Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 November 9 November >

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 close and send to Redirects for Discussion instead. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey[edit]

Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless redirection of a long, orphaned article name Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:11, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing[edit]

Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This conference has been organised since 1998, but it seems that it hasn't had much impact so far. I was able to find only two papers published in ICVGIP with more than 10 citations in Google Scholar: [1] and [2]; other conferences like ICCV and CVPR in the same field have published papers with >1000 citations in Google Scholar. I have not found any reliable third-party sources that show that this conference is notable; for comparison, see List of computer science conferences#Computer vision examples of other conferences for which it was reasonably easy to find several third-party sources. I don't have any personal opinion about this conference, and I'll be happy to change my mind if someone finds reliable sources. This is a contested prod; hence taking it to AfD to get more discussion. Miym (talk) 23:44, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Povernomics[edit]

Povernomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The term is not used in the social sciences. A simple Google search shows it. None of the references given in the article other than the commercial website povernomics.com include the word "povernomics". CronopioFlotante (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is suspicious. "Povernomics" seems to be trademarked by "Shanti, Sara Helene" (source). The user who created the page has a similar name, Adamshanti (contribs), and shows no other activity besides creating the article. Another new user with a similar name, Noahshanti (contribs) removed the unreviewed template (diff). CronopioFlotante (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pretty fishy, all together. My cat probably has more Google results. And as it's trademarked, doesn't that make it a... business? organisation? meaning it fails that notability as well? - BalthCat (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this has caught on. It reminds me of the guy who trademarked the word "billennium" (TM) to have exclusive rights to use it on all the merchandise he would sell as 2000 approached. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a garage full of T-shirts with the word "billennium" (TM) on them. Might not have made any money, but at least he'll have clothes to wear for the rest of the billennium(TM). Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge What a surprise, the academic economist wants to suppress an economic philosophy that deviates from normative economics and the idea that more consumption is better. Seriously though, the article is actually very well written and properly referenced, which is more than I can say for a vast proportion of articles. The federal SAVE award submission appears legitimate suggesting this philosophy is beginning to gain acceptance (especially given the current financial atmosphere). While the similarity between names of the trademark holder and article creator seems more than coincidental, there is no indication of over-hyping, marketing, false promotion, spam, etc. Keep the article or at least merge it with other articles on non-normative/heterodox economic philosophies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.92.254 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why do you say that the article is properly referenced? None of the references even mention the word "Povernomics". CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge: The article is written in a neutral way and is not offering any commercial services or other marketing. The article may need additional references, but being Trademarked and having an entry created by family member does not preclude an entry discussing an economic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.216.54 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Anon editor's statement copied here from the article's talk page --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. The problem is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources on this new economic theory. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which statements specifically are unverifiable as the article currently stands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahshanti (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid it is more than just a statement not being verifiable. To be included in Wikipedia, a subject has to notable. And notability requires verifiable evidence. CronopioFlotante (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge: There is nothing "suspicious" or "fishy" about a posting by those most knowledgeable about the topic - in fact that is how the process is supposed to work. Notice that there was no attempt to hide behind obscure or vague usernames when posting the article - there are no hidden motives as Mandsford has suggested. Regarding BalthCat's comment: the number of Google results is an not objective measure of whether or not an idea belongs in an encyclopedia. Obscure knowledge and newly-formed paradigms still deserve to be disseminated. As to the second point, a trademark is not the same as a company or organization - trademarking the word Povernomics does not affect the merit of the Povernomical philosophy/practice (as 'A More Perfect Onion' pointed out). Regarding Mandsford's comment: The article doesn't even begin to suggest a profit motive here, and your comment fails to even touch on the technical merit of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahshanti (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'll agree that my wording was biased by the fact it was trademarked. Trademarks are often intended to derive profit. Editing Wikipedia about your trademarked concept (to derive profit) is a conflict of interest. If it hadn't been TM'd I'd probably have simply assumed it was someone's pet theory they were promoting, instead of a business model. Still not sure my wording was *wrong*, I'll have to think on that. I would also argue that once you trademark a concept, it cannot be widely disseminated and referenced. It's not like someone could publish a book called "The New Povernomics" without paying you, which means it's going ot be hard for you to establish verifiability with independent sources. In other words, it'll be easier to make it into notability as a "product" than as a "philosophy/practice." At least that's how I see it playing out, t hough I could be wrong. If this can be sourced I'll change to Keep. - BalthCat (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: BalthCat, thank you for reconsidering this. Regarding trademark law however, there is a Fair Use exception. The goal isn't to preclude people from using the term Povernomics -- anyone can continue to contribute to this theory by writing Whitepapers, Articles, blogging, books, etc. about it because a trademark (unlike a copyright) is only intended to identify source or origin. Whether or not this is an appropriate (from a public policy perspective) use of Federal Trademark law is a different matter, but it does not preclude dissemination and referencing. Adamshanti (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Adam Shanti[reply]
  • Delete No record of usage other than by the term's creator. This causes problems with verifiability, notability, and specifically WP:NEO. gnfnrf (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any coverage of the term in any secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. This therefore fails WP:V and thus WP:N. With no uses in durably archived media that I've been able to find, this does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary (wikt:WT:CFI) and so a transwiki would be a waste of effort. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since "povernomics" was not found in the references cited for the article, the article must be considered original research. Let us end this discussion as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that this article does not belong in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 16:40, 13 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) 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Workshop on Dependable and Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Systems[edit]

International Workshop on Dependable and Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a workshop organised since 2006, and it does not seem to be notable (yet); the workshop seems to be too new to tell whether it has had significant impact in the field. There are the usual hits in search engines that you'll fine for any computer science conference or workshop (conference web pages, CfPs on various mailing lists, CVs of conference organisers, papers presented in the conference, etc.) but there doesn't seem to be any third-party sources. This is one of the few entries in List of computer science conferences for which I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that would show that this workshop is notable; for a typical notable conference it is reasonably easy to find several third-party references. I don't have any personal opinion about this workshop, and I'll be happy to change my mind if someone finds reliable sources. This is a contested prod; hence taking to AfD to get more discussion. Miym (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Miym (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is too new to have attained the notability we need to have an article here. To the nominator's well-reasoned rationale I'd add that workshops tend to be lesser to conferences and symposia, and there's no evidence presented that this should be considered an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet notable, and it would be crystal-balling to argue that it will be someday. Qworty (talk) 16:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open File Manager[edit]

Open File Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 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, NW (Talk) 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything on it either. Hard so see how it's notable. Qworty (talk) 16:15, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lïfe Andruszkow[edit]

Lïfe Andruszkow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced autobiography, fails WP:BIO resoundingly judging from Google results.  Sandstein  22:16, 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, NW (Talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like WP:AUTO. Notability is neither asserted nor demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 16:19, 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.A.S.T.[edit]

F.E.A.S.T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Only independent sources I could find make bare passing mentions of the group, with nothing approaching significant coverage. TNXMan 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable, numerous solid hits from various online sources and print articles such as recent pieces in Time Magazine, NYT and the Washington Post not to mention airtime on National Public Radio, contributes much more as an article to the readers of Wikipedia than not--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the point I was trying to make in my nomination statement. The mentions of FEAST in those articles are passing mentions at best. For example, the NYT article only mentions the group in the very last paragraph. TNXMan 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in passing? Specific mentions in Time Magazine AND the NYT AND the Washington Post AND a National Public Radio broadcast. Do you think these press agencies would mention an organization if it was not relevant to their respective audiences whom they, the print organizations, ferociously compete for?--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient notability for relatively new organization. A redirection to the article on eating disorders and a metnion there as one of the organizations working on that issue might be okay. Also, how does "Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Eating Disorders" spell Feast? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 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, NW (Talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability is NOT the same thing as notability. There are any number of people and organizations that receive passing reference in media, even major media. However, that is not enough, in itself, to establish notability. The argument has not even been made for the notability of this organization. We don't even know how many people belong to it, or what influence, if any, it has had. Qworty (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no evidence of significant coverage. [3]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rodriguez[edit]

Glenn Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity article for non-notable actor/filmmaker. Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Warrah (talk) 22:57, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NovaDB[edit]

NovaDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Cannot find any significant coverage for this software. Haakon (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just because an article has citations doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Autumray6 and Sumdeus have been accused of sockpuppetry. Haakon (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumdeus for my comment on the matter, you Nazi - without people like you to deal with I might have contributed to more articles in the past. I deeply apologize for having a life. Sumdeus (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "Citations" are all self-published. Searches show no notability whatsoever for this software. Appears to be advertising. --NellieBly (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: combines high security, extensible scalability, data management, distributed computing, a simple web-based interface (iNetGUI) available via an embedded HTTP/HTTPS server, search capabilities, intelligent infrastructure, reporting, and custom web capabilities into a single platform. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no non self-published reliable sources I can find. There is no claim of notability. The Wikipedia article was created by the author of the software, which is confirmed with his post here. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising Wikipedia is failing to deal with paid advertising budgets. Get rid of this crap. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 13 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) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INetGUI[edit]

INetGUI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable, fresh project. Only 279 Google hits, none of them significant. Haakon (talk) 22:43, 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 to New York Mets. NW (Talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bmets[edit]

Bmets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability-might want to merge with New York Mets Airplaneman talk 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge per nom. The New York Mets (no matter how awful they are doing) have tons of minor league teams. Some sources may exist, but I don't think it will survive AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Unless there's something to actually say about this team it belongs in a list, not an article of its own. Eeekster (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge and delete would violate GFDL as it would wipe out the author history of the former page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then all it would need is one of us to write in a one liner about the BMets in the Mets article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:31, 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 withdrawn by nominator Killiondude (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Balder[edit]

Rob Balder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This webcomic artist seemingly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I should add that while at least two of Balder's comics have articles on Wikipedia, only one of these (Erfworld) has been covered in third-party sources enough to make Balder arguably notable under WP:CREATIVE #3 ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."), and even then, the coverage is rather skimpy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep, for now The musical contributions alone, I believe, make them notable, and this HAS been covered properly in reliable media. However, as is, the article is in a bit of a poor state and needs attention from people familiar with both editing on Wikipedia and Rob Balder, for more content and citations. I suggest focusing on improvement rather than AfDing, and holding this AfD until a persistent lack of the former is noted. The article is merely hours old. Namegduf Live (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I recuse myself from this discussion. Sbierwagen (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone discussion: Looking over the page history, the page existed for all of four hours when it was nominated for deletion; at least give us time enough to look for the sources before deleting it. (Justyn (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough. I don't think Balder meets the notability guidelines I cited above, but I'm willing to withdraw this nomination and let others work on the article for a while before deciding on that issue. Nomination withdrawn. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:58, 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 keep. NW (Talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker[edit]

Jim Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as not meeting Wikipedias notability guidelines since July. AT this point it is unlikely that further sourcing will be added that will satisfy the editors that have raised this concern, therefore per the notability template I am bringing the article to AfD (" If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. "). Please consider myself neutral. Artw (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Brr, the study of past lives memories from reincarnation. Personally, I find this pretty preposterous. However, the media coverage cited in the article seems sufficient to me for passing WP:BIO, even for a fringe science/pseudo-science topic. Kinoq (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assistant professor in pseudoscience area. Minimal GS cites yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Looks like mention by Oprah and Depak, we don't need to establish scientific merit just notice. AFAIK he needn't qualify on the basis of criteria for an academic, a notable clown who happens to work at a university could still be notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think appearing on Oprah etc in the context of doing a book tour is an indication of notability... just a good publisher. Now, if someone else, while appearing on Oprah, had discussed Tuker or his books... well, that would be different. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do raise a good point, notability isn't inherited, and I guess selecting guests is not much different from giving an invited talk at a conference. Presumably it is largely a promotional peace but not sure if appearance on Oprah creates a strong but rebuttable presumption of notability. Does the author care to elaborate on the coverage from Oprah or other sources and distinguish it from promotional or "intellectually dependent" of Tucker ( biased, PR, or purely advertising)? I guess my other presumption is that if Oprah covered it someone else covered her coveage etc etc- almost nothing on that show appears unnotable, again not a comment on scientific merit. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume... I would agree that if someone else covered Oprah's coverage of Tucker, there would be a much better case for saying that Tucker is notable... but the question is: Is there such a source? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tucker easily meets the general criteria for notability, not necessarily as an academic (although he is an assistant professor and medical director of a clinic at U.S. university), but for the media coverage of his book (not just Oprah) and for the fact that he is a frequent consultant to the media on the question of apparent remembered past lives. It seems that the academic notability issue has been raised as a smokescreen for eliminating an article about Tucker because of a distaste for the nature of his research. I may be misreading this but it sure seems that way. Even if you don't agree with his research and think it doesn't deserve to be presented in WP because of its fringe nature, how can you justify assessing him as non-notable on general criteria? --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article under discussion is Tucker, he can't be fringe about himself. In an article on rigorous science, he may or may not be mentioned. Nerdseeksblonde (talk)
  • Keep. I think that, at least for individuals in generally notable classes (authors, performers, politicians, as opposed to "human interest" figures) appearing on major television programs like Oprah is pretty strong evidence of notability, and should at the very least be treated as significant independent coverage. Otherwise we have the paradox that if, for example, a TV host's guest talks about a book for a few minutes, and recommends it, that's evidence of notability, but if she brings the author on for an hour to discuss himself and his book, that's just promotion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have some notion of independence. If you paid to get on Oprah or it was an infomercial, everyone would glibby assume that didn't make it notable. I don't know quite what relationship exists for that show but just assumed there would be more converage due to that. It could of course be an infomercial type relationship. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of depth of coverage in third party sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources for notability as an author. How is the Sfgate article at least not substantial coverage of him? That what he is saying is in my personal opinion utter nonsense does not affect notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG. Not sure he qualifies as an academic, but easily meets WP:GNG with articles such as those in major local publications as the San Francisco Chronicle and major national publications such as the National Post. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant sources are asserted (National Post, SFGate, Discover, Discovery Channel, etc.), until these are shown not to refer to Tucker, this article is "well sourced." - BalthCat (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merit: The goal here is to document what people care about, consider this entry to be a commentary on current culture not a basis on which to do historical rearsrch probing the recollections of past lives. Kirlian photography is still notable if it captures a life force or water content and maybe there is some other merit buried in his work but we want to present the current thinking to the reader. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If Chester Carlson endowed a project at the University of Virginia to study this stuff and its staff gains press attention, then Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker probably deserved balanced coverage in Wikipedia. I don't personally believe, but I can accept that the scientific method could be applied to exploring these questions. Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE, no significant coverage in several independent sources. Note to nom, surviving this AfD wouldn't be a good reason to remove the tag; if it does survive.Verbal chat 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discsussion of the tag would seem out of place until there is a verdict. However, yes, I would expect the tag to be removed if the article was kept on the grounds of meeting notability requirements. Why wouldn't it be? Artw (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think some of the editors responding to this AfD have confused the issue of whether Tucker is notable with the issue of whether the topic he writes about is notable. A non-notable author can write about a notable topic (and vise versa). Since the subject of the article in question is a person... let's keep focused on whether that person is notable or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InContext: he seems to be a notable speaker on this topic, 500 hits that probably relate to him+oprah ( not sure if there are spurious hits here),

