it was, a merge would not be problematic because neither is very long), it's that they cover the same topic, don't they? Powers ^T 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several things actually: 1.) WP:NAD isn't a policy, and in fact, it technically isn't even a guideline - it's an interpretation of a section of WP:NOT, thus, in effect - it is an essay. 2.) The article (pissing contest) isn't written as a "definition", and is therefore not even in any violation of the "Not a dictionary" section of WP:NOT. It is referenced, and the the references are somewhat reliable resources. 3.) That leaves the notability aspects of it all. IMHO this meets our WP:GNG, Therefore I'd have to say keep. The one thing (and it's mentioned above) that perhaps could be done would be to split the two items (the actual "contest" and the "phrase") and dab them. At this point in time I don't really see enough content here for that however. Having read through all of this, I think the strength of the keep !votes here have more strength in their arguments than do those who lean toward the delete camp. — Ched : ? 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - though I agree with the keep, I feel I must point out that WP:NAD is in fact a policy, as shown by, well, the policy notice at the top of the page. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's an explanation of a policy, an essay in other words. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding above statement; this is what I get for editing tired. Misreading tags, *tsk*, what is wrong with me? ;) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't misread anything. Every policy page has that exact same tag on it. Powers ^T 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm ... it appears that someone has been boldly editing the {{policy}} template, partly due to discussion not found on the policy template talk page, but due to conversation on the WP:Policy and guidelines talk page (and those talk archives) My apologies for my previous statement. Confusing to say the least. Either way, I stand by my Keep !vote and rational. — Ched : ? 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The list of examples at WP:NOT#DICTIONARY is not intended to be exhaustive. Powers ^T 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither is it intended to be arbitrarily and unilaterally extended. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is not occurring. It clearly says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"; everything that implies is therefore also part of the policy. Powers ^T 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion For those who have difficulty with the article covering both actual pissing contests and "pissing contest" used as a phrase, how about we put the phrase usage in a subsection entitled, "Pissing contests in popular culture?" ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pointless article to me, agree with nom The C of E (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Its usages (from literal to metaphor) are notable IMO. The article also goes into the history of the term and examples of usage, which is far more than a dictionary would be able to. This is perfectly analogous to the difference between a dictionary definition of, say, astronomy ("the study of the cosmos"), and the greater amount of content in our astronomy article. So WP:NAD really doesn't apply here. Awickert (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not the current policy-encyclopedias do not go 'beyond'. In fact it's the other way around, when you add two different definitions to an encyclopedia article that share the title, you become a dictionary article (or at least you become no longer an encyclopedia article). It's not an exaggeration to say it's more like he's added astrology to astronomy, and then justified it by both sharing a common root, which is true, but...- Wolfkeeper 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did 'astrology' come from? J04n(talk page) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Just because a phrase is derived from the same root (astrology and astronomy were literally one and the same in about 1700 or so), doesn't make them go in one article. Similarly a discussion and a urination contest may have the same name (homographs) for historical reasons but that doesn't make them at all the same thing, and hence they don't get to go in the same article (that's the policy). This article was defined wrongly, and hasn't improved; it is a dicdef, and dicdefs get deleted in AFDs if they don't change by the end of the AFD.- Wolfkeeper 03:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "encyclopedias do not go 'beyond'"; it seems obvious that an encyclopedia gives more information than a dictionary definition. Your other comments seem to take issue with the fact that it has two meanings squished into one article; sure, we could split them, but there isn't enough content IMO to make the split. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's why it's a delete. Dictionary articles go beyond by having multiple defs; they have bigger scope but far less detail. Encyclopedia articles have smaller scope, but far more detail. You need smaller scope in this wiki to avoid tremendous overlap. Dictionaries overlap an awful lot, but it matters an awful lot less because they're so much shorter entries. In this wiki usually it's accidental, but in this case the genius creator created two articles with plenty of overlap all by himself, and one article (this one) is on two topics as well. Stir in a swear word and some borderline conflict of interest/not giving a... admin work and a lot of people giggling over the word 'pissing' and voting keep, and you've got a real mess.- Wolfkeeper 07:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see your point. However, I disagree with it. There is at least one science stub (Dynamic topography) off the top of my head that includes different definitions of the term in different fields, but which doesn't have enough material to make two substantial articles. (Actually, I should really get on expanding it.) But if this combining thing really isn't allowed, all that it seems is needed to resolve this issue is to split the article into two, or fork off the term "pissing contest" as relates to a silly argument. And if this is the only issue, I don't see why this is at AfD (though maybe the article has been much improved since the AfD started, as some previous comments suggest). Awickert (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entertaining and edifying in equal measure. This article is quite a bit more than a simple "Dic/Def".Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy does not simply prohibit "Dic/Def"s. Dictionary etymologies, dictionary word usage examples, dictionary word usage notes, etc. Powers ^T 12:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTCENSORED, well sourced. What else would you have an encyclopedia article about this term cover? Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just it, the encyclopedia should not be covering this term at all. It can cover the topic of pissing contests, but there's no need for an article on the phrase unless extensive sources can be found that talk about the phrase qua phrase. Powers ^T 12:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, as this is all the article has become; define the term and rattle off a litany of (sometimes flimsy) real-world examples and pseudo-historical examples. Scant discussion of the phrase itself and or why/how it is notable. This is urbandictionary material, at best. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pepper (magazine)[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn: see comment below. Delete No evidence of notability. The article gives no references to independent sources, and I can find none. A prod was removed with edit summary including "Removed prod, a google news archive search shows clear notability". However, it is not clear what one has to search for to confirm this. I have tried many search terms, including "Red pepper" and "Red pepper magazine" and "Red pepper" magazine and "Red Pepper" "Socialist Movement" and "Red Pepper" "Hilary Wainwright" etc etc. Out of all these searches on Google News I found a total of one reference to this magazine; this was a blog post referring to a planned meeting, with a list of 16 planned speakers, including Hilary Wainwright (Red Pepper), and that was the only mention of the magazine. A plain Google web search produces the magazine's own site, www.magazinesubscription.co.uk, this Wikipedia article, blogs, twitter, etc etc but no significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Do not delete this article I have now added references and links, including an interview with the editor about the magazine on the website of UK daily The Guardian. Found it via google - not sure why JamesBWatson, above, was not able to find this. Magazine is well known in the UK left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.218.99 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a full colour, 68-page magazine published every other month (Available online here for anyone to check the veracity of this) passes a notability test! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.218.99 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Red Pepper is a national magazine with a wide distribution, a simple google search will product many results. Try a blog or web search for something like ([red pepper antifacism http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=red+pepper+magazine+antifascism&btnG=Search&aq=]) and you will see this very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.221.163 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with all due respect to the nominator, I had little trouble finding press references to this publication (which I've never heard of before, sounds like something Billy Bragg would read), and added about 4 references to The Independent to the article, including information on circulation. While not a huge publication, its notability seems clear.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through duplicate "Keep"

~~Keep~~ I'm a subscriber and unless I'm delusional I see to get the magazine every two months and a damn good read it is too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.221.163 (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator clearly didn't look too hard, [67]. RMHED (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re. No evidence of notability? In which case you mean Harold Pinter, Tony Benn, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein clearly don't write for notable magazines. Except you'll be wrong because they have all contributed to the only bastion of independent media left in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.167.118 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a huge amount of independent reference sources to this magazine, I really don't understand why this article is even considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.198.183 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw Well, we have four IP editors nobly trying to defend the magazine they love, but with arguments which mostly do not relate to Wikipedia policy or guidelines. (eg "a full colour, 68-page magazine published every other month", "I see to get the magazine every two months and a damn good read it is too", "No evidence of notability? In which case you mean Harold Pinter, Tony Benn, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein clearly don't write for notable magazines" (notability is not inherited). However, Milowent has provided references to sources which at a glance look good, and also nobody else is supporting deletion, so I am willing to withdraw. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This debate comes down to deciding if BLP1E applies to this subject, or not. As the policy does not have a bright line against which to measure the article, we need to place roughly equal weight to the arguments on either side. Given that some of the keep arguments are "weak keep", and one mentions BLP1E concerns, the stronger case here is to delete. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Teitel[edit]

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

I removed the speedy, but am unsure whether or not the article should be retained per WP:NOT#NEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a bona fide serial killer would seem to be notable, I also understand that he's confessed but not yet been found guilty? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also while it does seem to be a slam dunk, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) does recommend "serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured, since doing so not only risks violating WP:BLP, but also may not adequately satisfy notability guidelines." Although again, it looks a pretty open and shut case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nom is only posing a question, we should continue on Talk

Suggest ~~speedy closing~~ because of misstarting (WP:SNOW if you like) (stroked, see below) -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: DePiep (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second close. AfD nominations should not be taken lightly. A nomination needs a proper rationale for why an article fails to comply with policy. Fences&Windows 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a possible WP:NOT#NEWS as the rationale. I would not object to a speedy close, if there is consensus that this is a case of WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Windows' comment is quite incorrect- AfD is for discussion of deletion, period. If it's blatantly clear that an article should be deleted, then PROD or some CSD criterion is appropriate. If a nominator has concerns as to the notability of a subject, but isn't entirely sure if it should be deleted, then AfD is an appropriate, though not the best, venue. I don't think this is even the case, however; the nominator had a serious concern with regards to a shaky deletion rationale. In other words, it's a controversial delete. The reason we have AfD here instead of on talk pages is to solicit the opinion of the wider community. I believe in this case, that mission has been accomplished. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv: (Off discussion, but yes about process here): "some CSD" is no entrance for a PROD. The point was, that the nominator did not state a proposal to delete, let alone a criterium for deletion. Therefore the proposed speedy keep was, with the other facts, correct. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ as per wikipedia:Speedy keep, reason #1: nom does not propose deletion, and agrees with speedy keep. (Use of WP:SNOW not preferred). Discussion can be done at the regular Talk. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Stroked; motivated my Keep below) -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ONEEVENT, for which the topic hasn't even been tried, let alone convicted yet. Example of extreme WP:RECENTISM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS landmine. Possible transwiki to Wikinews owing to extreme recentism. It's way too soon to evaluate whether this will be a non-event or grow into something bigger with lasting historical significance. Ray^Talk 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. See WP:Wikinews. Fences&Windows 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E or more appropriately per WP:BLP1E, which overrides WP:N. Most of the individual events that this individual allegedly confessed to having committed are not notable. So, at best, a redirect to Zeev Sternhell#Attack. The confession, in particular, needs to be supported by more reliable sources before we can uncontroversially accept it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv: please specify which sources, now present in the page, are not RS (enough to drop the page)? -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread with me, Mendaliv: "1E" ONEEVENT and "Most of the individual events ...". Contradiction.