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Jim+Tucker%22+reincarnation+oprah&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, some of those seem to mention Tucker the reporter with an unrelated comment about Oprah. I thought reincarnation would remove most of those. I'm not claiming these are reliable sources or that any of them should be cited, simply that he is in fact well known ( ok, notability has not been proven from this search) for the work in the field. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the rescue tag in case anyone is interested in rooting through thoughs and adding supporting cites to the article. However the article as it stands already has multiple links to media appearances (admittedly not all involving Oprah), newspaper articles and a full length documentary on Tuckers work, so I am not sure they will do anything to perusade those that say Tucker is not notable. Artw (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q: If you are calling him fringe, what is he a fringe of? The article under discussion is about a person, not a subject. You could have multiple theories about some phenomenon or even some person( " he is an agent of Satan") but an article can't be fringe about itself. So, ok, let's say he is notable for being an expert in a fringe area of some scientific discipline. He may get zero coverage in some article related to that larger topic but it doesn't matter here- essentially, the quality of his science doesn't matter if he was made notable by appearances on Oprah or MTV and follow up coverage for his fringe science.
Part of encyclopedic coverage of any author or ideamonger involves detailing how their ideas fit in to the scholarship of the field and more generally the state of human knowledge as a whole. Obviously, this article should not be a coatrack for explaining why his ideas are right or wrong, but we do need to provide enough information to connect with the average reader. The independent coverage is what tells us how to weight the article, with points that are the subject of coverage elsewhere being given more space and detail than material that has not received such comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, context is important but in the context of a wikipedia article on topic A, A can not be a fringe view point related to A. So, the fact that some number of people write about him makes him notable and this coverage, not it scientific or really even scholastic merit, are the most relevant. When creating context by referencing the larger fields in which he works, it would seem that mainstream views on reincarnation may get only passing mention as being of "fringe" relevance to his raison d'etre. I guess at some point you have to determine how a source can be reliable and still indulge nonsense or, more often, just things you don't happen to like. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am agreeing with you. A more general discussion of the best way to write articles covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories might be Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We may or may not consider him a whack job or in some way engaging in pseudo-science but the volume of sourcing, including reliable ones, sure suggests that he is a leading authority in his field. This is where encyclopedia writing arises to the level of explaining the subject and pointing our readers to helpful information about related topics. If most mainstream scientific scholars discredit the field or this person's work then simply state that without judgment. If he is the leading authority then state that. Go where the sources lead and even if various "sides" aren't happy at least we treat the subject fairly and dispassionately. -- Banjeboi 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG, sufficient sources for notability as an author. Johnfos (talk) 03:01, 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 early delete per BLP1E, defamatory article of living person. None of the keep votes are based in policy. Tan | 39 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lambert (soccer)[edit]

Elizabeth Lambert (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A college soccer player known for only one thing: blatant fouls during a recent game on November 5, 2009, which were shown on TV on ESPN. She was suspended from the team on November 6 by her school. The biographical article was thereafter created November 8. Fails WP:BIO1E and fails WP:ATHLETE. Edison (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Information is information, and I came here looking for information on this Elizabeth Lambert.
  • Delete per WP:BLP; articles should not be created to disparage relatively unknown people. Andrea105 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can think of many articles about a normal person who did one bad thing. In addition, Elizabeth Lambert is an internet sensation, just like Star Wars kid. She's a legend of bad sportsmanship and is all over the news and internet because of it. If "Evolution of Dance" guy and Numa Numa deserve their own articles, Elizabeth does too. PÆonU (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does deserves attention and she already has become a household name. Robert Moore (talk) 20:27 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Single event per BLP rules. No notability otherwise, hence ought to be deleted without any controversy. Collect (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every viral video star with a Wiki article has only made one viral video... How is she different? I feel you're being impartial because she's one of the most awful people in the history of soccer. It's hard to say that we should let that poor excuse of an athlete get an article, but she deserves it, like any other internet sensation. I've seen her on CNN as well. She has reached the masses. Are you from a small city of mutes? Because she's all I here about from both the news and other people. PÆonU (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think this person will remain low profile after this event to qualify for WP:BLP1E. She'll always be remembered for this series of fouls. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't the Zidane headbutt incident: she's a great example of WP:BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see notability for anything but her actions in this one game. Seems like classic WP:BLP1E to me. Papaursa (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this is up for deletion, every internet meme should be too. Laylaholic (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Wikipedia BLP policy--"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." It seems to me that her 15 minutes of fame will subside and, unless she does something notable, she will remain low profile. In some ways she's already low profile, a lot of people saw her on TV, but most couldn't name her. Some of the newscasts I saw didn't even name her, they just showed some video. Two other things I would point out--according to Wikipedia, "notability is not temporary" and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Papaursa (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Contrary to User:Robert Moore above, I do not think she is a household name. It does seem that this article currently falls under WP:BLP1E. However, if coverage persists, I think an article would be warranted. JEN9841 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The keep argument by Laylaholic amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So go and nominate other "memes" for AFD. That is not a valid reason to keep this one. Edison (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Simple decision.70.208.215.236 (talk)
  • Comment Ooh! Far worse violence than this at a HIGH SCHOOL girls' soccer game! Another Highly Encyclopedic Article needed? Edison (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP; articles should not be created to disparage relatively unknown people.
WITH COMMENT: This person is only noteworthy for a series of rash actions in a college soccer game. Unless enormous good fortune should come her way as a result of this, she is only going to be forgotten after her 15 minutes of fame are over. Also, this would set a precedent for inclusion of everyone who is mentioned in a news source IE: every college kid, high school sportsperson and even grandma for her cookie recipe. Chris Hawk (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, lack of reliable third party sources. -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't forget, all Wikipedia articles start out rough. This article should be given the chance to be improved. I'll start working on improving it immediately. Give the editors a bit of time, as a good article doesn't happen in two hours. PÆonU (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment I just looked at the page's history. It's only a few days old. This article deserves a chance, like all other articles did when they were first started. PÆonU (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Committing a few fouls in a college soccer game and getting suspended from your college soccer team because of it is not enough to confer encyclopedic notability. Zaxem (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable soccer player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. If people think she should be kept purely because of one violent on-pitch incident, then they clearly haven't played soccer with my friends - I could make them into a FA! GiantSnowman 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO1E and WP:ATHLETE. Btw, article currently provides no reliable sources even for notability of that single event.--Staberinde (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article fails WP:BIO1E as all coverage in WP:RS appears to relate to the hair-pulling incident. Jogurney (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Defmatory bio of a nn living person. Speedy as attack page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This definately fails BLP1E. There is no reason to have this on WP for something that will be forgotten in a week. Angryapathy (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And discussing how she is a "viral star" and "will always be remembered" is kind of silly since it has been less than a week. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook example of BLP1E.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:TROUT the keep voters, honestly. This poor girl had the misfortune to have a horrid game in the midst of the internet and ESPN wall-to-wall coverage era. Media coverage, no matter how saturated, of the events of a 2-hour game do not justify an article. Fails WP:ATHLETE otherwise. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have any of you guys ever seen the birth of an article? It doesn't start out well, ever. This hasn't had enough time to mature. Deletion is only necessary when an article is beyond repair. This article can be repaired, so unless everyone here wants to lazily delete articles instead of working on them, it doesn't warrant a full deletion. PÆonU (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BLP1E - "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." That pretty much says it all here: She is only notable for that event, and there is no evidence that she'll jump back in the spotlight. WP isn't supposed to be the recap of "YouTube's hottest videos of the week!" Angryapathy (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe its just me, but I don't seem to have a crystal ball in my wiki-toolbox. This woman is in the news for the events that happened in a single game and for nothing else; this is textbook WP:BLP1E. There is simply nothing to add that would not be just another reference to the incident or the subsequent fallout from the incident. In a few years if she makes the women's national soccer team then that will be sufficient for WP:ATHLETE, and the article can be recreated. All it can possibly be right now is about ponytail-pulling, kicking, and forearm shivers. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are available to write something, but this is a perfect application of WP:BLP1E. No prejudice against revisiting this subject later if she becomes more notable due to e.g., an NCAA championship, a notable pro career, or becomes more of a poster child for sportsmanship in high level sports after the newsy aspect of that particular incident wears off. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable except for these actions in one game. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true and it's of interest to many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.47.2 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Just because someone got their 15 minutes of fame on teh internets, doesn't mean we should have a biography on them. *** Crotalus *** 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this isn't covered by WP:BLP1E, I'd like to know what on earth would be. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 15:01, 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) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen[edit]

Alison Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What a disaster -- full of youtube references and blogs masquerading as sources. If there were better sources available, fine -- but in reality this person fails WP:BIO and the article is a discredit to wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I agree with the nominator. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin, despite the efforts to mask lack of notablility Vartanza (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is not notable enough to have her own article. BearShare998 (talk) 00:34, 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 speedily deleted. TNXMan 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lombardo[edit]

Nicholas Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person, whose business is also non notable. Also written much like a personal statement with future plans, thus failing WP:CRYSTALBALL AtheWeatherman 21:35, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse[edit]

They are on the billboard 200 now that shows nobility http://www.billboard.com/#/album/falling-in-reverse/the-drug-in-me-is-you/1505677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesk715 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "Myspace" band. Article asserts notability based upon band being signed with Epitaph Records, yet bands official Myspace page [4] clearly states "unsigned". Previously CSD'd and then recreated. Chasingsol(talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Reverse is a well known band. Anyone who favors the old ETF with Ronnie in it knows Falling in Reverse. There is even an magazine issue that is based on Ronnie and Falling in Reverse. Ronnie gets out December 15, not too far away. There is no point in deleting the Falling in Reverse page.Tech395 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources/evidence: How can we KNOW that they are a well known band? We can't take your claim of notability on faith. Do you have links to reviews in major media? important non-blog websites that review/cover the genre of music they create? etc. - BalthCat (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://thronemagazine.com/ This is the linkTech395 (talk) 13:14, 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 speedily deleted, user blanked the page [5]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TapToTalk[edit]

TapToTalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new software, up and coming next big thing. PROD was contested by creator (his rationale is at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete: This is new product aimed at people with speech difficluties and wiki is an ideal medium to make people aware of this cost effective soloution.Deben Dave (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, product promotion, or advocacy. I sympathize with the aims of this software, but unless someone can demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria then I can't support having this article here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a product advertisement platform (see WP:PROMOTION ). --hroest 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just consider if you were the parent of a child who could not talk to you would you not want to know about this very cost effective soloution so that they could communicate with you!!! Deben Dave (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is blatant advertising at its best. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clearly meant to be promotional, as seen by the creator's comments here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well wikipedia loss and I just hope you never have any children who cant talk Deben Dave (talk) 09:44, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antulio Segarra[edit]

Antulio Segarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's well-written and well-referenced, but verifiability is not the same thing as notability. The claim for notability here is that he was the first Puerto Rican to achieve a certain military rank. No matter how well-referenced the assertion, I just don't think that's enough to meet WP notability standards. Compare this to a little-known military figure who actually is notable, such as Frederick Funston, who captured Aguinaldo and tried to keep San Francisco from burning down after the 1906 quake--that is notability. I just don't think Antulio Segarra has it. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your argument is self-contradictory. WP:NOTABILITY has five points in its guidelines, of which this article meets at least three ("Reliable", "Sources" and "Independent of the subject"). - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The nomination statement is misleading. The article makes no mention of the subject being the first Puerto Rican Colonel. It is not about the subjects rank as the nominator claims. It is about the subject being the first Puerto Rican in history to command a U.S. Army Regiment. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He wasn't the first Puerto Rican to reach the rank of Colonel, there is no notability in that, he was, however the first of his people to command a Regular United States Army Regiment, which in itself was an accomplishment at the time considering that he was Hispanic. He was also the Military Aide to the Military Governor of Puerto Rico Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how is being "the first of his people to command a Regular United States Army Regiment" more notable than " the first Puerto Rican to reach the rank of Colonel,"?? DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the notability in reaching the rank of Colonel? That is why the nominator nominated the article for AfD in the first place, which is a misleading to say the least. The article clearly states that his notability is due to the fact that he became the "first" Puerto Rican Colonel and the first Puerto Rican period to command a United States Army Regiment (3 Battalions), something that no other Puerto Rican before him had ever done, making him one of the highest ranking ethnic officers at that time in the United States history, when racial intergration in the armed forces wasn't even considered, is notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His accomplishments within the historical context of his time are "worthy of notice". --Jmundo (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close - Proper established AfD procedure was not followed.

1. The nominator failed to notify the creator of the article of his/her intentions.

2. The nomination creates a misconception that the article and the AfD is about a person who reached the rank of Colonel, which per se would not be notable and thereby influence "delete" votes on said misconception. The article clearly states in it's introduction the following: "Colonel Antulio Segarra (January 20, 1906 - September 14, 1999), was a United States Army officer who in 1943 became the first Puerto Rican in history to command a Regular Army Regiment. Segarra served as Military Aide to the Military Governor of Puerto Rico Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and during World War II commanded the 65th Infantry Regiment." Antonio Martin (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are putting words in my mouth to falsely accuse me of bad faith. Please read the nomination again. The word "colonel" never appears in it. The term used is a "certain military rank." I had no intention of obfuscating the fact that he "commanded the 65th Infantry Regiment," because that fact is itself not notable. Are we now to have 64 articles on the commanders of the 1st through 64th Infantry Regiments? Articles on every aide-de-camp to territorial governors? That is why Segarra is not notable. I'm all for including more articles about notable people from underrepresented ethnic groups, but first the individual has to do something that is notable. Where is the threshold here? The first person of such-and-such a group to command a squad? Nobody who has voted yes has demonstrated where that line is drawn. Nor has it been demonstrated what level of bureaucrat, military or otherwise, who has worked under a territorial governor is notable. I would hazard that exactly zero of them is notable. Instead what we have is the name "Theodore Roosevelt" thrown around, as though an extremely tenuous--so tenuous as to not exist--relationship to a U.S. President will confer notability. Notability is not conferred simply because someone works in a non-notable capacity for the son of a former President. What's next, the first member of such-and-such a group to become a high-school principal? Being a high-school principal is itself not notable, so it doesn't matter who becomes one; in the same way, since being the commander of a regiment is in itself not notable, it doesn't matter who becomes one. Qworty (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article apparently satisfies the GNG as it stands; likely to be substantial additional offline sourcing (eg, Google Books results, where several significant non-English-language sources appear to be available); invalid deletion rationale -- being the first do something specific is often recognized as notable, even though the general class isn't -- climbing a tall mountain isn't itself notable, but being the first to climb Mount Everest is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • False analogy. Being the first to climb Mount Everest is notable, as there can be only one such person and Mount Everest is itself notable; however, being a regimental commander and an aide-de-camp are not in themselves notable. Clearly, being a regimental commander and a minor military bureaucrat are not the equivalent of being the first person to climb Mount Everest. Would an article on the first Puerto Rican to climb Mount Everest survive AfD? I doubt it. Qworty (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No more false than your "high school principal" analogy. Given the long and well-documented history of legal discrimination against ethnic minorities in the United States, it should be clear to reasonable people that often overcoming such entrenched barriers is no less notable than climbing Mount Everest, perhaps doing it under sniper fire. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert that Segarra suffered discriminatory abuse in the U.S. military, much less that he suffered such abuse and then challenged it, or that he became an internationally recognized test case, such as James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. If you have evidence of what you're saying, by all means present it and cite it according to WP:RS and WP:V. If you find such evidence, and perhaps attendant press coverage, he would then be notable, of course. For all we know, Segarra achieved his promotions by catering to the white-male power structure that dominated the U.S. Army at that time, rather than by challenging it and becoming the target of racist threats and ridicule, as Meredith was. In fact, given the pervasiveness of institutionalized racism at the time, the former is much more likely than the latter. Either way, notability on the basis of discrimination must be documented, not merely asserted. Qworty (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of what he did, he's received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass general notability. Notability doesn't require doing something amazing, but the first Puerto Rican to climb Everest would easily be notable if he received sufficient significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Verifiability is not the same thing as notability. See WP:REDFLAG. I haven't seen a single source that says that Segarra received press attention or scholarly attention for being the first Puerto Rican to command a regiment. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that he received this journalistic or scholarly attention, and it would require specific sourcing to verify it. The reason the sources don't exist is because it never happened--he never became a test case. The sources show that he received only incidental attention for being a regimental commander, and no attention whatsoever for breaking an ethnic barrier. To combine two unrelated facts--being Puerto Rican and being a regimental commander--to create something that is unsourced for notability ("first Puerto Rican regimental commander") is nothing more than WP:OR. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single acceptable source here. Have a look at the significant coverage criterion for notability at WP:GNG: "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. The argument for the notability of Antulio Segarra is that he was the first Puerto Rican to become a regimental commander. However, not a single one of the six sources proffered satisfies the "significant coverage" required for this assertion. In fact, five of the sources given do not even mention his being the first Puerto Rican regimental commander. To wit:

The first source given [6] is nothing more than a message-board exchange between the article's author and another individual. As such, it does not constitute WP:RS; instead, it is WP:OR. In any case, it does not state that Segarra was the first Puerto Rican regimental commander or that he received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention for being such.
The second source given [7] is the only source that even mentions that Segarra was the first Puerto Rican regimental commander, but even this is only a website and therefore does not satisfy WP:RS. In any case, this one mention is not "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. And, of course, it does not state that Segarra received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention during his lifetime or afterward.
The third source given [8] is the same website and mentions only that Segarra was a commander, nothing more.
The fourth source given [9] is a webpage that does not even mention Segarra!
The fifth source given [10] mentions only that Segarra was a troop commander. In any case, the source is a vanity-press book produced by the notorious iUniverse, which means that there were no editorial standards employed, and no fact-checking whatsoever. Vanity-press and self-published books fail WP:BK, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RS.
The sixth source given [11] merely states that Serrago was buried.

Thus, there is nothing whatsoever in any of the sources that constitutes the "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, nothing that states that Segarra received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention during his lifetime or afterward for being "the first Puerto Rican regimental commander." Instead, what we have here is WP:OR, with the "notability" arising from nothing more than the article editor's conflation of the fact that Segarra was Puerto Rican AND a regimental commander, very weakly supported by a single webpage reference that he was the first Puerto Rican in that position. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what notability verification or "significant coverage" are all about. What we need is something like a newspaper article from 1943 that says "first Puerto Rican becomes regimental commander," or a legitimately published series of books that tell us the same thing. Qworty (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requesting that nominator withdrawals AfD - Nominator scratched out the "well-referenced" in his nomination which seems as a to contradiction. It is difficult to obtain newspaper articles from newspaper that went defunct before the Internet age. However, if you want a reliable verifiable source about Segarra being the first Puerto Rican commander of a U.S. Army Regiment, then here you have it. Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa, is a respected and notable military historian and author, who was the Chief of the Combined Joint Task Force Coordination Branch at NATO’s Regional Headquarters Allied Forces North, Brunssum, The Netherlands and is currently assigned as the senior defense representative with the American embassy in the Republic of Yemen. Army remembers All-Hispanic regiment. His articles have appeared in a number of military publications and his history of the 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea has been published by the Army Center of Military History in 2003. Here is the source with his statement: Commands by Col, Villahermosa. Your original claim is that Segarra is not notable because "certain military rank", you seem to confuse a Regimental Commander with a rank. They are not the same, a Regiment is a unit of ground forces, consisting of two or more battalions or battle groups, a headquarters unit, and certain supporting units and he was the first Puerto Rican with that responsibility. Please accept the fact that there is a difference between a rank and being the first person of an ethnic group to command an American Army Regiment and withdrawal this nomination. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the links, which I've now had the chance to review. I scoured the first one Army remembers All-Hispanic regiment several times, but am unable to find Segarra mentioned anywhere on that page. Are you sure that is the correct URL? I was surprised when I opened the second link Commands by Col, Villahermosa, because it is one that has already been identified as problematic. See WP:SPS. If Segarra were in fact the first Puerto Rican regimental commander, and if that in itself were a notable fact, than that information should be readily available somewhere other than a personal website. And perhaps it is available elsewhere--but we haven't seen it yet. Either way, the point is a moot one, as is the distinction between a colonel and a regimental commander, since neither one confers notability. How can Segarra be notable for doing something that is not itself notable? That doesn't make sense. As it stands, the entire article is very flimsily supported on a single instance of WP:SPS. I believe that particular guideline is extremely important and should be adhered to as much as possible, since blogs and personal websites can too often be used for purposes of character assassination, and in fact they have been used for those purposes on Wikipedia in the past. It makes me sick whenever I see anything like that and can't get it reverted because there are admins who don't accept the value of the WP:SPS guideline. So it's best just to follow the guideline, recognizing that personal websites are not RS. As for withdrawing the AfD nomination, since nothing new has been presented that supports Segarra's notability as per WP guidelines, we have to wait and see if supporting evidence from RS shows up before the AfD expiration. I've been looking hard, and haven't found anything yet. I assume others are looking too. If the evidence doesn't appear, then the article should be deleted. Qworty (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Comment, The link Army remembers All-Hispanic regiment is a reference which shows that Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa is a respected and notable military historian and author, who in turn stated that Segarra "first" Puerto Rican Colonel and the first Puerto Rican period to command a United States Army Regiment (3 Battalions), something that no other Puerto Rican before him had ever done. This makes him one of the highest ranking ethnic officers at that time in the United States history, when racial intergration in the armed forces wasn't even considered. He is cited here: Commands by Col, Villahermosa, which is not his personal website. Not only is his statement cited, but his reliable sources are also porvided in the site. Villahermosa is a reliable source and is cited as such. Another thing, coverage of his career where his historical naming is mentioned was featured in the Puerto Rican Newspaper "El Mundo", April 1, 1954 (Even though I have a copy, unfortunately the newspaper is no longer in circulation) "Segarra fue condecorado con la Legion de Merito", pg.4, number 9967. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Convinced. So the requirement of "Significant coverage" now means one short mention on one website? We all know that isn't true. Qworty (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will not make an attempt to try convince you because it is obvious that that is not going to happen no matter what. There are many historical events, in this case Segarra becoming the first of his people make history by becoming the "First" Puerto Rican regimental commander of a United States Army Regiment, which do not receive significant media coverage for whatever reason, thereby those events are often omitted from history books and fall into the cracks of time to be forgotten. His is not the only example, do you really think that when Frederick C. Branch who became the first African-American officer of the United States Marine Corps, that it was covered by the media? No, it wasn't, as a matter of fact he received little attention until after his death because of the race issue involved, but nonetheless, Clinton is notable for being the first of his race same as Segarra is for being the first in his ethnic group to accomplish what he did at a time when such events where almost unheard of in the United States. Therefore, my friend lack of media news coverage does not make a person or event less notable. Now, that "website" may bother you, because it cites the statement made by Colonel Gilberto Villahermosa who is a respected and notable military historian and author and therefore a relible source and I quote Villahermosa's words:

    "The month prior, Colonel Antulio Segarra had assumed command of the regiment. His appointment was a historical first for the United States Army, and the regiment, Segarra was the first Puerto Rican regular Army officer to command a regular Army Regiment."

    I will no longer indulge in any type of debate with you over this. Thank you.Tony the Marine (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I think the closing admin will probably allow the article to be kept. If so, it won't be the first time I've seen every single relevant WP policy thrown straight out the window just because an editor who is very well-liked--and even rightly well-liked--decided to build an entire argument on a single sentence found on a website. At least this time nobody is being hurt. You are obviously a person of high integrity, and you have an excellent reputation around here, which I think is well-earned, so the only thing I'm going to ask is this: The next time I see some rogue admin throwing every relevant policy and guideline straight down the toilet just so somebody can be smeared, libeled, and defamed, based on nothing more solid than what some person full of hate wrote on a website--which is then trumpeted as the purest of RS--I'm going to come to you and ask you to help me defend that person. Qworty (talk) 05:34, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Shopaholic Book[edit]