- Additionally, I'd like to comment that if WP:BLP1E isn't considered, then WP:BLP certainly must be. The content of the article at present indicates that knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux, and that the subject himself is making implausible statements to the police. WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right." While we're limited by what's available, and moreover by the interest of authors in updating the article when new information becomes available, we have a responsibility to do no harm. WP:BLP is very explicit in this regard. Notability, on the other hand, is vague and measured by a poor objective means. And even so, notability is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for inclusion of material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux" (further on you write about the same, but not the same) is not mentioned in WP:NOT#NEWS. It only means we do now know all, but that is no reason to keep it out here. In fact: knowledge and encyclopedia do develop. Nothing PROD in here. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ^^ as above - I'm not going to type out all the wikilinks again. Article needed when verdict is in and history has had a chance to digest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP:1E. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many separate actions here, BLP1E does not apply. Hundreds of news articles on this already; search under Jack Teitel, not Yaakov Teitel (I'll do a redirect if it's not deleted). If it's deleted now, it will be back -- might as well cope with it now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the above. I feel that WP:BLP1E does apply, therefore Delete. Crafty (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article focuses negatively on one event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's been reopened. Good, speedy deletion was too hasty. Delete. I disapproved of the original nomination as it gave only a vaguewave to policy - we must give proper reasons for deletion, not shorthand. WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS guide us that a short burst of news reports is not enough for notability. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) shows that we can have biographies about people only known as the perpetrators of a crime or series of crimes, but also that we need to be wary of creating articles before guilt is proven. I think criteria #3 of N/CA, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event" will be eventually proven to be met by this case, as a lone domestic Jewish terrorist in Israel isn't a commonplace occurrence, but of course I don't have a crystal ball. As the content of the article is already mentioned appropriately within Jewish religious terrorism and Ze'ev Sternhell#Attack, there's no need for a merge. No prejudice against recreation if and when he is convicted and notability of the man and the case are shown by persistent indepth coverage. Fences&Windows 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning to weak keep now. I think he meets the criteria in WP:N/CA. Coverage in the Israeli and international press is still ongoing and indepth. New info that Shin Bet tried to recruit him in 2000 adds another angle:[68]. Coverage in Australian news today calls him "the new face of Israeli extremism".[69] It is widely reported that he has confessed to a series of crimes, diminishing BLP concerns. Fences&Windows 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources for the confession. A perpetrator of a single terrorist attack isn't unusual in Israel , but this is apparently much more than that, and I think it is fairly clear from the material already present that there will be more than a short burst of news & that it will be part of the historical record. BTW, if a terrorist attack would be notable elsewhere, why shouldn;t it be so in israel--simply because they have so many? Thjat makes them the more notable, not the less. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think your rationale is thoughtful, DGG, I'm sorry in that I have to disagree here. Part of your keep rationale seems grounded in it being clear from the material that this person will remain significant beyond this one event; I see a hint of WP:XBALL in that logic. And moreover, the logic in WP:RECENTISM, and moreover WP:DEADLINE clearly applies: do we need an article about this individual before his trial and conviction? If not, I think it's appropriate for us to exercise more discretion. Notability guidelines go both ways- while they typically identify things that belong in the encyclopedia, things not identified by them routinely belong, and things that are identified by them do not necessarily belong. As we are dealing with a WP:BLP and moreover a WP:BLP1E situation, I'd argue that this is an exception to the rule. As to the Israel-Palestine connection, I would suggest that the problem lies not in that terror is common, but that both terror and Israel-Palestine are, broadly construed, very controversial, even among reliable sources. As such, WP:RS needs to be put in overdrive for this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again: please Mendaliv, what is the problem with the current RS? Then, I agree, Mendaliv, we do not need WP:XBALL, WP:RECENTISM or WP:DEADLINE. Without these, the facts are relevant enough. DGG states that the even outcome of the juridical steps do not matter for notability. Correct with me. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly recreate in the future. WP:BLP1E applies to some degree, but the case is far too early in the judicial process for us to have an article on the alleged perpetrator. While he has confessed to the police, he also has been unable to meet with his lawyer who claims that Teitel is suffering from mental illness. Userfy the article, let it incubate, and when more details become known it can be recreated. It's possible by the time this AfD is over, enough information will be available that deletion will be unnecessary. AniMate^draw 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Part of an ongoing story so deletion seems unwise. BLP1E does not apply since there are multiple relevant crimes he has confessed to. The fact that the individual may be suffering from mental illness is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Given his confessions and given the massive coverage in reliable sources, a do-no-harm calculus on BLP shows that deletion would not accomplish anything. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I have to say I'm not keen on the practice of immediately nominating for deletion articles on people in the news as soon as they've been created; it's almost always better to leave it a few days so it can develop and notability, or the absence of it, can be more clearly judged. In this case, while there are WP:BLP1E issues, there's also a pretty strong claim to notability - if the claims about him are true, this guy's definitely notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this article for now as the story develops; we can always delete it later if it turns out to have no long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete it later if it can always better to leave it a few days so it can develop and notable as a terrorist. On the practice of immediately notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we can always deletion articles on the practice of it, can be more clearly judged. In this article for deletion article for deletion articles on people in the practice of immediately nominating for delete it a few days delete it later if it turns out to have to say I'm not keen created; it's also a pretty strong claims about to have no long-term notability, or the story develop and notability.ow as they've been created; it's almost always better to leave it a few days so it can develops; we should keep this article for deletion article for now as the news as soon as there are BLP1E issues, the news as soon as the story develop and notability, or the absence of immediately nominating for delete it later if it turns out to have it a few days so it turns out to have no long-term notable as a terrorist. On the news as so it turns out to have to say I'm notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this guy's definitely notability.tability.ld keep this article for now as the news as the story develop and notability, or there are BLP1E issues, there are BLP1E issues, the story develops; we should keep this guy's definitely nominating for now as soon as soon as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this guy's delete it turns out to have no long-term notable as a terrorist. On this case, while there are true, this case, while there's also a pretty strong claim to notability - if the clearly judged. In this case, while there are true, there's also a pretty strong claim to leave it a few days better to leave it a few days soon articles on people in the practice of immediately notability - if there's also a pretty strong claim to notability, or the absence of immediately nominating for delete it later if it turns out to have no long-term notability.. In this case, while there are true, this guy's definitely notability - if the story develops; we can always better to leave it a few days better to leave no long-term notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this articles on the practice of immediately notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I this guy's definitely nominating for deletion article for now as the story develop and notability. 165.91.12.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC). [reply]

Huh? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was written by a chatbot. Are bots allowed to !vote now?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't be ¬voting. I've struck out that comment. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof of notability. WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Speculation over guilt or not is not the same as a news story. This would also fall under One Event. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it's possible to make (or take) assertions of "no proof" seriously, when everything in the article is referenced and a news search (here) shows hundreds of results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: Wiki does not need to proof guilt (the judge will take care of that). Without CRYSTAL ball the facts are already here: confessions, accusations, reports, police statements. The 12 year list of related crimes, and the choises in life of Teitel: already noteworthy today. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E does not apply. Teital's name has been tied not to just one event, but to several very notable events including the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, the attack against prof. Zeev Sternhell and the booby-trap against the Messianic Jewish family (not as notable as the other two, but still notable[70][71][72]). According to WP:N/CA#Perpetrators, he should have an article based on #2 and to a certain extent #3. There is still the question of NOTNEWS. However, this article will most certainly outgrow NOTNEWS when charges are filed against him; and if charges are not filed, it'll still outgrow NOTNEWS, but more in the style of how falsely accused are notable. Rami R 08:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there is a conviction. - Let's try not to run afoul of BLP issues, those accused of crimes are generally to be presumed innocent. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an issue. We have reliable sources discussing the confession and evidence. That just means that in the article we don't say "Teitel did X" but rather "Teitel is accused of X". Moreover, even if he is found not guilty he will almost certainly be notable enough for an article still. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - This article is so blatent in it being factually incorrect and extremely biased by its un-neutral POV, that is deserves a Speedy Deletion. Even if there is a conviction, the article still will have a un-neutral POV. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is so factually incorrect and biased, why don't you just fix it? Hint: Maybe it's because the article is already neutral, and all info in it is properly sourced? Shouting "BIAS!!1" w/o pointing out any bias is not very helpful. Rami R 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know something that the press and the Israeli police don't know? Fences&Windows 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has only now been added to the AfD log. Rami R 08:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I used Twinkle... not sure what went awry.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elen of the Roads and Ottava Rima. Previously NN person being a suspect has put him in the headlines, but not into an encyclopedia. --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, no change in status of the case, no developments, except for some other innocent people harassed by police and then released. Usually, these kinds of cases develop daily as more material is released and people come forward with info, in this case the police have nothing new which is very surprising. No ballistics revelations from his alledged gun cache, no witnesses putting two and two together after seeing Teitel's face at the scene, etc... --Shuki (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, are you an expert in this field that you can say what "usually" happens? Does a case like this even happen often enough for there to be a "usually"? According to google news, in the past day alone 8 news reports about Teitel have been published,[73] so the case is still very clearly developing. Also, suggesting that the case is only notable if the suspect is actually guilty (as you appear to be doing), is ridiculous. Teitel is notable merely for being suspect. If Teitel will not be notable for his criminal activity, he'll be notable for being falsely accused. We just don't know which yet. Rami R 22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is neither sufficient nor necessary for inclusion; it just establishes a rebuttable presumption that a subject is appropriate for inclusion. Furthermore, if this person is not found guilty, WP:BLP1E becomes all the more significant. And frankly, as you say, the story is still developing; WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE. Let's wait until the facts have coalesced a bit more, until we're beyond information extracted by the police. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 whole articles from around the world? Pssshh. Apparently, nothing worthwhile because this article has not been updated in about six days since just after the story broke. Of two minor intermediate edits since then, one was a mere wl, the other information included in the same sentence as another apparently dubious claim. And your saying that being a suspect infers lasting notability? Guilty forever with an asterisk. I would think that, in general, it is a human right that when/if you are acquitted, you can go back to being a nobody. Please show us numerous WP examples of suspects previously NN who've retained articles in the encyclopedia after being acquitted. One of the most recent cases I can remember is the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal with AIPAC. Two employees were indicted, one still has an article rightfully, the other does not. --Shuki (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall recieve: Clarence Harrison, Brenton Butler case, James Joseph Richardson, Stephen Bingham, Sally Clark and Brandon Mayfield. Enzo Tortora is also primarily known for being falsely accused, but not exclusively. Searching in Category:Living people for "falsely accused" gives 853 results, although this is of-course an imperfect metric.