Sixth Shopaholic Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable future book. Does not meet WP:BOOK and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. When the book is released and turns out to be notable, the article can be recreated. TParis00ap (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Good faith edit, but there isn't even a projected title. Maybe if this book is still in the works and known by this phrase ten years from now, but until then... - BalthCat (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTCRYSTAL. May merit a very brief mention in the Sophie Kinsella article if properly sourced. Does not merit a separate article at this stage. Karenjc 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the first five of these books have achieved notability (and a film), an as yet unfinished sixth without even a title (outside the author's notes) does indeed fall under WP:CRYSTAL. When it does come out, I hope the creator of this article will come back and tell us about it. Peridon (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This book hasn't even been named yet, and, to quote the article, "She doesn't mention when it will be released, but probably in 2010". This hardly helps it pass Wp:CRYSTAL. And also leaves me wondering if the Wp:HAMMER can be used here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed this does fall under WP:HAMMER, which applies to any medium. If you don't even know the title, you probably don't know enough about it to write an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close? - BalthCat (talk) 23:46, 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.  Sandstein  07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy[edit]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 2 day old son of President JFK. Just because JFK is notable, that doesn't make Patrick notable. He can easily be merged to Kennedy family. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Child of one of the most notable Presidents in US history. Article asserts importance of his death in promoting awareness of disease. That element in particular would probably make a poor fit in Kennedy family. - BalthCat (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, being the child of anyone doesn't in itself make him notable. CTJF83 chat 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were that only the truth. Besides, there are more than 30 google news results for August 1963, and my comment regarding the public impact regarding awareness of the disease stands. - BalthCat (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have a problem with the disease awareness reason.... CTJF83 chat 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He received massive press coverage at the time, and was mentioned by his father, the President, in speeches. That is notability. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above. Also see: [12]. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah Woah Woah reading your AFD again, are you calling JFK a non-notable president? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misread my reason, but to avoid others misreading, I reworded it CTJF83 chat 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To Kennedy family. Notability is not inherited, and talking about someone doesn't necessarily make him notable, as per WP:N or WP:BIO. His death may have sparked an increased awareness of Infant respiratory distress syndrome, but the attention given to the syndrome was generated by others -- the poor child only lived two days. Warrah (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kennedy family. This seems very clear to me. He would have absolutely zero notability if his family weren't famous, hence the need for a merge. And not that it means anything, but I wonder if there are any other WP articles on people who lived only two days. -Jordgette (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As previously decided in a prior Articles for deletion non-vote. - Nunh-huh 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • uh, what? CTJF83 chat 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • uh, nominated for deletion in 2004 and kept. There's been no change since that time. He didn't get any younger or any less notable. Nor does the information fit appropriately into any of the other mentioned articles. - Nunh-huh 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 5 years later, and Wikipedia and its policies are much improved CTJF83 chat 07:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, we're much better at responding to knee-jerk reactions like "dead baby, not notable". Which is why the result is the same, despite the needless renomination. - Nunh-huh 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really don't appreciate your attitude at all, so why don't you WP:AGF and be more WP:Civil CTJF83 chat 07:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for the advice. Here's mine: a nominator demonstrates good faith by checking for previous nominations before nominating articles for deletion, by listing those previous nominations if renominating, and by not renominating unless he has some new point to make or some reason to believe consensus has changed. And by not defending his nomination by commenting about "improved" policies when there are no such policies that are relevant to the discussion. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here is what WP:Bio looked like when first nominated. Are you saying Bio is not improved in these 5.5 years? CTJF83 chat 08:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What do you think has changed in "Bio" that you (now) cite it to justify renomination? When you nominated this, you made no reference to guideline changes that made renomination appropriate, because you hadn't checked for - or, at any rate, found - the previous nomination. Current notability guidelines - which focus on reliable sources rather than an individual Wikipedian's feelings about significance - are certainly satisfied by this article, just as they were satisfied during the previous nomination. If anything, the changes in "Bio" make renomination more inappropriate, not more appropriate. - Nunh-huh 08:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, and you're right, consensus can never change to delete from previous AFDs 1 2 3 4 5 6. CTJF83 chat 08:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So then you didn't have any of the "bio" 'improvements' in mind? And thanks for refuting a point that I didn't make. Some articles ("GNAA", for example) need to be repeatedly nominated until good sense prevails and they are deleted. This is not one of those articles. - Nunh-huh 09:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the two most notable children of US Presidents who have died while their fathers were in office. He had a huge press presence in the 1960s, per Qworty. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Monumental amounts of substantial press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he only lived for 2-days. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is VERY flawed. Just because one doesn't live long, doesn't mean they aren't notable. For example Prince Umberto of Savoy had a wikipedia article created for him a day after his birth. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, just because an article is created, doesn't mean the subject matter is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia (not saying either about the Prince) CTJF83 chat 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Was easily kept 5.5 years ago (unanimous keep other than nominator), and I see no basis for a change in consensus since. Received significant press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep: For all the reasons Nunh-huh has so eloquently mentioned above. FrostySnows (talk) 16:13, 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) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Playing: Reloaded (Mixtape)[edit]

Stop Playing: Reloaded (Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unsourced Internet-only mixtape. Tagged for PROD but page creator removed. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC Qworty (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUM. I quote: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There do not appear to be any sources rebutting this presumption of non-notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd note that this article was proposed for deletion only two minutes after the article creator was blocked for repeated uploading of copyrighted images. And while I still stand by my Delete vote for the reasons above, I'd just say it's not the most generously-timed deletion nomination given that the creator will not have an opportunity to improve the article or comment in this AfD. If the page is deleted I would strongly recommend the closing admin userfy it to DJ Lil' Shock's user space to allow him to improve it if and when he returns from the block. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was only for 31 hours; it expired two days ago. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If the blocked user is looking to make it sourced, show notability, and all of that I suppose we can cross that path when we get there. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 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 Keep/Merge: NAC after merging List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1) with FlashForward (TV series). I agree with the rationale offered here, and a couple of others obviously do as well, but taking that rational and coming up with deletion as a solution isn't appropriate. We'll need both the list and the individual season articles in a year or so, there's just not enough content right now to justify spinning material out into separate articles, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlashForward (season 1)[edit]

FlashForward (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason to have a season episode for a series that is only one season. We have List of FlashForward episodes and everything can go there. We usually create season articles if the season has something more to give than the normal list of episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: So nominate for merge, not delete... - BalthCat (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? The important stuff is already in the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the episode list on List of FlashForward episodes only contains: {{:FlashForward (season 1)}} the episode list would be gone if you just delete FlashForward (season 1). So, yes for merge, no to delete. Xeworlebi (t•c) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we delete the list and move this to the position of the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into episode list. Only one season so the information is fine there. There is a great overlap having the two articles and reducing the content in the episode list (as would be done by having two articles) will just make there be less of a reason to have it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Too much duplication and too little user friendliness with this spread across three articles when two will do. Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biorhythms Calculator[edit]

Biorhythms Calculator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication is given as to how this software would meet the general notability guideline. I can't find any independent and reliable sources discussing the product. Contested PROD. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • It should be left out because there are as far as I can see, and as far as you have shown, no reliable secondary source anywhere that even briefly mention this piece of software (which is why I would oppose even a merge). That a download site has put an image saying "editors choice" etc next to the standard publishers description, with no comment or indication what this "award" is, how it is awarded, does not in itself show notability as we can't judge what the significance of "editors choice" from 1st-download.com etc means. The idea of a meaningful award is that by it being awarded, there would be some critical commentary on whatever has revived it and so there would be reliable sources that could be used to show notability. All this really boils down to is does there exist reliable sources discussing this product in a non-trivial way. The same could be asked (but not here) of your other two Binary Mark software articles, FLV Video Downloader and Batch Image Processor. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article on biorhythms lightly covers calculations. In 1976 Casio sold a hand-held "biolator" http://www.retrothing.com/2006/05/convergence_vii.html My opinion is first, that this product is junk--you can't measure someone's i'ching, and second, that I have never heard of it and I keep up with the pseudoscience literature.TheThomas (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Biorhythm Calculator Software is a valuable addition to all the different biorhythm software programs available. It is the most powerful because it allows you to calculate and visually see the biorhythm, I-Ching and Mastery cycles.

The most valuable part of this software is that it allows you to identify the compatibility levels for numerous individuals. This is important for families, businesses and sports teams. Ultimately, it is the team that works best together that wins in life, business and sports.

The technological advances in this software in unmatched in the industry. I own many of the software programs available. I was very impressed with the Biorhythm Calculator software when it first appeared. It was a software breakthrough...the best in the industry.

With each new version, the programmers add more powerful features that are trend-setting. No one does it better than the programmers. They deserve a place in the Biorhythm Hall Of Fame.

  • Delete and oppose merge. There is absolutely no indication of notability for this software. There are no independent reviews. There are no significant awards. The so-called awards and ones handed out by various download websites and do not establish any sort of notability. There is no reason to merge infromation about this software in to a biorhythms article when coverage about it amounts to zero. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyclare Secondary School[edit]

Ballyclare Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This school does not meet notability criteria, except by the meager distinction of being a secondary school. The article is just a vandalism-ridden stub that asserts no claim to notability. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 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 speedy delete Enigmamsg 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollywop[edit]

Mollywop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable slang term where WP:MADEUP applies. ArcAngel (talk) 18:01, 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 keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. I checked and it does not appear to be a blatant copyvio. Check the dates. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurial mindset[edit]

Entrepreneurial mindset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination, for which they gave the following reason in the discussion: "possibly a copyvio issue as doing a Google search on the first paragraph comes up with a bunch of hits on the exact text." Xqe (talk) 16:50, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leanni Lei[edit]

Leanni Lei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination; the article is a contested prod. The original prod rationale was "Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no GNews hits, no indication article can be expanded beyond current stub" NW (Talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Relevant background discussion can be found here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my prod rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:PORNBIO she does appear in two notable mainstream media productions, plus has an AVN nomination and has won a lesser award. She was a repeat performer with the very newsworthy Max Hardcore, perhaps the definitive adult actress acting underage. Calling the originally 5 paragraph, now 7 paragraph article a stub is deceptive to the merits of this article. As an aside, the article is far superior to the majority of porn bios, certainly not meritorious of being deleted. OsamaPJ (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reliable source that she appeared in 8mm. Plus, one of her porn scenes being briefly seen in the movie doesn't really count as a performance in a mainstream production. Epbr123 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original prod. Eusebeus (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO and sources are not adequate to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger[edit]

Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article meets no standards whatsoever and has been tagged as such for eight months. No obvious or sincere attempts to improve the article have been made. DKqwerty (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in anyway saying this should be deleted because it's not notable or important enough to merit an article. I'm saying the content of the article is abysmal, no information that couldn't be found on Amazon.com is presented, the rest reads like a fan page, and no attempts have been made to improve the article in any real way since its creation. Maybe AfD was the wrong way to go, and I should have put it up for speedy deletion, but I didn't want to have just two people (myself and whomever removes it) involved in the decision. However, if I were to remove the content that isn't up to standards, I'd simply be blanking the page.
If you'd like, you're more than welcome to rewrite it, but basically all new content is necessary. DKqwerty (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being written badly is not a reason for deletion, but non-notability is. Films don't fit the speedy deletion criteria. This article will be kept for sure because of the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've identified the subject as notable, but that doesn't address that fact that none of the content is notable, useful, sourced, or coherent. Again, if I removed all of the content in violation of (multiple) quality standards, I'd be blanking the page. To that end, it should be deleted until someone who's serious about the subject undertakes the task of writing a quality article.
There's no reason to keep an article with content like this simply for posterity's sake. DKqwerty (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking all of the content without trying to source it or rewrite it is against the rules. Your opinions go against years of community consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you get it: I submitted for AfD because I don't want to blank the page because it's against the rules. Rather, I thought that upon inspection, others would agree that the article is of no value in its current state, nor can it be salvaged without a complete re-write. This article has been tagged for months and no one has attempted to improve it in a meaningful way. So rather than leave an article that could just as well be called "I like Chris Rock and here are some funny quotes" kicking around and looking unprofessional, I think it's preferable to remove it from the encyclopedia until someone is willing to make a serious go at the article. To quote the WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I don't think this can be fixed through "normal" editing and would require a complete re-write.
However, I'd like to get some more input (hopefully from at least one admin.) before I conclude that I made a mistake in submitting this. DKqwerty (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before AfD is pursued. In this case, the relevant alternative is fixing the content. See Joe Chill's sources for ways to do that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write this article, but in the mean time is serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever other than to keep all links to the article blue rather than red. DKqwerty (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I do understand that. The material as currently written is unprofessional and, frankly, crap. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

    But we don't pretend Wikipedia is perfect, and indeed we don't even pretend it's any good. There are relevant disclaimers at the bottom of each page. If we started to delete everything crap, we could sweep away most of what's currently in the encyclopaedia.

    There might be advantages to doing that, but the prevailing view at the moment is that when we find a crap article, we should treat it as an opportunity to show off our article-fixing skills.

    Further, AfD is not cleanup. Nobody gets to nominate an article for deletion in the hope that someone else should do a load of work fixing it. Wikipedia's very, very full of people who love to offer their opinion about what someone else should do. But what we're actually short of is doers, not arguers and opinion holders. The rules as presently designed are supposed to turn every Wikipedian into a doer rather than an opinion-holder, if that makes sense.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of sources out there, seems notable enough to me. Bad writing is not a reason for deletion as stated above. And DKqwerty, just because you don't have time to edit the article and make it suitable for Wikipedia, doesn't mean that the article should be deleted.  AcroX  17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now it's a stub. Deletion is not the solution to articles in need of improvement. - BalthCat (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable routine/program, and because AfD is not cleanup. It's been fixed and needs improvement, but poor writing on a notable subject can be fixed outside the AfD venue. Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The special won 2 Emmys, which I've just noted and referenced in the article. Sarilox (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Joe Chill has easily established this entry is notable and has sufficient sources out there, and I'm willing to bet there are others out there that he didn't touch upon. It's unfortunate that the entry hasn't been improved for so long, but there is no deadline. Why not take this to the talk page at WikiProject Comedy or something like that to see if anyone there has the time or desire to improve it? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the diligent WP:AFTER provided by Joe Chill. With respects to the nominator's concerns, that no one fixed it yet is a surmountable problem... and Joe's sources show just that the problem is correctable through normal editing. Just takes a little Wikilove. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:59, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Couture[edit]

Bob Couture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this person has sufficient notability independent of his brother (who doesn't have an article, anyway) and grandson (Logan Couture). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely unsourced biography. I don't even understand what claim to notability is being asserted in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability isn't inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 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 Withdrawn by nominator with no "delete" arguments presented. Redirecting as agreed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Severe personality disorder[edit]

Severe personality disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Severe personality disorder seems to be primarily a political construct intended to try and identify dangerous people before they commit a crime. The expression is not defined either medically or legally although the expression has been used in some academic psychology articles. The text used in the article are just empty words that could probably be applied to personality disorders in general. --Penbat (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me.--Penbat (talk) 18:27, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo (etymology)[edit]