Also, let's not be naive. With 384-1,532 news reports (384 for "Jack Teitel", 197 for "Yaakov Teitel", 1532 for Teitel alone), Teitel is not going to go back to being a nobody, with or without a wikipedia article. Rami R 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the news ghits is more accurately 78 for "Jack Teitel", 65 for "Yaakov Teitel" and 173 for "Teitel". Remember, ghits are estimates until you reach the final page. Not that ghits are an accepted means for establishing notability or non-notability, and not that I'm drawing any conclusions based off those figures.

Also, I think we're deviating down the wrong path of argument here; for starters, none of those cases are presently unfolding. We don't have a deadline, and as there are overarching WP:BLP concerns, is there any actual harm in waiting until things are a little more solidified? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's not so much a question of harm as it is a question of need. The district prosecuter's office has now stated that they will press charges against Teitel, so it's pretty clear that Teitel will be undisputably notable (if he isn't already) and will need a wiki-article. Why bother postpone the inevitable? Rami R 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XBALL, perhaps? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply. XBALL itself states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - by this point a trial is almost certain to take place, and I don't think that anyone is disputing that that is a notable event. Rami R 08:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv, let's reread what you wrote related to NOT#NEWS: "none of those cases are presently unfolding" you wrote above, and earlier above: "knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux". ~~Contradiction.~~ -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I meant, DePiep; those other cases of people falsely accused aren't comparable situations. That I feel a certain clarity of the facts is needed before we can really draw any useful information from the sources, if anything, goes to support that point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean the "other cases" are those in the Clarence Harrison-list above, and not the current accusations here. So I stroked. Remains: 1. the crimes (like Tel-Aviv and prof. Sternhell, already in WP for some time) are "stable". 2. a flux or not may help to decide whether it's news. But this topic is not news only (that we do NOT). It's relevant already. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E does not apply. Multiple incidents.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1E nor BLP1E? Do not apply: multiple crimes are brought in against Teitel, multiple confessions (correct or incorrect), and committed over a period of 12 years. That is not a single event, on these three different counts. Notable events? Yes. At least two were already present on Wikipedia before his arrest: Tel Aviv gay shooting and prof. Sternhell. Serious accusations? Sure, attacks, murder, an arsenal found at his home, hate-spreading. So the acts are notable, and are related. Next point: should the person get a page (instead of isolated pages of some crimes)? Yes, especially because of the WP more strict lines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) WP:C/NA (strange, btw, that little editors here mention this guideline). Not only does this person string the events of 12 yrs together, but also the backgrounds are notable. An arsenal at home. Moved to West Bank from US, motivation-related. Associating himself (through an, as yet unproven, confession) with the anti-gay attack in Tel-Aviv. This person, in accordance with WP:N/CA#Perpetrators #2 and #3, is noteworthy already. And 'terrorism' is not a juridical term, so not mentioned that much, but there is the political aspect: Honenu has taken up the defense of Teitel for political reasons. So the acts and the person are noteworthy. This was not an incident. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're calling WP:N/CA into effect, why aren't we considering the clause about consideration for non-convicted persons? And why aren't we considering WP:BLP as a whole? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no "BLP as a whole" issue. BLP only states that everything needs to be properly sourced and that lesser known individual's articles should not contain the details of their subjects' non-notable aspects of their life (e.g. private life). Everything in the article is sourced and on topic. Rami R 08:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRami R, thanks for the articles, some were interesting. I would delete some of those as well because not every crime in the world should have an article on WP. Who decides which parents who killed children is notable or not? DePiep, should any mention be made that all his confessions were made without the presence of a lawyer? Honenu is known for doing a lot of pro-bono work, most of which is NN. Anyway, I went to the Israeli WP and surprisingly, and especially given that it has somewhat different and more liberal left members, there is no separate article and only a fleeting mention in three other articles. It also looks like an article was speedied because there is no page in the deletion log. --Shuki (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Rami R said here. And: "considering consideration" per WP:N/CA? He has confessed, he is the connection between several crimes, and his name is published by the police. What consideration would be needed with facts like these? For sure, if this case collapses before the judges, that would be added, maybe removing his name into X, but a notable case it would still be, albeit for changed reasons. Mention that lawyers were not present? I'd say go ahead, if its in the RS's (btw, such edit would not decide on this AfD, imo). The Hebrew wiki community have their own guidelines & discussions. Our WP:'s are consensus for the English only. I think we rarely do cross-interwiki-discussions. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FLIP! (Dōjinshi)[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted per tag. Willking1979 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable self-published book. Searching for "sean torres" + flip doesn't return any reliable sources. Prezbo (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article has now been blanked by its author, and has been tagged for a speedy delete under CSD G7. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MWICPS[edit]

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

The entire article is seemingly composed from a primary source, by the school's founder. Aside from COI issues, which are in themselves not grounds for deletion, of course, I don't think the article currently complies with WP:V and WP:N, and my best attempts to improve referencing have been fruitless. Listing here for wider input. decltype (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As sufficient evidence of the school's existence has already been provided ^[1]^[2]^[3] that should comply with WP:V, and the article has basically been rewritten to comply with WP:NPV, the only remaining issue that I am aware of is WP:N. I will continue to add information demonstrating the notability of this school for inclusion in Wikipedia. 119.194.121.90 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've made my own attempts to find sources without success. This article seems to be WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. -- Atama頭 08:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school's legally registered Korean name is 엠라이트국제대학입시학원 and may be found in a Korean search engine such as Naver.com or Daum.net. 119.194.121.90 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried that earlier and couldn't find anything other than blogs, which are not usually considered reliable sources, and directory listings. Did you have some particular source in mind? Rees11 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will phone up the Ministry of Education after I get back from Japan on Wednesday and see if I can get an online link to a page showing the registration of the school in Korea, and I believe there are some independent news outlets who have already covered this school back when it was first introduced in Suwon. 119.194.121.90 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of the existence of independent coverage. Of the "references" included in the article half were not relevant at all. For example, there was a link to a colleges database which did not list MWICPS (if anything evidence of non-notability), and a link to a Wikipedia article which did not even mention MWICPS. Now that these have been removed the only remaining references are two to MWICPS's own web site and one to a page on a mapping site, displaying a map showing the location of the school. Searches also fail to find anything better. This is a new business which may or may not become notable in the future, but has not done so yet. The article was created and has been mainly edited by Matthew wright. The owner and "president" of MWICPS is Matthew Wright. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MWICPS is not a college, but rather a "College Preparatory School". The school database contains accredited American universities and colleges that waive the required TOEFL/SAT requirements for admissions to MWICPS graduating students. MWICPS itself would not be listed in this database for obvious reasons. 119.194.121.90 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson - notability may come, but is not there now. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per JamesBWatson. Maybe there are sources in Korean, other than the mapping web site? I couldn't find any, but then my Korean is pretty rusty. Rees11 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uncovered a blog from a former student of MWICPS ^[4]. There are other blogs talking about the school if you search for it in Korean. This particular blog tells about a girl who is going to be admitted into a California university through MWICPS.

Delete per Atama, nothing but an advert IMHO. Smartse (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, borderline G11 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability bigtime. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources; fails WP:ORG. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the original proposal is very astute-- though not itself grounds for deletion, it does demand some added weight. Since there presently isn't anything to bring it away from being a generic informational article without alternate resources and notability addressed, that COI issue isn't even the largest. Though I don't deny that a school of this "level" would end up with an article in many cases, no article is exempt from the basisc. Also, I'll support almost any reasonable use of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT as above. If it all seems to fit, it's hard to ignore. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed this article for deletion, and see now that I did it incorrectly. Apologies for that. I've searched high and low and this "school" is completely unverifiable as far as I can tell. Scleaston (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which reminds me, I forgot to mention in my nomination statement that I declined a speedy deletion of the article. decltype (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frankly, you should have upheld the speedy nomination. A7 or G11 would have done the trick. The organisation does not appear to be the slightest bit notable, as is evidenced by the primary sourcing and the lack of independent sources. snowing in November.... HJMitchell You rang? 18:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it is not within my jurisdiction to delete articles that do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. decltype (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybetheism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources exist. Prezbo (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete made up word found only on WP at this time. Creator removed a proposed deletion tag, but still has not provided references, of which there are absolutely none.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are any speedy deletion criteria that apply here.Prezbo (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a madeup neologism. I should think the speedy deletion criterion will be WP:SNOW -- in my experience unreferenced neologisms very, very rarely survive AfD, which is as it should be.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Searches don't find any indication that this is established enough for an entry. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto and etcetera. In case you're curious, this parses as may-be-theism rather than Maybeth-eism, which is what I first though upon seeing the title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, creator had good intentions but its just a case of WP:NOCLUE.--Milowent (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per SNOW. May Beth should publish this on her own blog. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - neologism and article written an personal essay that has over-simplified other positions author claims it to be distinct from. Even the originator has stated agreement that the article does not belong on wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Brandon (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

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

DELETE. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable and borderline-notable chat clients. JBsupreme (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There are a lot of IRC related "comparison" pages. I'll list some here. They might either be merge candidates, or AfD candidates. I'm neutral on the issue.

Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links added to above list by Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why Internet Relay Chat services is mentioned in the above list? How exactly is Internet Relay Chat services a comparison article? --Tothwolf (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the are hundreds of "comparison" articles on wikipedia, they exist to present information in an easily accessible format. UltraMagnus^speak 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean that it should. JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but their existence is indication that consensus has always been, and still is, that such comparison lists are not violating WP:NOTDIR. Regards So Why 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with this comparison article. It provides valid information, which some will find useful. See WP:ALMANAC. I also find it odd/tragic that many of the articles were merged here after their AFD, some using the excuse that the information was already found here(even though its not but a token mention). This article can be seen as a valid list article, since most of the links are still blue, and it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as mentioned above, previous articles have been AFDd based on the fact that this article was a better place to put the information rather than loads of entries for every client. Dataforce (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This article has been around for years (July 05), why does there appear the sudden desire to delete all articles related to IRC? Dataforce (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination reason above is not backed up by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The nom makes an argument of just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid.
The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
Many of the currently red link entries in these tables are in fact quite notable; we just don't yet have articles about them. Others will eventually be redirected to a glossary-type article where we can give some of the smaller but well known topics (which are important to the "IRC community") better coverage.
This particular article has lots of references and many editors including myself have been actively expanding it and adding additional references. It uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses.
This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Software comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Wikipedia.
Put simply, this AfD was a bad faith AfD nomination by User:JBsupreme. This AfD was done in retaliation for comments I made at DRV here. For an overview of the larger issue, see this discussion on AN/I.
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nom again did not use an edit summary when nominating this article for AfD [74] in yet another attempt to have this one fly under the radar. This is a continuation of the pattern linked in the AN/I discussion above. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Much more than a directory, provides lots of useful -and often sourced, even maybe if not as thoroughly as it could be (but that's grounds for improvement,not deletion) information about a lot of notable software. There is nothing in policy/guidelines against this article. I also disagree with the merging, which IMHO created a mess. --Cyclopia^talk 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which merge created a mess? I believe only one article was merged as part of the mass-AfD mess, and it was one I largely wrote to expand a prior stub. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant what I think DreamFocus referred above, that is, the fact other previously-AfD-and-kept articles have been re-cited above as possible AfD candidates. --Cyclopia^talk 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean the other comparison articles linked above? (I've also asked Shadowjams why Internet Relay Chat services is included in the list above since it isn't even a comparison article.) The only client article I could think of was Neebly, which while closed as a merge, wasn't technically a merge as I wrote the content for both the article and the entry for the comparison tables so I just redirected it. I don't think there was anything in the article that isn't present in the comparison article but feel free to double check. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial control This list in its current form is indiscriminate. AfD is not supposed to be for cleanup, but the article owner should exercise some restraint. Maybe AfD can provide a centralized discussion for content direction in this case. Miami33139 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment O RLY? You seem to have an convenient way of "forgetting" things.
  How about the RfD User:JBsupreme initiated for LeetIRC where you made the exact same argument? The very RfD where I responded and gave you a list of inclusion guidelines for this very article? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 29#LeetIRC
  I'm not sure how you expect people not to discredit you when you continue this sort of thing. Do I need to update the AN/I discussion with information covering your latest wikistalking efforts?
  --Tothwolf (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tothwolf, can we leave your personal troubles with the other editor out of this AfD, please? Regardless of whatever he did before/elsewhere, Miami made an absolutely reasonable comment, no need to flame. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assure you, the above is not a flame and absolutely everything I've said can be verified by anyone who cares to check (view the AN/I link above for yourself). I actually did write something more akin to a genuine flame, then deleted it and wrote my above response instead :) --Tothwolf (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - O RLY? You seem to have an convenient way of "forgetting" things. is an inflamatory statement. I don't care if what you say is verifiable or such -it has nothing to do with the current AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ya know, I don't care anymore. Someone email me when the community decides to ban these clowns. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This list is indiscriminate because it allows for any chat client to be listed. (Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I interpreted that.) JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UltraMagnus, that's the consensus already on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Semple[edit]

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

The information listed here is false. The current president of the IFA is Raymond Kennedy. The current chairman of Crusaders FC is Stephen Bell. Thus, all of the information listed for Jim Semple here isn't true. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the article seems to be not so much false as out of date - see these clips from 2000 and 2003; ~~but if he is no longer in those posts, even after a search I don't see enough notability to sustain an article.~~ JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - firstly, just because the article is out of date doesn't mean the person in question is no longer notable - I would advise you to read WP:NTEMP. Secondly, I believe that Semple's roles as both a player and chairman with Crusaders, as well as his presidency of the IFL, means he is a notable football figure. Giant Snowman 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - changed my !vote, GiantSnowman is right. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten to say "former" chairman, president; refs added. JohnCD (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being former president of the league is notable. I also see there are some references above to him also being a former player of Crusaders - it would be good if they could be added to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li Shen[edit]

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

Is this linguist sufficiently notable? I don't think so, and the links listed in the article are dead links, as well as the interwiki link to Chinese Wikipedia. (I will say, though, that it is possible my judgment is slightly clouded by the fact that I think the space needs to be vacated for a Tang Dynasty chancellor, whose name is also transliterated Li Shen. See 李紳. The current links to this article are actually intended for the chancellor.) Delete. Nlu (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements for academics. Eeekster (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable enough.--Staberinde (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salted JForget 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacMania Networks[edit]

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

Article's been speedied 3 times now and created 4 (at least under this name). Bringing it here for a G4, although would be ok with yet another speedy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the username of the creator is strikingly similar to the creator of the website the article's about. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salt - self-promotion of non-notable website. From this edit it's clear the article author is the website owner. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, ditto. a network of podcasts and blogs about Macintosh computers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per JohnCD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Orangemike - 2/0 (cont.) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Goodchild[edit]

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

I notice the previous AfD was a DELETE outcome. this surely falls under WP:ONEVENT in any case. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AGAIN. What the... CSD G4 much? JBsupreme (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the comments directly below this line that i am writing here? they dont seem to refer to this article, and i cant access them in edit mode.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has a long list of citations, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nothing has changed since the first AfD. I have tagged for speedy. Giant Snowman 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an internet marketing person who is using Wikipedia to further his search engine optimization company. There is no reference to his name on the internet that I have discerned beyond his own self-published materials.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7. This article doesn't even make a claim of significance about the under-18 athlete. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Cueto[edit]

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

A bunch of problems. Where should I start?

No references.
Looks like a autobiography.
A scarce number of external links.

Btilm 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Btilm 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Friendship[edit]

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

Article about a small summer camp in Virginia with no proof of notability. Other than the camp's own website, there don't appear to be any sources for this article. PRODded previously, but declined. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not explain the notability or significance of its subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Failing that, I cannot find any reliable sources that could be used to reference the article. Rnb (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yavuz Nutku[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. No endowed professorships or awards mentioned, and his "selected papers" don't seem especially noteworthy BeIsKr (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did the work of actually checking. Scopus shows 55 papers, most of them in very good international journals. The citations for the highest are 49, 32, 31. This is not a Nobe;l-prize winning record, but considering the number of papers, it is enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More than just journal papers are needed, ideally we need non-trivial coverage of this individual from multiple third party publications demonstrating notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this kind of citation record, for a theoretical physicist after a 40-year career, is anything to write home about, and I don't see anything else that would convince me that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. GS, as seen above, gives from its wider coverage rather larger cites of 69, 60, 44, 35, 9, 9... with h index = 7. Such cites are non-trivial coverage of this individual from multiple third party publications but in this case are not sufficent to ensure notability. This usually requires many hundreds of cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 05:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Christian Belief[edit]