Bozo (etymology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT is quite clear: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymologies — especially whole articles devoted to etymologies — are the domain of dictionaries and do not belong on Wikipedia. (A brief etymology as part of a longer article on a topic with an interesting history of naming may be appropriate, but this is not such a case.) Powers T 13:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't so much a linguistic study as it is "Bozo the Clown in popular culture". What etymology there is, admittedly is original research ("Tracking the origin of the word and name bozo leads to these early uses and possible origins"). It's an interesting idea that "Bozo" is a corruption of the "vosotros" (Spanish for the 2nd person plural)-- but if there's a source that says "bozos" is the equivalent of "y'all" then it needs to be cited. I think this is guesswork dressed in sophisticated clothing. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This article is the etymology of a particular word and so would belong in a dictionary if it were well done; not in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the latter part of the article is simply a trivia list of various times the word "Bozo" appears in popular culture. The first part is actually an attempt at writing an etymology but it is unsourced and probably original research. A copy of the etymological hypotheses here was added to Wiktionary's bozo entry (now removed to the entry talk page pending verification) so there is no point in a transwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first half of the page is simply a bullet list of largely unsourced speculation on etymology, which fails both as WP:Dictionary and WP:OR. The latter half is a list of WP:TRIVIA, again to be avoided. Cnilep (talk) 17:34, 13 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) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss Thompson[edit]

Prentiss Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor of no particular notability. Only credited roles are two minor roles in films that do not themselves rate a Wikipedia page. The original author appears to be the actor's agent, making this article little more than spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 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 keep. Black Kite 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Vader[edit]

Guitar Vader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not what I'd call significant coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Comment. If a 570-word biography in allmusic isn't significant then here is another, and another, and another. J04n(talk page) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the reliability of these sources is not clear. They appear to be blogs and one is in Japanese so its difficult to tell what it is. I'm not finding any hitsin Google News. Finding links is nice but in order to establish notability here, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources must be present. --RadioFan (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Flag for improvement and leave in the hopes of properly sourcing. (Pretty sure these folk are notable enough for inclusion. JSR and JSRF were both known for their music if I recall.) - BalthCat (talk) 18:23, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Scott Harris[edit]

Andy Scott Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an 11 year old child actor. Much of the article is trivia about non-professional work, anecdotal statements/reflections (it appears to have been written by his mother), and speculation about "plans in the works" for his future career. Stripping that out it becomes clear that this young chap does not (yet) meet the notability criteria for actors. He's appeared in a few shorts, the odd episode of TV series but certainly nothing which qualifies as "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions". He may well qualify for a page in a few more years, but not now. Nancy talk 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since I made this nomination the article's creator has stripped it right back so that now it only contains Harris's professional appearances however the notability concerns remain.Nancy talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This actor is covered in two industry databases (IMDB and InBaseline), two television network Websites (USA Network, FOX Network), two Wikipedia articles (House Big Baby and Young Artist Awards 2009), and the official Young Artist Awards Website. He has principal credits in two major feature films (Angels & Demons, Kissing Strangers) and guest or recurring roles on two popular TV shows (House and Little Monk) Dharris1844 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Dharris1844 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Would just like to point out that (probably) the only reason that DHarris has commented at this AFD is because I suggested that she should so whilst the SPA tag is technically correct it should perhaps not be endowed with all the usual negative connotations. I'd also add that considering the utterly inhumane treatment the poor woman has been subjected to here (and on the talk page of the article) I'm really regretting directing her to this page. She's a newbie, she made the article in good faith, OK so it likely doesn't meet WP:ENT but that is no reason not to treat her with some respect and understanding. Nancy talk 09:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - article was exclusive creation of User:Dharris1844 a single purpose account devoted exclusively to editing this article. This is advertising spam. Racepacket (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This information could be submitted by anyone; it is all factual and impartial. Because this is my first submission, you want it deleted? Everyone has to start somewhere. I was urged by others in the industry to create this article. If you won't allow me to create it, there easily could be many others who would love to create it in their name. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:26, 8 November 2009
    • It's because your son fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He doesn't fail WP:ENT. He meets the criteria. He has multiple strong credits and a very large fan base. Videos of his screen and stage performances get a thousand hits or more a day on YouTube. He is ranked among the top three boys in his age for dramatic acting on the InBaseline Studio Systems database. He receives a large volume of fan mail. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:41, 8 November 2009
      • His major roles are in non-notable films and you haven't shown proof that he has a large fanbase. What don't you understand about no double voting? Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • House is rated among the top TV shows on the networks. Monk is, also. Angels & Demons was a blockbuster film. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:50, 8 November 2009
        • Those are minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So Principal, Guest Star and Series Regular are considered minor roles? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
          • House: Two episodes. Little Monk: One episode. Frank TV: One episode. Men of a Certain Age: One episode. The First Impression: Only nominated. Non-notable film. Zeke and Luthor: One episode. Harry Putter and the Sorcerer's Phone: Extra. Kissing strangers: Non-notable film. Angels and Demons: "Vatican Choirboy" sounds like the name of an extra. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • He was not an extra in Angels & Demons. He was a principal, got paid principal wages, and earned his SAG Taft-Hartley on the strength of that single credit. Paperwork can be produced to prove it. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
            • Fine, but that is one major role in a notable film so he still fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So major TV credits don't count, only films? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
              • They do count, but one or two episodes isn't major. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • What is the magic number? Three? Ten? Thirty? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
                • A major role is a main character throughout the series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The role of Jimmy in Little Monk is a main character, repeating throughout the series. Jimmy is Monk's best friend. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
                  • That is one episode. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That is two episodes: #1 and #2. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
                    • Which doesn't help also. Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Look. User:Dharris1844 needs to read up on the rules -- this is not Chicago, you only get to vote once. Your user name contains "harris" which suggests that perhaps you are related to Andy Scott Harris. Wikipedia has important conflict of interest rules. It is one thing if a stranger is so interested in Andy Scott Harris that he/she writes an article about him. But we don't want people with a conflict of interest to start articles about their relatives. I hope that I am wrong, but that is what I suspect has happened here. Racepacket (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So if I had chosen a user name that didn't have Harris in it, we wouldn't be having this discussion? I am new to Wikipedia. When I was asked by industry experts to put an article on Andy in Wikipedia because of his rising popularity, I tried my hand at it for the first time. No, I am not a professional Wikipedia expert. I was simply trying to do the right thing, ignorant though I may be of the manifold rules. If you want someone else to submit the article under their user name, would you still be vetoing it? If so, tell me what exactly he has to have in order to get the article accepted. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
                        • I would be having the same discussion no matter what be cause he fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Then by all means, delete the page. Forgive me for not understanding all these points. I am just an ordinary person having their very first experience with Wikipedia and failing miserably. I don't need this level of grief. Goodbye to Wikipedia. Have fun doing your Wikipedia police work. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
  • Delete appears to fail WP:ENT. Minor appearances don't really cut it, and none of the cited work seems to move beyond a guest appearance. (Also, note that IMDB isn't really a reliable source). Bfigura (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP-seems pretty NPOV and neutral, despite it's author.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about notability at this point. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he passes that criteria as well, vote still to keep. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We should not let the WP:COI violation slide. The content has been 100% written by User:Dharris1844, the parent of the article's subject. Racepacket (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • COI is a reason for concern about NPOV. It isn't a reason to delete material if the material is good. We don't act punitively like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not going to take the time to research and verify the claims made by his mother to see how many scenes the son had included vs. were left on the cutting room floor. The original version of the article had a lot of material that was unsourced and only a mother could write. Perhaps it would have been better if this had been PRODed. Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • True but I fail to see its relevance to my statement. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not sure how to evaluate this. In Angels & Demons, Harris had an "uncredited role." The mother uses the IMDB as a "source," but since it is user generated content, I question whether this is within WP:RS.
                  • Agree again. But I don't see how that's relevant to the point about letting a COI violation "slide". JoshuaZ (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I also agree with you, JoshuaZ. My point is that someone other than the SPA editor with the COI should clean up and verify the article. Nancy correctly spotted a problem, but instead of PRODing the article, Nancy allowed mom to fix it. How do we know that end-product is well sourced or even true? IMDB content is user submitted. In theory, mom could add son as an uncredited actor in a "blockbuster movie" with scenes left on the cutting room floor. Once IMDB allows the submission to be posted, mom could then use it as a reference for her son, and then use the Wikipedia article to gain credibility with the "industry professionals." Racepacket (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Claims otherwise are very hard to take seriously. Given that his scenes in Angels and Demons were deleted it is hard to claim that he has a major enough role. The general lack of reliable third party sourcing moves me to favor deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete due to the failure of the article to pass WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to fail WP:ENT; the COI (which, personally, doesn't seem to affect tha article, which is relatively short & neutral) is not a valid reason for deletion. GiantSnowman 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Article can be recreated at a later date if the subject then meets WP:ENT or WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bfigura and others. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. GlassCobra 03:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of statues of British royalty in Greater London[edit]

List of statues of British royalty in Greater London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unreferenced list of the London area statues of royals, plus those who don't have a statute. I don't believe this has encyclopedic value; it might be better for a London tourist brochure. Warrah (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article was, indeed, unreferenced at the time of the nomination at 13:00 on November 8. Since that time, the article author has been busy adding references, so the defect is being cured. For the many users who follow royalty, this is of encyclopedic value. Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Mandsford. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the references - Flickr photographs and personal web sites are being used in lieu of appropriate references described in WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal websites are Flickr and My Web. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SouthBankLondon.com and 4London.info are tourist information sites. The St. George Bloomsbury page is a church's web site. These do not meet WP:RS standards. Warrah (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. They are reliable sources. They just aren't third party, which they don't need to be for a list. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seriously, the dude is improving the article the same day it got nominated, one miracle at a time, please. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a reasonably limited topic capable of being on WP -- such lists are commonly found in WP, and hence no strong reason for deletion is given. RS questions belong on the article talk page, not here. And tourist brochures etc. have been found to be sufficiently RS to indicate the existence of something concrete, but are not valid for historical details. This list does not need to make historical claims about persons, only that they are related to royalty and that a statue is found in the London area. Collect (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some cleanup and more work, but a list not worth deletion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:56, 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 delete . NW (Talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airport madness[edit]

Airport madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable game CynofGavuf 12:45, 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 to Michael Jackson. If there is nothing valid to merge, the article ought to be redirected. NW (Talk) 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's religion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Jackson's religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was previously nominated for deletion and was closed as "merge to Michael Jackson". The information in the article, however, is sourced speculation and I feel it should not be merged to Michael Jackson, a featured article. What is known of Jackson's beliefs (that he is a former Jehovah's Witness) is already in the article. It would be ridiculous to fill the Michael Jackson with the remainder of sourced speculation in this religion article: his 2005 bodyguards were from the Nation of Islam, he might have been to. His brother was a Muslim, perhaps Michael was to. Lionel Ritchie sang a song with Jesus in it, maybe this indicates that Michael was a Christian. That is the basic flow of this article currently up for deletion. Jackson's true beliefs at the time of his death may never be known, as he didn't speak about them. Pyrrhus16 12:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per previous AFD. Wikipedia's purpose is not to determine fact, only reflect what is published. If there is a perspective that is missing and is referencable, it should be added but this article should be merged into the main article RadioFan (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [1]. What User:Pyrrhus16 has in quotation marks is not a quote from the actual article. [2]. The article "Michael Jackson's religion" goes beyond the approach of simply stating that he was a former Jehovah's witness. Instead, it discusses and addresses the various rumours concerning what his beliefs were. The article uses reliable sources, such as statements from key individuals, to demonstrate the falsity of those tabloid/internet rumours. [3]. Michael Jackson's entire life is of interest to the public. His life and times influenced his music. I think the article should remain a standalone article for these reasons, and the fact that the main article on Michael Jackson is already long. The article should be edited and wikified but not randomly removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnow (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've changed my view to *Partial Merger. I agree with User: Metropolitan90, User: RadioFan and User: Mercurywoodrose. The main article has said that he was a Jehovah's Witness but left after '87. Perhaps we could add something like: nothing definitive can be said about his post '87 beliefs as he rarely spoke about them and never publicized his beliefs. There is only tabloid based rumour. Robnow —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The consensus a month ago had been to merge this back to the article about Michael Jackson. I understand that the article's author would have preferred that the outcome of that discussion would have turned out as "keep", but if merging it is not an acceptable compromise, then it will disappear at the end of the reasonable period for merger, per consensus. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge per nom and protect redirect. Jackson did not publicly discuss his religious beliefs during the last 20 or so years of his life, and it is unlikely that any further definitive information about his religious beliefs during that period will appear. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Metropolitan90 puts it far better than I.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since michael did not make a point of elaborating on his religious beliefs, and since whatever they were didnt seem to be a significant part of his notability, having a separate article on it, even if it was NOT mostly speculation, would not make sense to me. There is no reason not to mention some of the rumors in the main article, as it is significant that he DIDNT publicize his beliefs, and thus was notable for that fact (probably related to his background as a JH,, and his cultural background, where people would want to know, esp. as he was a role model.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. Jackson did not use his celebrity to talk about religion, and whatever controversies may have come from his personal beliefs are better served in his biographical article. Warrah (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything properly in the main article. Collect (talk) 12:29, 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. While there is not a numerical consensus for deletion, per WP:DGFA I must weigh comments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The reason cited for deletion is failure to comply with WP:N, a widely applied guideline supported by very substantial consensus, that requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for inclusion. The "keep" opinions do not address these requirements or whether or not the article meets them. This means I may not take them into account when closing this discussion.  Sandstein  06:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been challenged for 6 months for being unsourced. Does not indicate encyclopedic notability. I'm nominating again after deleting the challenged unsourced material. Before it's deleted, fans are free to copy it from history log to a non encyclopedic fan wiki. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t12:33z 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Comment - You have nominated this article and similar articles before for deletion, so I am not surprised it has come up again. However, I find the fact that you deleted most of the text in the page before nominating it for deletion very suspicious, for lack of a better word. If the information in the article is truly non-notable, it will be found out here. I do not see it as being non-notable however. It is a big-selling/popular series and so it is inevitable that information from the series is going to make it to Wikipedia. This information is relevant to the series, however there is a lot of information, and to include this in the series article is just not going to be possible without making the article enormous, so a separate article is the logical conclusion. Alan16 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This sort of combination article is the way to handle the topics. Seems like an ovvious solution to me--perfectly fair, since neither extreme party will really like it: the ones who want to build up each to an extensive article, nor the ones who want to eliminate mention entirely. Time we finally rejected the views of both of those extremes and terminate this whole class of AfDs. . DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- If the concept of these "founding races" could be backed by reliable, independent sources then there would be no problem with this article. But this material has apparently been challenged as being unsourced for six months and its defenders have been unwilling or unable to demonstrate anything of the sort. And I can't find anything beyond Wikipedia, its many mirrors and fan sites. I may also add that Invading races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series is just as horrible. Reyk YO! 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment per DGG. Also, in my view, though these Malazan/Erikson articles need a tremendous amount of work, they are based on a huge fantasy series which is not yet complete. Working on these article is time consuming, but they can be cleaned up and sourced. Deleting them is not a good solution, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom[edit]

The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate encyclopedic notability tho it may after release. No reliable sources, only blogs. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t12:08z 12:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Only Kotaku is a blog, but it has editorial controls; the sources are otherwise reliable gaming news sites. May not seem notable now, but why not let the stub stay until the game is released, instead of forcing someone to go through the trouble of recreating the article? BlazerKnight (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: 2K Games is a pretty notable video game publisher, at worst this is a merge. - BalthCat (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; IGN, 1up, and Escapist are not blogs and Kotaku is a reliable blog, as noted above. Four different reliable independent sources, I fail to see how they don't establish notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable sources already, but even then: a game appearing on the Xbox Live Arcade (note, not Xbox Live Indie Games, which are user-uploaded and thus not vetted) has been vetted for use on the service, giving it implicit notability. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has good notability. Bad faith nomination. Next time please do research before you are sending it to AFD. This is not the first time you are doing this. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:29, 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 delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lauwrence Simms[edit]

Henry Lauwrence Simms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough scholarly work to be included CynofGavuf 12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be an unsourced BLP, on somebody whose name is unknown to google, and whose book is unknown to the catalogues of major research libraries. (Might it be a hoax article?) --Paularblaster (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a possible hoax article. Plain vanilla google searches for the name of the subject[25] and for the name of the book[26] return just 1 hit, to the Wikipedia article. In any case, fails WP:V. Kinoq (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Kinoq (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete. I searched the catalogs of the Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada and the National Library of Brazil, and couldn't find Simms or “Ethnology: a refutation of the mind”. There is no article on him in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Google Scholar for "HL Simms", "Simms Amazon" or "Simms Brazil" turns up nothing relevant. I suspect that this is a hoax rather than a non-notable anthropologist. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article's creator, Luana Fernanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has no recorded visible activity other than the creation of this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no further evidence forthcoming. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete due to total absence of reliable sources. It is probably a hoax. The article claims that "he was a member of the FUNAI from 1964 to 1976". However, FUNAI (Fundação Nacional do Índio) was only established in or after 1967. The full text of the 1967 law authorizing the creation of FUNAI is here. CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no further evidence forthcoming, which I doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched high and low -- no sign the book exists, no sign of the author being notable in any way. And I really tried to find anything I could. Collect (talk) 12:41, 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 keep. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sambunot[edit]

Sambunot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no notice of notability CynofGavuf 11:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I can't find significant coverage either. Just a few forum discussion thingies. A Youtube video or two. The source at the bottom swayed me a bit, but I don't know if that's enough to keep it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book cited in the article has several pages of coverage, and the Google Books search linked at the top of this discussion shows that this game has coverage in plenty more books. In particular it was selected as one of 400 games from the whole world to be included in this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, from what I can find from looking up google, there is coverage, but nothing significant or in depth that I can find, mostly passing mention, however, there is sufficient amount of passing mention to meet WP:NN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil. Looks like plenty of sources cover this. I'd honestly suggest the right organization would be to discuss this in the context of similar games from the Philippines. But that's an editorial call and this topic meets our policies and guidelines for a standalone article. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, there are a dozen books or so that cover this (see the books link above) The one linked to by Phil is non-trivial coverage. I'm not sure on the rest, but the one cited in the article appears to span 3 pages, so it probably is non-trivial. Looks like we meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GT Air[edit]

GT Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references for more than a single year. One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Search engines struggle because of the Australian company with the same name, but I've been able to locate this source and this source. There's enough material to verify that this short stub is accurate. Whether or not it's notable is a different question, and I would tend to think it is not. WP:N says there should not be a separate article with this title, but WP:PRESERVE says verifiable and true information should not be removed from the encyclopaedia. So in this case the outcome that's consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is merge and redirect to List of airlines of Asia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep normally like to see an IATA or ICAO code but the fact it has had two accident is notable. Just needs more work. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The airline is now known as Mimika Air, and have moved it accordingly. It had another accident in 2009, and was shut down by Indonesian authorities in 2007. It's notable, if only for the number of accidents it has had. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is it a charter airline, but it has formerly operated scheduled flights as well. Jpatokal (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jpatokal and Russavia. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:37, 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 merge to The Young and the Restless. Seems the general consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for its own article. Although there's no distinct consensus to merge it, this seems like a reasonable outcome given the circumstances –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jabot Cosmetics (The Young and the Restless)[edit]

Jabot Cosmetics (The Young and the Restless) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable. Hmm, WP:CORP does not specifically mention fictional companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 25 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, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some outside sources. There is also merchandise available featuring this company's logo (clothes, bags mugs). (but link hits spam filter) I also added in two iw links for nl and ro. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 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 delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Tabatabaei[edit]

Meisam Tabatabaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This academic does not meet the notability criteria Stone (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Genius6936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 05:46, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Such a recent PhD would need to have produced some extraordinary work to have achieved notability as an academic. No claim has been made of such work. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has defenitely achieved notability at least regionally. The claims made obviously prove that. Times11 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Times11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 08:26, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per above. PhD seems to be 2008. Academics are almost never notable at such an early career stage and there does not seem to be evidence that this one is an exception. Kinoq (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His winning of the PECIPTA award makes him notable. If someone could search newspapers in his native language, you'd surely find more mention of him. Google Scholar search shows some of his scholarly work he published, but I'm not one that is able to judge that. Googling for the award's name gives a rather large number of results. Narrowing it down to only search for educational websites, .edu used by colleges and whatnot, [27] shows promising results, it mentioned there. If you win a notable award, that makes you a notable person. Dream Focus 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Exposition of Research and Invention of Institutions of Higher Learning is a award for students, people doing a good PhD should not be part of an encyclopedy. If the award would be a science award also for senior scientists hand he won it it might qualify him to be notable but up to now he is not notable.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

— Rockrock123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 08:43, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. To add to Stone's point that this is a student award – it's not even a very prestigious one. PECIPTA appears to be essentially a college-level science fair and the competition rules, section 4 in particular, indicate that entries scoring 60 to 69 points out of 100 win a "bronze medal" – 69% is an "F" in many academic venues, so it may be that most entries win at least bronze in this exhibition. All the other listed awards are student awards (not notable for our purposes) that mostly cannot even be independently verified, e.g. "Top Student of Tarbiat Modarres University", "Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), University Top Student", etc. WoS shows an h-index of 0 (being careful not to count false-positives from an established researcher having a similar name: Mohammad Tabatabaei), which is consistent with someone who just graduated last year. The article was created by a WP:SPA "S edvards" and may be nothing more than a vanity page. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete on arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep on arguments listed above. He has clearly been very bright and successful with lots of awards in a short period and that makes him notable. talk212 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

— talk212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 05:39, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Macapagal[edit]

Juan Macapagal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Dubious source. WP:MADEUP User234 (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Then flag the source as dubious. One person saying it doesn't exist in the Philippines National Archives is not enough to get me to support deleting that article. - BalthCat (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe speedy, as BalthCat notes, this is not a serious reason for deletion. One glance at the gbooks results shows the existence of a quite notable 17th century figure of that name, with previews verifying claims in the article.John Z (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:V is met by such as [28] [29] [30] and the like. Collect (talk) 12:46, 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 keep. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Macapagal[edit]

Lazaro Macapagal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Dubious source, WP:MADEUP User234 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Same reasoning as AfD for Juan Macapagal - BalthCat (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't look as notable as ancestor Juan, but still clearly notable from cursory search. Per Balthcat and Juan Macapagal reasons. Not made up at all.John Z (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above. Collect (talk) 12:47, 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. NW (Talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam?[edit]

How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to guides. No sources, original research. So, delete per WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:OR. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:31, 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 per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of life (in five pages)[edit]

Meaning of life (in five pages) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was tempted to zap this invoking WP:SNOW but I will do the proper thing. Unencyclopedic. Original research. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User meant well, but misinterpreted what Wikipedia is for. Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. Have left him a helpful message. BlazerKnight (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additionally, if the article is by Bill Williams then SCHolar44 probably doesn't own the copyright to it. It's possible that he gave SCHolar44 the copyright on the article or released it under a free license, but since the latter says "It was intended for publication but he died before it was published" that seems unlikely. Either way, we'd need some proof of its copyright status before we could use it. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article's creator agrees that it's original research. Also the copyright issue - the presumption has to be that the copyright is owned by the author's estate so it can't be published without permission (not that WP should publish it anyway). Politeness or not, WP:SNOW clearly applies - I only prodded it in the first place because there's no suitable speedy criterion available to mere mortals like me (I missed the probable copyvio). andy (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. WP:OR-mania. Bravedog (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:COPYVIO all seem to apply here. Jarkeld (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow it, Delete. Per above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OR even if WP:COPYVIO doesn't apply. ChemGardener (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I would encouage Scholar44 to move it to Wikisource. Racepacket (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete: Perhaps this essay deserves publication, but that's doesn't happen here. This is an original essay meant to be attributed to an author.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete - Pretty good essay, but not for Wikipedia. WP:NOT#ESSAY. And it's Original research. And the big copyright mess too, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essay and apparent memorial page.—Ash (talk) 09:01, 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. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Nazism[edit]

New Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:NFT. No sources or anything else that would assert notability. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and most likely WP:OR. I couldn't find a speedy category that would fit. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:09, 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. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see one real source and a lot of advertising. One source does not satisfy multiple non-trivial reliable sources for WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I dont see this bio meeting notability guidelines. Only a single brief mention in a magazine. All other google hits (news, etc) are trivial or primary sources RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, specifically WP:CREATIVE. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:11, 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 delete. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% Fantasy RPG[edit]

100% Fantasy RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources for this allegedly free RPG, so I fail to see the notablity of it. ArcAngel (talk) 06:00, 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 keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice exceptional[edit]