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

Article previously prodded with reason "Academic journal without indication of notability, tagged as such since August but no improvement apparent. Journal's own website does not give any indications of notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)." Article was de-prodded with reason "added citations". However, the added references are to articles written by editorial board members/editors in other journals, possibly showing that they are notable, but not this journal (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Only one reference (to the "Society, Religion and Technology Project") mentions the journal specifically, but this seems rather insufficient to establish notability. Crusio (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More references have been added testifying to the notability of Denis Alexander, but, unfortunately, not the journal. --Crusio (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-explained nomination. (I'd add that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is a proposal, not policy, although it forms a helpful guide. Article still does not meet WP:N though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the current RfC for that proposal the only criticisms voiced state that this proposal is not strict enough... --Crusio (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it's a bad proposal (it's a pretty good one)), just that it's not a consensus policy capable of being met or not met. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has a significant history, going back to the journal that was merged into it, and is cited with sufficient frequency by other reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above seems to be an attempt to show that the article meets criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It should be noted, however, that this criterion talks about a significant history, not a long history. None of the references added to the journal indicated anything significant about the (admittedly long) history if this journal. The other "references" added are either to articles that appeared in this journal or to articles that appeared elsewhere but were written by someone connected to this journal. None of this contributes an inch to notability or does even belong in this article. The only reasonable addition is the one added by DGG (see below). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct in part. What I had in mine was both criterion 2 ("The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources."; for example the reprints of articles from this journal in other RSs would, IMHO, tend to qualify as the largest "citation" I could imagine) and criterion 3 ("The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history."; though I understand that Crusio's understanding of the intent of that criterion differs from mine). I've just added a couple of more cites in this regard as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how criterion 3 can be interpreted, then the proposal needs re-phrasing, because that is absolutely not in what I had in mind when I wrote it. As for the "frequent citations", for an individual researcher we usually only start thinking about notability if this person's work has been cited hundreds of times. For a journal, this number obviously should be proportionally higher. I have to say that the recent edits to the journal article (adding all kind of cruft) only reinforce the apparent lack of notability. As for articles being reprinted, that is to me a sign that this journal has not a very great reach in the community that it seeks to serve. If it were otherwise, another journal would not want to reprint any of its articles, because that would only mean reprinting stuff almost everybody has already seen. --Crusio (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that we disagree. But I'm puzzled as to how the addition of the reference to the journal being noted as an important resource in its subject area reinforces your view that it is not notable. The same goes for the addition of the reference to the journal to which it traces its roots having been the one means through which the Victoria Institute has had recent influence on the British scene.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a reference to some article where someone writes "important resource" is such weak evidence, that for me it actually works in the opposite way. If several people are frantically searching for evidence of notability and this is all they can come up with, then I think the lack of notability has been shown conclusively. --Crusio (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. But I guess I (and a number of others here) see it differently. I think that the article now (as compared to how it appeared at the time of AfD) more clearly reflects notability. I'm still surprised that you find the revisions as "conclusively" reflecting the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Crusio on this one. The more the article relies on mentioning the fact that various distinguished people are tenuously connected to the journal, and the more it relies on sources that plead "this really is an important journal", and the more stridently it trumpets its coverage by various indexing sources that cover just-about-everything, the more firmly I conclude that it has no inherent notability in its own right. If it was impoirtant and notable, it would not need such props (but note that I !voted weak keep, and am still happy with that, or with a merge to the article about the publisher). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my view of course, but I'm not sure that a merge makes sense. First, there are two "publishers", if by publisher we mean the organization that publishes it rather than the one that prints it. In such instances, putting it on either's page may well make less sense than having it as a standalone thet is referened and linked to. Second, I think that at this point the article is sufficiently non-stubby to be a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important in its niche. It is included in all the standard religion indexes--I gave the RS for that--, and distributed by one of the principal aggregators. I consider the indexing to be proof of importance from independent sources. It is fairly widely held for journals of this sort. Alternatively, merge with the article for the publishing society. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information seems to satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Given, however, that apparently there is hardly anything that can be said about this journal, I think a merge to the article for the publishing society would be most appropriate. (I have no access to Ulrich's, so I could not check this before bringing this article to AfD). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one criterea needs to be met to establish noteability. From Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) - "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable." FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, though minor. No reason to delete. Redddogg (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that it is "notably influential in the world of ideas". This is a good example of why indexing is insufficient to demonstrate notability. There appears to be no coverage beyond that & mentions by related parties -- i.e. no WP:SECONDARY third party coverage to speak of. Whilst the Victoria Institute was once influential, I see no indication that it has been so for nearly a century (no third party coverage in its article after 1927), or that Journal of the Transaction of The Victoria Institute (which does not even garner a mention on VI's article) ever had an impact (even if such an impact confers notability to the merged-to journal, which is highly questionable). "Notable, though minor" would appear to be oxymoronic -- notability requires some indication that the journal is non-minor. A merge to Christians in Science would be acceptable, but only if the indexing-cruft is eliminated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a journal that is occasionally mentioned in secondary sources. But get rid of all the fluff describing who indexes it and how many libraries hold it - that is just PR garbage. And resist all attempts to sex it up by mentioning how many distinguished professors are on the editorial board. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is probably the leading journal worldwide it its very important field. It is very relevant that there are many world-class scientists on its editorial board. And given that the notability is being questioned the information about distribution and indexing is relevant (and not at all PR guff, it must have taken some digging, CiS does not do PR) NBeale (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Editorial Board contains 6 FRSs, 2 FBAs and one member of the NAS. IMHO this is useful information for users, but when I put it in the article others revert it. It certainly seems relevant for notability. NBeale (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. See WP:NOTINHERITED. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per common consensus at the WikiProject Academic Journals, information on editorial board members is hardly relevant. Just an example, Genes, Brain and Behavior has a Nobel Prize winner and multiple members of national academies of sciences (I never counted, but perhaps a dozen or so) on its editorial board, but the WP article does not even give a link to the journal web page where the board is listed. (And rightly so). --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the connecton between a journal and its editorial board is often rather tenuous, and it is inappropriate either to list members of the board in a WP article or to use their eminence as a means of boosting the eminence of the journal by association. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others will no doubt know more than I do on this, but a couple of thoughts on editorial boards. First, in certain cases editorial boards are active. In such cases, I would think that it is certainly relevant if notable persons are on the board. WP:NOTINHERITED would have nothing to do with that situation -- more relevant would be the rule in WP:BAND, that says that if you have two notable band members, the band is notable. Second, no doubt there are instances in which the editorial boards are not active. There, there is a fair argument that that may not help much with notability. I'm not sure, though, how we distinguish, and in the absence of knowing the board's level of activity I'm not sure that we should delete references to notable members of the board. But I'm open to hearing others' thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to WP:AJ this represents a tiny fraction of active editors and there are only a handful of frequent contributors, of which Crusio appears to be the most active. It's great that people are willing to do this work, but they should not then expect to tell all other Editors what they should do and think. Most people would assume that a journal like Genes, Brain and Behavior would have lots of leading scientists on its editorial board. Many people would be surprised to find that Science and Christian Belief had. The point of an article is to tell people things they find interesting and useful. NBeale (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was common consensus on WP:AJ long before I got involved. In any case, I did mention this to say that everybody should slavishly follow what others say or do, just to indicate that a group of editors specializing in this subject all agree that this information should not be part of an article on a journal. --Crusio (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing in the draft policy to say that "we all agree that X should not be part of an article on a journal". All I read is that the normal basic article would not have it. Have I missed something? NBeale (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have a dog in the fight between Christianity and Science, but I don't see the harm in having this article on Wikipedia. Does the journal exist? If so, keep the article. If the journal exists and you want to delete the article, I have to wonder what your motives are. ProfGiles (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please read WP:AGF? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please answer my question - does the journal exist? Thanks. ProfGiles (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want bare existence, not notability, to be the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, then you are welcome to call for WP:Notability to be disestablished as a guideline. Beyond that, we discuss facts and policy here, not motivations. Your 'wondering' as to the latter is off-topic and uncalled for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts and policy as I see them. Motivation is extremely relevant if notability is to be used as an excuse to start deleting content. "Notability" is a subjective term and also a term that can be used as a bludgeon to eliminate content for ideological reasons. In terms of "academic journals" what is considered notable or not notable in a field is, despite all protests to the contrary, entirely subjective. In my field, philosophy, there are analytical philosophers who consider continental philosophy journals completely unnotable and worthless and use such rationale as:the editorial board are not "real" philosophers, didn't get their degrees from the right university, don't publish in our journals, etc. Continental philosophers have identical feelings and arguments about analytical philosophy journals. It is driven by ideological prejudices not any objective criteria of notability. There is a journal of Atheist Studies (which currently does not have an entry on Wikipedia) - should Theists be allowed to campaign to ban any mention of it? The fact is that we are wise to avoid all such arguments as specious and harmful because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not take a point of view and calling a journal "unnotable" could very well be taking a point of view and not an objectively valid judgment of the journal. Scholarship thrives on open debate and the many journals out there that contribute to it, no matter how small the contribution, should be welcomed. The bar for declaring a journal "unnotable" must bevery high. If the journal exists and a call is made to delete reference to it then it is not only germane but necessary to ask what the motivation is for that call. It is very called for and on-topic to ask what harm is being done by the inclusion of this article.
I will also point out that asking for someone's motives refers to professional motives, not personal motives and in no way implies anything about a person's character. Respectfully, ProfGiles (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the journal didn't exist we wouldn't be here as the thing would have been speedily deleted as a hoax. For the rest, I agree completely with the above comment by Hrafn. And by the way, as for my motives, I couldn't care less about the "fight between Christianity and Science" and have been on both sides of the fence (as Hrafn can attest from our past disagreements over Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith :-). --Crusio (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Although I don't know much about the positions taken by authors in this journal, from what I know of its sponsors (Christians in Science and the Victoria Institute), I'd be surprised if I disagreed that much. (ii) Your assumption that we'd delete based upon ideological bias assumes a high degree of naiveté on our part. If we disagree with a position sufficiently forcefully to delete it, then we'd be far better off to marshal opposing experts to demolish that position in the article instead. (iii) Subjective interpretations of 'notability' is why we attempt to find measures that at least approximate to being objective, intersubjective -- the most basic of which is WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (iv) Wikipedia does not exist to foster "open debate", and it is unclear how its having an article on a journal fosters such a debate. Those taking part in the debate already know what journals they consider worthy of contribution to, or rebuttal of. Those reading Wikipedia read a distillation of the 'after-battle-reports' in WP:SECONDARY sources that summarise the resultant academic consensus from the debate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that my asking why one would want this journal declared "unnotable" is an accusation of ideological bias. Pointing out that ideological bias is used to declare journals "unnotable" and that we should be wary of setting precedent that allows for such ideological cleansing is not accusing anyone of such a bias. I believe WP:AGF is appropriate reading and ask that you give the assumption of good intention as much as you ask for it.

Your last comment provides two arguments for why this article should be kept. Your point "ii" shows that the debate over a journal's worth should be conducted by countering the ideas raised by the journal, not trying to squash mention of the journal on Wikipedia. Your point "iv" says that people develop their own opinions on what journals they consider worthy in which case why have Wikipedia be the arbitrator of what journals are worthy of not? Why not let Wikipedia remain neutral and not have a small group of people decide for others what is worthy or not? If, as you imply in point "iv" that the presence of the article does not effect the debate, why bother arguing about its presence?

Finally, your point "iii" seems to advance the opinion that a journals worth be determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That criterion would be a popularity contest and not necessarily a judge of the quality of the journal. I am well aware of the Piercian notion of collective induction as a means to determine truth, which has morphed into a version of what we now call "peer review" but I also am aware of the shortcomings of that approach in its resistance to new and different ideas and I always shudder to think of truth and worth being subject to the approval of overseers. I side with J.S. Mill in letting the marketplace of ideas be free and open.

Well, I have said my piece and have work to do, so decide what you will, but I ask again, what harm is really being done by this article being on Wikipedia? Peace, ProfGiles (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProfGiles: (i) You did not understand what I said. Your miscomprehension is too pervasive for me to bother addressing it point by point. (ii) You do not understand Wikipedia. It does not exist to "effect [sic] the debate". Its articles do not exist to affect the debate. Therefore it does not choose their presence or absence on the basis of how they affect the debate. Its target readership is not participants of the debate (who would be expected to read the WP:PRIMARY sources debating it for themselves), but the general public -- so bases its WP:Notability threshold on what the general public might be interested in (which I'm afraid is a "popularity contest", of sorts) -- not whether a journal is "worthy". (iii) Finally, this AfD is not a WP:SOAPBOX for what you think Wikipedia aught to be. If you don't like the notability guidelines, then go to WT:Notability and lobby to have them changed. If you don't like the way Wikipedia is run, then go and start your own wiki. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even with someone as substantial ITRW as ProfGiles we should remember WP:BITE, and we should always remember WP:CIVIL. NBeale (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly Merge to Christians in Science. The latter is already pretty stubby and might benefit from having this material in it. As for the journal, it's been going for 20 years (reaching volume 21), so it's solid (i.e. this is not a journal currently sitting at "volume 1"). I can't find it at the ISI Web of Knowledge — does this have any bearing on its fate? I'd echo the remarks above re: who the journal has on its editorial board — there are surely better criteria than this. --PLUMBAGO 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Notability (academic journals) is a proposed guideline that has not been approved yet. So it may not be the best one to evaluate this case. As for the article improvements since the AfD started, I have mixed feelings; some of the additions, like DGG's, help notability, whereas others (such as the additions of refs 6–9 [75][76][77], which say stuff about one of the editors but nothing about the journal itself) seem to just be throwing irrelevant refs at the problem. Overall, I feel pretty neutral on this; just wanted to point out that Notability (academic journals) is not the right guideline to be using now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked above, WP:Notability (academic journals) s indeed only a proposal at this point. However, at its RfC, I don't think anybody criticized it for being not inclusive enough, but several editors criticized it for being too inclusive. It's of interest, therefore, that the current article barely meets the requirements of this proposed guideline. --Crusio (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have lots of articles on academic and semi academci journals. My guess is that its launch, coinciding with the chage of name of its sister journal, from Victoria Institute was in fact more of a split. Some one above found it in 120 libraries; that so many would think it worth taking implies notability. I suspect that this nomination arises from the prejudice that Science and Religion are in opposition to each other, which is patently false, sicne they are addressing different issues. Far from beign able to prove that there is no God, science is not even equipped to address the question, let alone answer it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that it was clear from all I have said above that my nomination has nothing whatsoever to do with the journal's subject matter. I ONLY look at objective measures. Please assume good faith, it really is starting to irritate the hell out of me that each time that a subject related to religion comes up, some people immediately start yelling "prejudice". As for those 120 libraries, given the large number of seminaries, theological schools, etc. (especially in the US), I am not sure whether that is an especially high number. In any case, there seems to be hardly anything that can be said with certainty about this journal (despite the best efforts of several editors, see above), so I think that if not deleted because of a lack of notability, the article should be merged with that on its publishing society (as suggested above by DGG). --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While its subject matter is not at all comparable (neither scientifically nor politically; it's just the first example that came to mind), the article on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons includes its in-house journal as a section. That might be a model to follow if merge is favoured. --PLUMBAGO 09:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important journal with hundreds of hits and citations on Google Scholar. According to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) this alone does not establish noteability, but thanks to DGG we can see criterea 1 is met, which even on its own makes the journal noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not especially impressed by the citation counts or the editorial board membership, but I think the complex and long history of the journal goes some way towards Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) #3, and the references quoted within the article also make a case for #1. The article could stand cleanup (remove the worldcat holdings and editorial board puffery) but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). Dream Focus 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. (Non-admin closure) • Anakin ^(talk) 01:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE NAME[edit]