Twice exceptional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:No Original research, seems like this article is just simply promoting it without any reliable sources. I know many people whose social skills are weak and are very bright. They still are functioning in society. No special programs needed. We have enough labeling of people as it is. Begin to tolerate of people's individual differences. That's the solution, not labeling their quirks. Xqe (talk) 04:13, 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 keep. Please note that the only thing that matters when keeping an article or not is whether the article meets the notability criteria (for most cases). Notability is not temporary, nor is it dependent on the number of hits per day the article gets or the how many internal links the article has. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Magibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination,for which they gave the following reasons in the edit summary: "Not a notable subject. Not even her name can be confirmed." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That user (the nominator of this AFD) is User:Pisomojado. —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per last AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sources in the article show enough notability for me. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per last AFD. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. As demonstrated in the previous AfD discussion, reference sources already provided show ample coverage in the mainstream media in Japan (including the English-language press), which satisfies the basic notability criteria. The current absence of reliable published information regarding the person's real name is not a viable reason for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Plenty of media coverage by Japanese-language press. That the article should be deleted because her real name cannot be confirmed is a silly argument; Jack the Ripper's real name is unknown and cannot be confirmed, but that does not mean we should be deleting his article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per last AFD. Badagnani (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete When I first came across the Magibon article, I attempted to add her name (Margaret Lilian Adams) to the article. DAJF reverted my edits, stating that my sources were not notable and maintaining his stated position of guarding Magibon's Wikipedia page against disclosing personal information, which she would rather the world not know.
While I don't care about protecting a 23 year old attention seeker from her own self perpetuated meme-dom, I do respect the need for significant sources. I scoured the internet for more reliable sources with biographical information about the girl, and failed. I came to agree with DAJF-- that those sources don't exist. I landed on the conclusion which he is ironically resisting: that she is NOT NOTABLE. Not even her name can be reliably verified.
Jimbo himself, in introducing notability criterion, said the goal of the policy is an “attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something.” Though the Magibon article is admittedly sourced, very little is “'Significant coverage”' --none of which is in English.
English sources only briefly comment on her existence AS TRIVIAL, as a flash-in-the-pan Youtube meme, a flavor of the day. The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! There is no indication that she has any historical significance whatsoever, and, in fact, is already slipping back into obscurity.Pisomojado (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is a notable celebrity in Japan. Your argument for deletion includes uncomfortably/distastefully Anglocentric bias — that most sources are not in English is not a valid argument as to whether she is innately notable. This is precisely the type of systemic bias we want to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide coverage of human knowledge, not merely Anglophone knowledge. Wikipedia has many articles on historical figures from other cultures not well known in Anglosphere, for whom the majority of sources are in the language of that culture. —Lowellian (reply) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lowellian, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that sources in Japanese are worthless because Japanese people are worthless, or some such garbage thinking. I'm saying that Japanese sources are hard for most of us to verify or determine the notability of, and therefore not preferable. Although, I will say that I find it peculiar that Magibon's Japanese wikipedia page is both shorter, and (as seen through google translator) more content rich with biography (including her real name) than the English version, while citing much fewer sources! Nevertheless, I stand by the assertion that her youtube success is a blip of pop culture not worthy of a Wikipedia article in any language.Pisomojado (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pisomojado: The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! Hardly. Instead, it says There's more information in this juvenile wiki article. (Incidentally, the article, at something called "Encyclopedia Dramatica", is interminable and what little I read of it seems to have been composed by an logorrhaeic dimwit while drunk.) The Wikipedia article repeats this sentence, for no apparent reason. (I'm about to cut this bit.) The Gawker article is cited as an example of a kind of criticism. Notably so or otherwise, it is an example of this. The fact that it links to inanity is irrelevant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per last AfD. Per closing admin: "Though this is a biography of a living person, the information in the article is cited to reliable sources, and insofar as that information is in the public sphere, then the article itself passes all requirements for Wikipedia articles," which I heartily endorse. The inability to verify her name says nothing for or against the notability of the recognisable entertainer identifiable as Magibon. ("Prince" and "Madonna" wouldn't be any less notable if we didn't know their birth names.) Plenty of reliable sources attest to her notability, including Japanese Weekly Playboy and multiple Japanese TV and radio outlets. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: re canvassing - contributors may wish to take note of this series of edits by the article nominator: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Possibly others. It appears User:Pisomojado is only notifying editors who have previously expressed a "delete" argument in prior AfDs of this debate, which is contrary to the vote canvassing policy at WP:Canvassing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why he notified me, but anyway he did -- and I said "keep" the last time around. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just got one too so either I was mistaken about canvassing or Pisomojado is fixing it. Either way I've struck out the comment above. I'm not having an on-the-ball day today it seems.  :-( - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, DustFormsWords, for your retraction. Anyone can check my contribution history and make sure that I've invited everyone to the party. I believe I have.Pisomojado (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'd also like to point out that Magibon is still an orphan.Pisomojado (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an argument for deletion. Moreover, it's a borderline orphan with two incoming links; WP:Orphan recommends three or more, but also says "One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant". --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Her article has been around for over a year and is still an orphan. It's another red flag that despite having small number of fans, she has no encyclopedic interest or value.Pisomojado (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Blame the stupid attention on the tabloids, but the subject appears to fulfill the criteria in WP:BIO Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination) was closed in good faith as keep less than two weeks ago by an admin in good standing. I looked at his talkpage and no one has asked him to take a second look and no one has brought this up at WP:DELREV. I haven't yet looked at the article or the arguments for and against so I have no !vote at this time but I do move to close this argument on procedural grounds, you can't keep nominating an article until you get the decision that you are looking for. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh? The last closing was closer to 54 than to 2 weeks ago, by my count. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops, wrong year (he says with a red face), nevermind. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete clearly Internet nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.206.197 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) — 78.144.206.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Do you mean that the subject is "Internet nonsense", or that this article is "Internet nonsense"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article can't be speedily deleted if it has a ton of Speedy Keeps on it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteJust delete it already! It's going to keep getting nominated, so why not just f**ing delete it already to save people from the trouble? An internet celebrity released a whole DVD, featured in men's magazines in Japan, but I can't find a single thing about her in here, so why does this far less notable someone get a whole article to herself? So I ask myself, after 4(yes,FOUR!) nominations for deletion, "Why is this thing still here?" There's a reason this "article" keeps getting nominated!It's a s**ty,s**ty article with no way for improvement(which isn't helped by the insignificance of the person it is about), it doesn't meet the criteria, so why the hell are you keeping it? There's obviously something wrong with it.Ariana-hime (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had more asterisks, I'd think you were coyly attempting to say "fucking" and "shitty"; but as it is, you've lost me. ¶ Why the hell it has been kept so far has been explained by the person who closed the AfDs so far. ¶ When you say "it doesn't meet the criteria", which criteria do you have in mind? ¶ On the non-existence of an article on some other sleb, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Keep, the article, when nominated, had sufficient proof of notabity from reliable sources to defeat this attempt. Yes, the subject is irritating, but yes, she's notable. Move along, nothing to see here :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This person isn't exactly notable. The notability requirements should be changed to prevent pages like this and others from wasting space. This is the 4th nomination. There shouldn't have to be a 5th. Justin Herbert (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not notable. CorpITGuy (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and a strong reprimand against those who cannot accept "no" as an answer, and "no" as the second answer, and "no" as the third answer. Meowy 17:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A reprimand? Really? Look, this page will be deleted eventually, inevitably. If not today, then maybe six months or a year from now. Do you really think that in ten years(or even five!) this page will be be here? Even her strident supporters can not argue that she is an historical figure of any kind whatsoever. Going by the most basic purpose of notability, going by the clear spirit of the criterion as a system to judge historical significance, she fails, fails, fails.
I'm not blind, I see that I have the minority opinion on this page. But none of Magibon's Keepers have addressed my basic premise. The sources listed do NOT establish her as a notable historical person, or even a minor pop icon. They don't even address her by name! They only mention her as a mild and very temporary curiosity who managed to get a lot of youtube hits because she stares at a webcam in a peculiar fashion and needs a good dental plan. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Pisomojado (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've confused actual notability and Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia is, to a large extent, a microcosm of wider obsessions, in particular the obsessions of the anglophone, the young, the male, and the north American -- most (with exceptions such as the overtly pornographic) profusely exhibited at Youtube, of course. These have combined to produce what (just about) count as "reliable sources" for the entirely trivial achievements of this apparently uninteresting person. Though at least she did something, rather than (as others avidly written up in Wikipedia) wore clothes in front of a camera or didn't wear clothes in front of a camera. (And if we were in a moralizing mood, we could say that -- unlike creeps who hawk bogus therapies, pseudoscience or historical lies -- she hasn't done any harm.) Now, if you think that far too small a percentage of Wikipedia is devoted to people of real achievement, I'd agree with you. Feel free to write some good articles. (Just last night I realized that, in dramatic contrast to many more or less promotional articles/autobiographies of the living, Takehisa Yumeji doesn't mention his work for currently redlinked Hechima Cologne.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ... PS Plus of course internet fads, such as other fads, may have a minor sociological interest. The article on pet rock doesn't merely appeal to lovers of pet rocks; no, pet rocks are a small part of the history of our dumb world. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer - I am the article creator) - the subject meets our notability criteria, there are sufficient sources (while english sources are preferred, japanese ones are acceptable instead) We're not paper so we're not wasting space by including her. It's not necessary to source and include her real name to prove her notability either (cf Star Wars Kid) and it's not appropiate for people to repeatedly renominate the article for deletion when they don't get the result they want. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgusted keep, with comment - in this pathetic, "celebrity"-obsessed world of ours, she is more notable than many people who have actually accomplished something, and thus passes our notability check (you have no idea how much it depresses me to say that). HOWEVER: there is no justification for the continued censorship of her real name, date of birth and birthplace, properly sourced, but removed by somebody who has ownership problems and forgets that Wikipedia is not censored! --165.189.32.7 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meet sufficient criteria for inclusion. There's plenty of reliable sources in both English & Japanese. Subject is notable. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 06:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject isn't notable in any normal sense of the word as it's used out in the real world, but Wikipedia isn't the real world and has its own idiolect and vocabulary, notably a skewed "notability" (let's call this "notabilityWP"), which she seems to have. Her name, birthdate, etc, whose absence seems to infuriate some people above, don't seem to have any obvious relevance to her notabilityWP. People may for all I know be right in insisting that biographical stuff should be added to any article that survives this thrilling AfD process, but that's something to be discussed then or elsewhere, not now and here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 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 redirect to History of China. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Court[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dragon Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted via AFD in 2006 and prodded in June 2007 with the concern: "Article does not explain how this game might be notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V), and is almost entirely game guide material (WP:NOT)". Concerns raised in prod and previous AFD discussion are still valid: the article still consists of game guide and promotional material with no independent sources to establish notability. The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a mention in a Press of Atlantic City article (link), but it's debatable whether this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Muchness (talk) 03:43, 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. Black Kite 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints[edit]

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is not notable as per WP:CORP. The first source in the article is a dead link to the (no longer existent) website of the organization. The second (adherents.com) cites a paper written by the group's founder. This certainly doesn't constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources" as required by WP:CORP. Ferris37 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First link provided doesn't exist, second only shows a rough gauge of adherency to this flavor of Mormonism. Google search turns up absolutely nothing relevant - the first link available was for the WP article, others were not related to this particular sect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per notability concerns outlined above. It basically started as a scripture-reading club; whether it's gone beyond that (apart from in the mind of the founder) is impossible to know based on the sources currently available. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources on this group, and can't find anything other than the adherent.com website. There used to be a website for the denomination, but it is now defunct. These denominations come and go, and I haven't seen anything written on this one for several years. COGDEN 03:15, 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. Black Kite 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morphyre[edit]

Morphyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN internet related tool, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources, prod removed Delete Secret account 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, since I have not received a reply to my comments on the talk page, I am posting here. A note about the proposed deletion:

Note that other music visualizations such as Neon (light synthesizer), Milkdrop and NoiseCradle have their own wiki pages which contain a lot less information and do not have valid references, but these have not been suggested for deletion. I would be interested to know why the Morphyre page was singled out in particular rather than these.

Of course it may not contain a huge mass of information at the moment that you would expect from a page that has been around for 5 years, but isn't that the idea of a wiki? That others add information to help make an article more complete? (Not that the article gets deleted within a week before anyone is given a chance to add to it). I have contributed anonymously to several mathematics and engineering related articles and think that it is the opportunity for others to help build an article that makes wikipedia so valuable.

Morphyre represents an important development in the evolution of music visualizations because of its 3D stereoscopic output and because of the multiplicity of different 3D scenes. It is also being developed separately with the hope of being involved in a project which tries to bring an experience of music to deaf children in schools. It is also one of the few visualizers capable of being run on Macs, Windows, and all the main media players.

I have added some references, which as I'm sure you know, is difficult for a purely web-based product. The statistics about the downloads are verified on the Winamp website and the use of TinyJS is also referenced.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator blocked as a sock per CU. No outstanding delete !votes. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Child Learning Center[edit]

Variety Child Learning Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The long standing consensus has been that pre-secondary schools (i.e., primary schools and middle schools) are not notable enough to have their own article. There is no Blue Ribbon for this school. Xqe (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No, the consensus is that such schools are not automatically or inherently notable, but that they may be if they pass the general notability guideline. This Google News archive search and a Google Books search both suggest that notability is a possibility. But lack of notability is never a valid reason to delete a school. If such a school is operated by a school district, it can be merged into the school district's article. Otherwise, it can become a paragraph in the locality's article. Neither outcome requires an AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:21, 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 keep. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Murdoch[edit]

Steve Murdoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have placed a stub tag on the article. The article describes the subject as a "reader": this is a senior academic post in a UK university. The award of this status by his university ought to be sufficient to demonstate his notability. WE are not talking about a school teacher who writes a couple of books! The (open access) Royal Historical Society bibliography lists 37 works by him from 1996 to 2008: this should be ample tp prove notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A reading of the article Reader (academic rank) suggests it does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5, to which I assume you were referring. Barring some specific evidence of the University of St Andrews being a contra-example, "reader" is generally a position below "Chair" or "Distinguished Professor". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Bongo. Maybe his page at the U St. Andrews will help. - BalthCat (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The low citation count suggests that WP:PROF#1 is not satisfied. There is no evidence of notability under any other item in WP:PROF. Searching for "Steve Murdoch" + "Scotland" (here) or + "history" (here) at Google News doesn't turn up much that would point towards notability as an expert on the history of Scotland who is frequently cited in the media. CronopioFlotante (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. LP works in an obscure subject that may be not be expected to garner many cites. Info about library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - There's no evidence of Murdoch passing WP:N through multiple significant independent reliable sources, and the article does not make any claim against any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. (Specifically, his position of reader appears to fall short of criterion 5, there's no sufficent mass of citation provided to suggest he meets criterion 1, and no suggestion that he'd meet any other criterion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (vote changed) - per arguments of DGG below, he appears to narrowly pass either or both of WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only limited coverage. gnews, don't see evidence how it meets specific criteria of WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not accept Reader as necessarily notable, though I would accept Senior Reader in a major research university. But this p[articular Reader is notable, since he has written three academic books, and co-edited another. That many published books would make him notable either as an academic or as an author, especially since at least one of them has 4 reviews. . Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648 108 WirldCat locations, & WorldCat shows his book has been reviewed in The Sixteenth century journal. 35, no. 1, (2004): 199; Journal of Military History, 67, no. 1 (2003): 226-227, Scottish historical review. 83, no. 216, (2004): 244; Scottish Economic & social History,no. 22, Part 1 (2002): 88-89. Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 : a diplomatic and military analysis, about 40 holdings. Network north : Scottish kin, commercial and covert associations in Northern Europe, 1603-1746 54 WorldCat locations. ; co editorship of another Scottish communities abroad in the early modern period. His principal publisher, Brill, is a major academic publisher for this sort of topic. Considering the specialized of the overall subject I would consider this certainly enough to show expert status is his subject. (And I have not checked comprehensively for US or European holdings, which is more difficult, nor for reviews of the other books.) In addition there is the joint work on Scotland, Scandinavia and Northern European Biographical Database [35] ; the copyright is in his name. BTW, G News archive is sometimes helpful in finding book reviews for US books, but otherwise is useless in dealing with WP:PROF, as contrasted with WP:BIO, for which it is invaluable. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification - sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for WP:ACADEMIC and possibly also criterion 1, the former may or may not.) Also, when you say "expert status", are you referring to any particular policy? I'm not aware of it being a criterion under WP:ACADEMIC or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities , the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer. From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete. Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per Dust and DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe we now have sufficient evidence of his academic notability, which was not present at the time Torkmann nominated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some prima facie evidence of notability. Many of your articles do not. No offense. Torkmann (talk) 03:54, 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. Black Kite 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. L. Shurtleff[edit]