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

It seems to be a made up article full of nonsense. Just look at the title. Mschilz20 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted by Mufka before you completed the nomination. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Terrors (Buffy novel)[edit]

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

This "choose your own adventure" type book is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the standard for judging the notability of a book? Reviews? Number of copies sold? Just asking, so we do not !vote on the basis of whether we like the Buffy fiction franchise.Edison (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as most things - coverage in multiple reliable sources. In the case of books, that usually means reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a more general article covering the various Buffy novels. Collectively, they are certainly notable so this material shouldn't be deleted outright but instead should either be improved or merged into a larger article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
Merge as per ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be the work of someone trying to fill in redlinks at Buffyverse novels. I'm personally not convinced that reviews alone make a book notable (reviews alone don't make a restaurant notable, for example) but in any case there isn't a high enough level of significant coverage in reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:N. A good faith Google search turns up only sales listings, the official site of the author, and the Buffy wiki. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources = notability not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable book, fails WP:BK -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpath[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion, removed by an IP number. Another minor "project management" software that makes no specific claim to historical or technical importance of the sort needed to sustain an encyclopedia article. "Reference" supplied is apparently to a programming blog, not a reliable source. Article is full of puffery and other indicia of unambiguous advertising:

The application is modeled on project management best practices with customizable activity dashboards. With AJAX, there is no lag time for changes. You can start a page without all the details and not be forced to make a decision prematurely

These sorts of things need real historical and technical importance, not simply trade press coverage and reviews, unless we are acquiescing in allowing Wikipedia to be come a free web host for every project management software package. Some Google News coverage, but it all appears to be minor mentions in lists of similar products, or press releases. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the source and in the article and this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the cited source "The AppGap" is a blog [78], and so is "A Girl's Guide to Project Management"[79]; they would appear not to pass full muster as reliable sources. Both would also appear to be focused on the office software trade, and as such can't really confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided are not significant coverage in RS. Miami33139 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not assert the notability of its subject. Without a claim of specific significance or notability any presumption of notability established by sources would be overturned per the arguments made at WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although many of the "keep" arguments are remarkably flimsy, after two weeks of discussion I can't see any sort of consensus towards deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAAD[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, article being used like the organization's webpage. Prod contested. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an international learned society. I added a reference about the group's 2007 conference in Egypt. Here is a translation of the reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be a bona fide learned society with an international presence. This should suffice unless other evidence arises. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable organization. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks to me that consensus has already been reached. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps the notvote from IP69.226.103.13 is being discounted. Also, a Google search by the Arabic name gets 22 hits, a couple of which seem to be press releases about the conference, like the press-release-like source Eastmain provided. I still feel that this isn't enough. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability or significance of its subject. Holding an (arguably) notable conference does not entitle the organisation itself to a page per WP:NOTINHERITED (they can be adequately mentioned on the conference's page). Proof of existence as an academic organisation is also not proof of its notability per WP:EXIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - without deriding from my Delete vote above, procedurally speaking this AfD should have been closed as Keep on the basis of the prior arguments. It shouldn't have been re-listed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable discretion in deciding whether there have been enough policy-based comments. Since all 3 of them were "IT EXISTS", I can see why Tim though more comments were needed. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Recognized by UNESCO [80] and by the much-more-prominent North American organization ACADIA [81]. But this article is in bad shape: it needs much more in the way of reliable sources and much less in the way of first person prose. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Methods of divination. The one sentence of the article is already at the target article. If it's section at the target article is significantly expanded in the future, it can be split back off. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geloscopy[edit]

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

Article tagged as lacking sources since 2007. I failed to find anything meaningful beyond dicdefs Laudak (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is this a significant practice? If sources can't be found, I don't know if it is, and it's definitely not notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Methods of divination. GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks does find some mentions of it, but they seem to be of the one-line-within-a-list variety. That is already covered in Methods of divination. Redirects are cheap, and that's where anyone looking for this term should be sent. LadyofShalott 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly serviceable stub, and plenty of GHits provide evidence of notability. (Here, here and here are possibly not great sources but a good starting place, and plenty of dictionary hits attest to it being not made up.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plentyu of dic hits and nothing more means the item belongs to wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the is plenty of reliable gnews, gbooks, and gscholar hits to source notability. (granted, half the books are on suffixes, but that still leaves a lot) UltraMagnus^speak 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Several hits on gscholar, doesn't seem to be a made up word and given the subject you don't expect 1000's of hits. This is probably an example of "notable but obscure" which AFAIK is a reasonable thing to put into an encyclopedia. The question is probably related to dictdef- is there enough material to expand this beyond a dictionary entry. If not, there may still be enough stuff to merge somewhere but someone would need to identify or propose a merge target. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did in my comment above, but I'll repeat it: Methods of divination. LadyofShalott 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but let'sw get some of those folks to comment, maybe propose on that talk page. I was on one of these that got stuck with probably a bad merge target... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the page I suggested as the target? The information is already there. It would not even be a merge, just a redirect. LadyofShalott 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing turning up in searches that establishes notability. Topic can be described in other article(s). Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search shows the New York Times and others mention what the word means, there a notable theater named after it. Click on Google Book search and you will find it getting plenty of coverage in books. The article's subject is notable. Dream Focus 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I looked at a number of those book references, and none had more than the one line's worth that is already contained in Methods of divination. Did you find any more extensive coverage of the subject? LadyofShalott 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be expanded, listing notable places named after the word, and how it has been used in fiction, both in the extremely notable Harry Potter novels, as well as various vampire stories apparently. Dream Focus 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word is extremely rare. If it had a decent following there would be skeptical sites mocking its silliness; there isn't. TheThomas (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How rare something is isn't a reason to delete. If it exist, and is mentioned in the news and books, then it meets all requirements to have an article. Dream Focus 16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This type of divinity exists and is mentioned in numerous sources so it's notable. --Pink Bull 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamari Grant[edit]

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

Declined the speedy deletion nomination, so bringing it here for further evaluation as it's a BLP article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Reports on stats and line-up changes do not meet the definition of "significant coverage". Location (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonnotable university footballer. Laudak (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ATHLETE criterion #1 would require him to have played at the fully professional level, and there's no evidence in the article of a claim against any other notability criterion or standard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Breton writers[edit]

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

Simple alpha-list better suited as a category. See Category:Breton writers. No inclusion criteria, and no means of verification. I googled a handful of random names here which failed all notability guidelines. There may be nonsense entries here, but we have no way of knowing. –Moondyne 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing Breton writers category should be sufficient, particularly in view of the surplus of redlinked entries. Warrah (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. This hasnt been done yet, but it needs time to develop. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per DGG. Why are so many people against lists? Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG UltraMagnus^speak 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a perfectly valid and useful list to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's Bar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eddie's Bar

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

I can't find significant coverage for this bar. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable. Laudak (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not explain the notability or significance its subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I also can't find any significant coverage. Them From Space 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Eddie Harris, Iron Maiden's bassist, who owns the place (and for whom it's named). No need to lose this content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by User:Nyttend, non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$50,000 Face-off[edit]

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

Almost certainly a hoax. Supposedly a reality TV show aired on NBC in 2005, yet yields no hits on IMDB or even Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete evident hoax. Laudak (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, already tagged. Resource for TV Guide doesn't even link to tvguide.com, it links to the Wikipedia article on TV Guide. No other information around. This article is clear-cut WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as hoax; also perhaps deleteable per WP:SNOW. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Hesketh[edit]

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

Studio musician and touring keyboard player, not listed as a member of the band Jet. Was originally going to redirect the article to the Jet article but he is not even mentioned in the Jet article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced of dubious notability. Laudak (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only claim of notability is as a session musician touring with (but not a member of) Jet. That doesn't pass any criterion at WP:NMUSIC and as such he's not notable and doesn't merit an article - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khanoda & all in category:Khanoda[edit]

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

Ok not sure what to make of this one. I would say this is a hoax but I can find his albums for sale. But that's it that is the only thing I can confirm, everything else I find online is just mirrors of various wiki articles, or the AMG link. I have a feeling this is notable, but I am totally unable to prove it in even the slightest way. Ridernyc (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info, even when I try to search for Kommunion Recording Company the same just a ton of mirror sites. Ridernyc (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info again, Every article about this artist have been created by the same user, and with the exception of maintenance edits have been edited exclusively by that user for years now. This is looking more and more like some sort of hoax. Ridernyc (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete all Elaborate promotion or hoax by Billbo_merkz (talk · contribs) and Quake2000 (talk · contribs) (single-purpose accounts, possibly the same body). NO evidence of independent review or big labels. Someone had big fun. This is a weakness of wikipedia: I've seen numerous rappers & albums claiming fame, but since nobody really care they thrive in wikipedia. Laudak (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS This edit (and some others) of the author of all this stuff reminded me my childhood: when playing hide and seek, and nobody can find you for a long time, you get bored and make a noise to attract attention to be found....in vain... Laudak (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This appears to be clear-cut vandalism, to the point where I think the above noted creator and other user are moving and/or editing articles in an attempt to dodge the repercussions of AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take this back. Remaining neutral for now. Researching further. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. I've been trying to remove the pages since Spring 2007, but they would be restored seconds later. So, remove them.(Billbo_merkz) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- um... yeah, OK. Then why are you moving the articles in an attempt to avoid deletion? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything on this guy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, changing my !vote again. Back to speedy delete, but for an odd case of vandalism. Please refer to the comments on user:Laudak's page from the main contributor. Time to work on that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. BTW, the contributor the contributor indicated it was a promotional campaign. - Altenmann >t 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, which contradicts user:Billbo_merkz' delete !vote above. Talk about major dickitude. Time to remodel my !vote again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Saint Raphael, Ollur[edit]

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

Delete. Seems to be a non notable festival for the church. At most a blurb under the saints page regisatering his feast day but alone it isn't quite that notable as all catholic churchesz have fundraisers for their patron saints. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here to suggest this festival is particularly remarkable. Aiken ♫ 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the first instance. There was already one reliable independent source (The Hindu); just in an hour or so I've managed to add a reference to one book that mentions the festival as drawing thousands of pilgrims, and another that treats some aspects of the art history of the shrine where it's held (there's a lot more of that online, but not, from what I can judge, in reliable sources). This is the sort of thing where we really have to make some effort to overcome WP:BIAS - not by blind inclusionism, for sure, but by giving some leeway, and getting people that actually speak the relevant languages involved in the process. --Paularblaster 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is non notable because of it's location or demographics. The concern was there wasn't anything that set this apart from other church festivals for saints.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that it had been, and had no intention of giving that impression. The point about systemic bias, as I take it, is that it's a result (not a conscious choice) of the location and demographics of most wikipedia editors, very few of whom, certainly including myself, will have the background, interests, and language skills needed to make a well-judged call on material like this. That's also why I qualified my "keep" with "in the first instance". It may well be that there are editors with the skills needed who will judge that this is not notable enough. --Paularblaster 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently enough sources for notability as a major religious event. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been written about by multiple third-party sources. Loves Macs (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christina Aguilera (album). Kevin (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love For All Seasons[edit]

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

The article has no right references and all the things they are claiming are wrong Olliyeah (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no notability is asserted in the article. Aiken ♫ 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I have heard of her and her song seems notable. -Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Christina Aguilera (album) per WP:NMUSIC. "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doggcrapp training[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If anything this should be given a paragraph in the Strength Training article. Quarte t 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. One article in FLEX from 2006 - other than that mostly covered on blogs and other self published media. Questionable notability - it's just one of many internet created training/diet systems (ie: Animalbolics).--Yankees76 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be any claim to notability (or any sources that establish it for that matter). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bfigura above. (Also the article is written in a promotional non-encylcopedic style and good faith searches don't reveal the sources that would be needed to do a rewrite/fix.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliante 2009[edit]

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

not notable, unable to find any substantial coverage RaseaC (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page by user who submitted his autobiography; no multiple independent sources to be found. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no assertion or evidence of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CSD#A7), and per comments of Biruitorul above. (I was involved in that earlier AfD). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliante 2008[edit]

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

not notable, unable to find any substantial coverage RaseaC (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity page by user who submitted his autobiography; no multiple independent sources to be found. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per no assertion or evidence of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CSD#A7), and per comments of Biruitorul above. (I was involved in that earlier AfD). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliante[edit]

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

not notable, unable to find any substantial coverage RaseaC (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity page by user who submitted his autobiography; no multiple independent sources to be found. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per no assertion or evidence of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CSD#A7), and per comments of Biruitorul above. (I was involved in that earlier AfD). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate croley[edit]

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

Very weak claim to notability with hardly any hits on Google Search and none on Google News. Favonian (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination and per WP:BIO--Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete for no content. So tagged. Only cite to notability is an add for a snack food? Nowhere near notable, I hate to say. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 - Article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Without more information about Ms Croley or the ad she appears in it would not be possible for other editors to meaningfully expand or verify this article (even on a Google search for Kate Croley you wouldn't be able to tell if it was the same woman as this article). I'd note she also fails the (much higher) standards of WP:ENT and WP:N. The A3 speedy delete by Dennis the Tiger above, though, is not appropriate, as the article does contain content, just not useful content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Hike For A Cure[edit]

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

One-man project to help diabetes research. Has been reported by one TV station but is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one event. not enough coverage anyway Cynof Gavuf 10:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - This article about an organisation does not assert the significance or notability of its subject. It's also completely unsourced (see WP:RS), a one-off news event (WP:NOTNEWS), and Google searches reveal no significant, independent coverage (WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Ray^Talk 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Theological Seminary[edit]

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

It does not appear that this institution meets WP:ORG yet, at least so far as third party sources confirm. Neither a search of Google News nor a search of Google Books reveals any potential sources. A search of Google Scholar only brings up self-published course syllabi. Though the school apparently is not accredited, it appears that the school would like to seek accreditation. Perhaps when it is built-up a little more and farther along that path, the school will be sufficiently notable. On a related note, it appears that the article's creator Tusconts might have a COI which possibly explains some of the non-NPOV text that was in older versions of the article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It awards degrees, so it is notable. Standard practice here. Writing the article properly is a question for editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Awarding degrees shouldn't alone make an institution notable. Not that I am suggesting this seminary is a diploma mill, but diploma mills award degrees. There must be more to notability than that. I cannot imagine that every non-proft school that has ever awarded a degree meets the first and second requirements of WP:CLUB for that reason alone. In addition, it is a new school and may not have yet awarded any degrees. We don't know, there is no third party coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - awards post-graduate degrees which consensus indicates brings notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply even to un-accredited schools? Surely anybody can "award" degrees. Without accreditation, they are meaningless.Yob Mod 12:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources that establish notability. (Zero google news hits, and google seems to only turn up short blurb-reviews of online degrees.) True, we typically consider degree-granting schools notable, but that's because there are typically RS for the. There don't appear to be reliable sources here, which isn't too surprising since they aren't accredited. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we consider high schools and eveything above them notable, and this is definitely such a school. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - there's no clear policy saying "we keep high schools and above" (see failed proposal at Wikipedia:Notability_(schools)). The WP:ORG guidelines specifically claim to apply to educational institutions, and require (largely) the same significant, reliable sources as WP:N, which this article fails. However, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education indicates that the emerging consensus on AfD is that "high schools [are] being kept except where they fail verifiability." I take that to mean that the article will be kept providing that the school can be verified to exist. The school's homepage would appear to clear that bar. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- These are all good points and this is a close case. This article differs from most high school articles in several ways, though. High schools- at least public high schools and many private high schools- are presumably accredited (though a high school losing accreditation or state recognition could be notable for that very reason). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education still requires high school pass verifiability. And WP:Verifiability requires reliable third party sources for an article to pass verifiability. For high schools this is probably not a problem (hence the lack of further discussion of that criterion for high schools). I imagine even not-yet-built high schools have garnered at least some local newspaper coverage. So far nobody has put forth any reliable third party coverage of this institution. Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is different from both WP:RS and WP:N; it doesn't require any fixed number or quality of sources, merely that the sources provided are reliable enough to back the claims made in the article. It would be a tough argument to make that the webpage of the school is an insufficient source to back the claim that the school exists, regardless of the fact it may not be independent. (See also WP:SELFPUB) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Verifiability must mean more than that such an institution exists. Existence does not equal notability. And we all seem to agree that the article violates the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Further, verifiability relates directly to an article's notability. True, WP:V is different than WP:RS and WP:N. But, according to WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sure there is no fixed number of third-party sources required, but there must be more than zero. While existence alone does not make for notability, the lack of existence of third party sources does make for a failure of verifiability. And from WP:SELFPUB: self published sources about a subject may be used so long as "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." In sum, the article seems to violate WP:V and WP:SELFPUB even as you present them. And nobody disagrees that the article violates WP:ORG, though some editors apparently disagree with WP:ORG or are willing to modify it for some subset of articles. It is not like we would be condeming the school to never having a Wikipedia page if we agree to delete it now. If and when it becomes notable and that fact can be verified there will be no problem. Novaseminary (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Verifiability is not a subset of notability. Verifiability is about whether the facts in the article are supported by sufficiently reliable sources. Notability is whether the facts, and the sources, amount to the standards at WP:N. A completely non-notable article can be completely verifiable. (eg "Joe Bloggs is a student at Generic High School."). But I'm changing my vote to delete anyway for the reasons set out below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the school seems not to be accredited yet. I would propose that colleges and universities be considered notable if they either are regionally accredited, or are notable for not being accredited. Neutral regarding notability under current policy. Bwrs (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until and unless it's accredited, I don't think we can give this the usual benefit of the doubt we give to community institutions like schools. Given that, fails WP:ORG, which is the only remaining prong for notability testing. Ray^Talk 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (changed from weak keep) per the differentiation from high schools outlined by Bwrs and RayAYang above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deserves an entry because it is notable for being one of the few seminaries in the Southern Arizona region. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The subject only "deserves" an article if it meets the criteria for inclusion. AfD discussions are supposed to be based on policy. What policy supports this position? Novaseminary (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Madmaxmarchhare may be referring to WP:N. The final word on notability is "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice"." WP:N then goes on to establish guidelines for a presumption of notability. While failing to meet those guidelines is a very strong indicator of non-notability, it's theoretically possible under WP:N for a topic to be notable without meeting the guidelines, and Madmaxmarchhare is making such a case. (See WP:FAILN - the absence of sources is not a barrier to notability where there is a reasonable suspicion such sources may exist but remain undiscovered.) Madmaxmarchhare is essentially arguing that, as one of the few seminaries in the Southern Arizone region, someone's bound to have commented on it somewhere, and our inability to find those sources may be due to our internet-bias or some other factor. (I'm not saying it's a good argument - it's a pretty weak one - just that it's not inherently contrary to policy.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That is a fair point and a good presentation of what Madmaxmarchhare meant (or should have meant). I agree, though, it is pretty weak in this case, if not always in other cases. Novaseminary (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think accreditation is needed. Fight the power! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Gupta[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Her IMDB credits are not for well known films or TV shows. Very few acting credits as well. No good references or new articles could be found for her ^Writer_Listener 21:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Desi fly chick! Print reference, two page interview as "Person of the week" at South Asian Times, February 6, 2009. Needs more solid referencing. Miami33139 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miami33139. This article is badly in need of improvements, but AfD is not for cleanup. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Stop - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial cleanup is an issue for standard editing rather than outright deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bonello[edit]

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

Someone else tried to afd this but didn't finish the process, leaving me to do all the work because NOBODY ELSE EVER NOTICES REDLINKED AFDs. Anyway, fails general notability, no significant secondary sources, horribly written. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google throws up a few thousand results, some of which back up the claim of him winning the "King of the Cage" competition. That said, the article does need a lot of work, but that's what maintenance tags are for. BlazerKnight (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is messy, but seems notable. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 12:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation The burden on those who want to keep it is to fix it. This article in the current state is not work keeping. If I need to revisit this claim because someone has taken the effort to fix this article, I welcome a note on my talk page. Miami33139 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted 99% of the article (copyvio of http://thegunfightclub.com/about/) and added an infobox. He is completely notable (is featured on an MTV series, and is a professional martial artist). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OurStage[edit]

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

Advertising —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - this article about web content does not assert its notability. Failing that, I'd argue that the site isn't notable and the article isn't supported by the reliable independent sources required by the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added many more citations, and updated old information, on November 2, 2009. Many of the citations added make a case for the OurStage article having the required sources for the general notability guidelines. In addition, removed language involved with the Advertising tone when written. More improvements upon the "advertising" tone should and will be made. - munson3210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munson3210 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reviewed the changes added by Munson3210 above, and still vote Delete. The issue is, as before, that the article does not indicate why its subject is important and significant. This is a different standard from verifiability and lower than notability. Currently there is no information in the article to indicate why OurStage is more notable and significant than any other business or commercial website in the world. (See WP:MILL.)) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Shows a hint of notability through the articles, but most are primary sources from the website. Needs more #rd party sources to be kept. Not a bad article however. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed references linking to internal sources, update with external reference links

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gannon Award[edit]

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

Many other Gannon awards can be found; the Archbishop Gannon Award, the Steve Gannon Award, the Marie E. Gannon Award, and the Terry Gannon Award. But this Gannon award has only 14 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. References provided in the article are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entry at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford celebrating the fact that Nick Bostrom received the award (http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/archive/2009/eugene_r._gannon_award_for_the_continued_pursuit_of_human_advancement). It looks like a perfectly legitimate award regardless of how many hits it has on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.199.208 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford's website cannot be considered independent from Dr. Bostrom, since he is in their employ. Abductive (reasoning) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle to specify, and make necessary articles and disam pages for the others. It's hard to judge the notability of a new award, but it can be inferred from the nature of the awardees. This is not inherited notability, for people at this level wouldnt have accepted it if they hadnt thought it significant. Article needs clarification. Oxford's website can be considered reliable for routine facts about its faculty. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources exist to tell us anything about this award. Are you familiar with how squirrely the Transhumanists are? Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OU souce is in my opinion such a source. I agree additional information would help, and if by squirrely you mean that there are a number of rather low grade articles about them here, yes, I think we do have some here. But each must be judged independently, without prejudice about the type of organization involved. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No question on the reliability of material. Awarded is clearly notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This award has only been given to one person, and his employer mentions it on their website. It has generated no news reports, it is not mentioned in any books, and has less than 20 Google hits total. The person awarded has a Wikipedia article, true, and Oxford is an important place, but notability is not inherited. Abductive (reasoning) 15:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even mentioned in a single secondary reliable source. I don't understand how anyone could argue that this topic is notable, we don't build articles out of press releases and puff pieces on university websites. Fences&Windows 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIN (research infrastructure)[edit]

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

So far, this project has yet to bear fruit, at least as far as third party, reliable sources are concerned. A few Google Scholar hits are from announcements for the project at various meetings, and are therefore self-published. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The program appears to be widely adopted throughout a significant portion of Europe. A google search on CLARIN (without the (research infrastructure) part) returns quite a few pages about the program. It seems like it's a fairly new initiative which, per the nominator, may not have produced much in the way of tangible results as of yet. However, general widespread acceptance and discussion of the program seems to imply that it's not very likely to just fade away without bearing fruit. In my opinion, it's just over the line of notability and needs to be expanded from a stub. Snottywong (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument above essentially reduces to "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not explain the notability or significance of its subject matter. Also, failing that, notability is not established in the article and the various sources turned up by Google have problems of being either not independent, or not significant. Although I could be persuaded otherwise by an expert in the field. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like DGG, Delete per Snottywong, who articulates what is best seen as a deletion rationale. Ray^Talk 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this level of the judiciary is not inherently notable. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe M. Bonaventure Jr.[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable and clear case of WP:BLP#1E. Bonaventure is a lower state court judge only worthy of note for his role in the early stages of the O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case, which does not merit him a separate article. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just a guy doing his job. The fact that O.J. is mentioned in the first sentence is a clue to this, as others have said. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply being a justice of the peace doesn't make one notable, and there's no evidence that this guy has done anything that would make him notable for some other reason. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being a JP certainly isn't notable but if you read on you'll see he then became a Judge. Might not change your opinion, but I thought it was worth checking your opinion is based on the correct facts. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per an argument that I can't source to policy, but I personally feel that verifiable members of the Bench (as this judge is) are rare enough and influential enough to be considered inherently notable, in much the same way as WP:ATHLETE treats professional athletes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the rationale for presuming professional athletes to be notable applies to even the lowest state court judges? Professional athletes are necessarily documented in secondary sources because of pervasive reporting and statistics keeping of professional sports. Can you say this is true of state court trial judges? They are not influential as a rule because they do not establish precedent like appellate court judges, and most of the time they do not even issue full written opinions. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I found the policy citation - WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1 - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." State court judge is, if I understand the American judicial system correctly, first-level sub-national. Providing he is verifiably a state court trial judge (which he is), he's notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only judges on a state's supreme court would be first-level sub-national politicians, not simply any judge. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For reference, every judge under the American and English systems establishes precedent, it's just that appellate courts establish a higher level of precedent. And like every judge, they're bound to issue written opinions on request, and in trials will indeed usually issue those opinions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dermocracy[edit]

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

Hardly notable foreign language neologism. This is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wiktionary, and even there it would be marginally appropriate at best. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Demschiza
Liberast

Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal for Demschiza, no opinion for liberast and dermocracy. Demschiza is a term describing the radical wing of Russian liberal thought, coined by Russian liberals themselves. It's not merely a neologism, but a description of a type of people. ellol (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of those. Only today did I read about 'Integrasts' in Estonia - i.e. Russophone residents of Estonia who have learnt the Estonian language and are well-integrated into society. Do we need an article on integrasty? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Demschiza, Liberast, Dermocracy, Putinjugend, Nashism etc into one Political neologisms in Russia article. M0RD00R (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dermocracy and Liberast - article provides no information beyond a definition and etymology of the word, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Demschiza - article extends beyond etymology into a discussion of the historical and cultural implications of the word, and is well sourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and can I once again add that group nominations are rarely helpful except where articles are dependent on each other or clones of each other? In articles with separate content each should be assessed separately on its merits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unbundle and relist grouping them is only going to cause confusion UltraMagnus^speak 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all. Russian language pejoratives of no currency in English language. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All neologisms. No independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per nom & SmokeyJoe.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Delete all, a blatant provocation. --ssr (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Russian neologisms. Anna Lincoln 21:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter Disc[edit]

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

This article has no independent sources, and a Google search finds nothing substantive beyond directory entries and blogs. The article on David Quitmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted as failing the sourcing test, I don't think the sources for this film are any better. It's a near-zero budget movie, and given the intersect of porn and gore you would really expect a massive amount more coverage if it was genuinely of any significance. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as lacking independent sources that assert notability. Aiken ♫ 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. --John (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to weak keep. The sources are reviews, and therefore show some sort of notability. Aiken ♫ 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sticking with above discussion. Article is slightly promotional in flavor.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe does it again. Keep. Good show, man. Now somebody get rid of the promotional flavors? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], and [88]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Joe Chill. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete-tagged {{db-corp}} at 16:25, 11 June 2009 by User:Leonard^Bloom
Deletion queried on 28 October 2009 by this message in my user talk page (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)):-[reply]
- Hi Anthony -
  A colleague of mine tried to start a new article titled "Confederation of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide", which was deleted by you. I would like to question your decision to consider "not notable" this organization, which reports to the Italian Government and connects thousands of entrepreneurs worldwide. The Italian version of Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, does include an article: it:Confederazione degli Imprenditori Italiani nel Mondo. The organization is also often referenced by the international press. I would like to ask you to reconsider and allow us to re-publish. Thank you, Giovanni.Gbattistini (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Abductive (reasoning) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added to the article "Giovanni"'s claim that "the organization is also often referenced by the international press" to circumvent the Speedy Delete A7 argument that I'd otherwise have made. With CSD#A7 off the table, good faith Google searches under the Italian spelling of the name reveal a bucketload of hits, so I'm satisfied that the criteria at WP:N are made out and the article should be retaind. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bucketload of hits - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be recreated at a later time if appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera and Walpole[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. These people have no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where they, rather than the one event they gained notoriety for, are the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. They were accused of committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dominic·t 07:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair, other than in the news, it has actually been cited in a book -the latter is actually identical to the source in the article and of which the article is a paraphrase. It seems therefore that this is supported by only two but apparently reliable, sources: the newspaper and the book. That said I have no definite stance on the article being kept or deleted. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any notability outside the single murder/trial. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 - this article appears to be a copyright violation of text at Victims of the State (link [89]). Although it's possible they copied their text from Wikipedia rather than vice versa, the fact they have links to primary sources and we don't suggests that they're the author, not us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the copyvio if necessary, as a notable example of wrongful convictions. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd revisit the issue if the text is actually changed but for copyright violation it needs to be delete first, recreate later. Voting keep on the merits and assuming someone else will fix the page results in a copyvio continuing to stand on Wikipedia. I'm not sufficiently convinced of notability to rewrite myself but if you (or someone else) does it feel free to let me know on my talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G12 with no objection to creation of a version that's not a copyvio. Ray^Talk 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on wrongful convistions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Fishel (filmmaker)[edit]

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

no attempts at citations or sources. non notable filmmaker only known for blog, according to article, which might be written by a COI. The Zwinky (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability meeting any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of the guy. He recently won a dance film award. I have provided a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.113 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the unsigned comment above, no such source currently appears in the article. Also, unless the dance film award itself were notable (text added to the article suggests not) it would still fail WP:N even with sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of his films won a film festival award, but there is no evidence that it is a notable award. Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of him, and his awards do not seem to allow him to pass WP:CREATIVE. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Winning an award is easy at these festivals because they have so many different categories of ‘best this’ and ‘best that’ to go around. --Aspro (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ International School Services
^ MWICPS Website
^ Naver Academic Institutions Listing
^ "Let's go to America without TOEFL through MWICPS!"

[1] ttp://www.urbandictionary.com

[2] International School Services

[3] MWICPS Website

[4] Naver Academic Institutions Listing

[5] "Let's go to America without TOEFL through MWICPS!"

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e Lists of countries by transport rankings
Road	Roadways length Traffic-related death rate Vehicles per capita Expressway length
Rail	Railways length Rail usage Metro systems Tram and light rail systems High-speed railway lines
Air	Airline passengers Heliports
Other	Merchant marine Pipelines Waterways
List of international rankings Lists by country