W. L. Shurtleff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one sentence article with a photograph of dubious provenance is all this article is. I understand the defendant this man represented was notorious back in 1906, but that does not make his lawyer notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Unless this attorney was known for anything other than this one trial he did, I would regrettfully have to recommend deletion of this fine article. Torkmann (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Library of Congress is dubious? Have you ever used The Google on The Internets before you nominate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the article significantly. He wasn't just a lawyer. He was also a newspaper owner, a political organizer and a member of the government committee which oversaw the Protestant school system in Quebec. (While he was alive, Quebec had two separate publicly-funded school systems, one Catholic, the other Protestant.) -- Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for what it's worth, the New York Times described him merely, in one case, as "one of the lawyers retained by Harry Thaw". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that Torkmann and Drawn Some are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion, and not doing much else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Eastmain's expansions (article now passes general criteria of WP:N through significant independent reliable sources). Another fine rescue, good work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youville Drive[edit]

Youville Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a neighbourhood street in Edmonton. It is not all that notable. Rufus843 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless you can find the Beatles crossing it on an album cover. Wikipedia is not a directory. Qworty (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to see how such a street is notable, though I see it's in the Edmonton street template. I'll raise this on the talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The street template is simply a list of streets in Edmonton that have articles. I never understood why this small street had an article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. When a guy whose usename is an Edmonton street says it's non-notable, you know you've got problems. 117 when the link goes red, let's pull it from the template. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I like your name too, saying who you are and where you are. I was planning on deleting this article when I got back to working on Edmonton streets. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Actually a number of streets in the template are needed to be pulled too. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What articles to you have a problem with? When I joined Wikipedia the list was incomplete, I figured that the criteria for making a city street notable was that it was an artery. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People have tried to hash out what constitutes a notable street, most recently here Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). The general, although unapproved, consensus is that a street has to have a "hook", or to just pass the WP:GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another one of the world's millions of short residential streets. Nothing to indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. No sources about the street. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very clearly doesn't meet notability standards for a street, even if its 1.7 km of asphalt is quite pleasant to drive.--Milowent (talk) 21:42, 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 no consensus. Both sides made valid points, and it would be hard to call this anything else. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

AfDs for this article (as Communist genocide):
Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to vote on this AfD this time around (though I feel I have every right to do so) but I do regard Four Deuces characterization of my self as "far right anti-Russian" as complete bullshit meant to influence the outcome of this AfD, and a direct personal attack (particularly since I consider "far right" to be a despicable political position).radek (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also stay out of this one - no point in voting, since the result is given from the start (no consensus). I just want to note that if the nominator truly wants to build consensus around some kind of constructive improvement, s/he is going about it in a really bad way - nominating the article for deletion every other month is not likely to get people out of their entrenched positions. --Anderssl (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "every other month". Last nomination was a month and a half ago [36] (Sept 24). This is just tendentious and disruptive forum shopping, and should be rejected on those grounds alone.radek (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been following this in the background since it was called Communist Genocide (see box above). Every AfD ended in no consensus with an attached promise to improve the article. As the comments by this AfD's nominator show, that hasn't happened apparently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination). + considering the sources provided in the article the claim of original research has no basis to it.Regarding the arguments given about "far right" and "Eastern European mailing list", I suggest to The Four Deuces remove such inappropriate speculations from this discussion page. As someone who has contributed to the article in good faith and by considering myself a liberal, and have never been part of any mailing lists, I find such suggestions that the contributors to this article are part of some kind "far right Eastern European mailing list" conspiracy not offensive but flat out ridiculous.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of good sources for this article - and there seems to be some sort of campaign to delete the sources in the article: some folks are trying to politicize the article. I too, consider myself a liberal, and am not on any mailing list. The claims of synthesis are ridiculous, even 1 source could be good enough for notability here - see the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press. And yes, there will be claims that this source, and many similar sources are not good enough, but frankly I don't buy that nonsense. Finally, there must be some limit to nominations such as this one, and subsidiary deletion nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, before it looks like simple denialism combined with harassment. Smallbones (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From above "The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology." Does this really have anything to do with WP:RS? Or are you just saying you don't like what the sources say, and even if they are published by the Harvard University Press and deal explicitly with Mass killings under Communist regimes that they are irrelevant - just because you don't like them? Smallbones (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the Black Book presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of "Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism." The foreword contains one statement on generalised causes, Criminality, xvii-xviii, which is "they were criminal enterprises in their very essence." While I only quote a clause, this argument of cross cultural genocide studies is one sentence long. The introduction contains three paragraphs advocating a general cause, which comes down the violating a rights principle concept of social good as advocated by the Catholic Church. No mention of societies are made in this paragraph. The Afterword is worse, its a reprisal of the history of the soviet union with three paragraphs on China, with no analysis. Hard as it is to swallow, The Black Book on Communism is a miscellany, not an analysis. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...a Pope listed a series of human rights." is not an answer. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...here are unrelated and uncontextualised single country studies let down by a really poor introduction." is not an answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable subject and already reasonably referenced. The article still needs a lot of work including NPOVing but it is already useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That a banned editor was involved is not a valid reason for deletion. There is a lot if "IDONTLIKEIT" above, but that also is not a valid reason for deltion. Lastly there is a "I don't like a source used" which is a valid reason for editing a topic, perhaps, but not a valid reason for deletion. Unless a WP valid reason for deletion is given, the article should be kept. Collect (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-source, notable article. Looks like it was nominated strictly for political reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anti-Russian? Russia is not the USSR. Peltimikko (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Do I need to join a mailing list to see the problem? The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press) together with the more specialised sources on specific killings seems to establish notability. Fifelfoo's synthesis complaint makes sense, but the article also cites a chapter "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" from a Cornell University Press book. Hans Adler 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Valentino? His argument is that there is no specifically communist feature except that this particular group in his actual category are communist. In his schema they're part of a category of politically motivated killings of outgroups by elites. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another good point, thanks. In this case perhaps the article should reflect this. I am changing to weak keep because it's less clear to me now that we need this article. But I do think that it makes sense, not least per WP:SUMMARY, as it covers a common subtopic of Mass murder, Communism and Stalinism. Hans Adler 09:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point? Contrary to Fifelfoo's opinions the source actually says exact opposite (p.91) "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing, Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia- history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. etc.". So from where exactly those Fifelfoo's interpretations come from, I have no idea. And do I need to mention that the facts from the source keep disappearing from the article.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to quote his theoretical category describing the commonality? You haven't quoted a causal claim or category, you've quoted a list. His category isn't "communist mass killing," those three cases are communist examples of his real category. You won't find it in that subheading of the chapter, you'll find it in the broader chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category describing the commonality? No problem: (p.97) : "The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies."--Termer (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is your suggestion to rename the article Mass killings and social transformation? csloat (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually csloat, I've let this sit for a couple of days while involved elsewhere, and will reply to Termer shortly, but your response is question begging and not really appropriate behaviour towards another editor. You should do what I shall do: quote from the Valentino sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a very informative, and well-sourced article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This now sets a rate of one nomonation to delete every six weeks for this one article. I anticipate finding it for its 9th nomination with a year of the first - as this time it looks like a clear "keep', I suggest it be be precluded for relisting for six months at a minimum. Collect (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the subject is definitelty found in scholarly sources. However the article must be carefilly cleaned of original research and unnecessary massive duplication of the material. Each particular mass killing must be detailed in the corresponding wikipiedia article, and this general article must contain only brief summaries sufficient to serve as an example for the discourse. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply because we already have articles where all of this information really belongs. Mass killings under Communist regimes are not any sort of single phenomenon, any more so than Mass killings under capitalist regimes / Mass killings under conservative regimes / Mass killings under Third World dictatorships are, although that various instances of mass killing of individuals under various left-wing governments have occured is established as a documented fact. Thus, delete per WP:POV Fork. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with William S. Saturn that this article has been selected for deletion (several times) purely on political grounds. It's interesting to note that the far inferior Anti-communist mass killings article, which includes a controversial claim that the Nazi Holocaust qualifies as such, has not been nominated, and a wikilink to it is still included in the "see also" section of this article while other significant wikilinks pertaining to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are removed. Very interesting indeed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, I just read the lead of that article Anti-communist mass killings and spit coke all over my keyboard. Hi-llarious.radek (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do nominate Anti-communist mass killings as an additional article within the scope of this AfD. I'm intensely familiar with the main theoretical source there, having added it in an attempt to encourage other authors to improve article quality (just as I've done in the last six weeks at Mass killings under Communist regimes). The source at anti-communist mass killings its cross cultural to the extent that it deals with German and Baltic white terror in the 1917-1919 revolutions and assigns a specific theoretical / sociological cause which it debates at length as the subject of the work (more impressively than Black Book's approximately four paragraphs of cross cultural theory). But Male fantasies is not sufficiently impressive to me, it isn't a general theory of white terror, its a specific theory of a historical cross cultural terror and the analysis is deeply fascinated with the Germanness of this white terror. Anti-communist mass killings should be deleted for the same reasons I mentioned above in relation to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely irrelated instances placed together to create narrative. POV fork of Red terror. Also from what times hunger is counted as "mass killing"?--Dojarca (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People have tried to improve it but it's still a synthesis of original research. If you're gonna keep then it has to be renamed Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, since those are the only three mass killings clearly linked in the cited literature, and the connection to "communism" is tenuous at best using the sources linked in the article. This article tells an interesting story, but it is an original essay, not an encyclopedia entry. csloat (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there seem to be serious problems with POV and synthesis that probably can't be resolved in the context of the subject as it is framed here. Everyking (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK for anti-communist propaganda that it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I think this is a coatrack to include Holodomor(mass famine in Ukraine and South Russia in 1930s) as an example of "mass killings".--Dojarca (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, judging from the polemical language used in the nomination, it seems to be a politically motivated nomination. IMO this falls within WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory because its not Soviet historiography. The article is reliably referenced and blatantly notable. What next? The equivelent would be if deniers start nominating The Holocaust for deletion. Ridiculous. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the nomination is political or not (I guess we have no way of judging whether it's the former without assuming bad faith) is irrelevant. The point is the arguments. Although one can find content supporting certain claims for keeping a POV fork, when other claims presenting opposite or incompatible views of the phenomenon exist – like when most scholars do not consider any separate instances of killing by communists to be part of just one big or connected thing, you end up with a POV fork by choosing to focus on just one perspective. I won't elaborate much further: please consider the arguments and responses by Fifelfoo (who's explained quite a bit) and the rationale provided by myself. Please note that to fight off this AFD by merely attacking the nominator in loaded and polemical language is to commit a fallacy – ad hominem / well-poisoning. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about poisoning wells. I think the communists killing the Polish soldiers in the Katyn forest or the Khmer Rouge slaughtering Cambodians in The Killing Fields is probably more relevent here. This is absolutely a notable and verifiable article, with reels of references. I am shocked and sickened to my stomach that some are trying to hide it away, using as rationale pantomine newspeak like claiming it is "anti-Russian" (the vast majority of Russians are not even communists). It would absolutely be like nominating The Holocaust saying the article is "anti-German". Or the article religious wars saying it is a "far-left mailing-list anti-theist" plot. Wikipedia is not censored. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "anti-Russian" remark by the nominator is actually a reference to the WP:EEML, in which a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors ganged up to keep this article after it was created by a banned troll and also perform similar coordinated POV operations on various articles across the Eastern European topic space. You still have not said anything about my point, and Fifelfoo's: the fact that different communists engaged in killing people on various different occasions doesn't meant that there needs to be one article containing everything, since this amounts to a POV fork (in other words, scholarship generally sees various acts of murder by communist and non-communist governments as acts particular to different circumstances—prompted by distinct events). To accrue every isntance of killing by communists (and some instances of simply people under communist-run governments being allowed to die as a result of atrocious economic policies during some stages of collectivization), as this article does, represents something frowned upon by Wikipedia per WP:POVFORK, as we already have articles dealing with each of those separate topics. Another Wikipedia principle, of course, is WP:SYNTH, and it would be utterly POV as well to have an article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes or Mass killings under reactionary regimes.
Don't be surprised if one day you stumble upon Space exploration under communist regimes or Increases in life expectancy under communist regimes if you enjoy seeing articles like this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this nonsense about a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors by user PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist is complete bullshit which he is using to smear people he disagrees with (and yes, he does have a history of using this despicable tactic). I'm not "right wing" (unless you happen to think Obama is "right-wing", which, I mean, some people due - but per WP:Fringe...). I didn't attack anybody. And quite a number of Russian editors were just as appalled as I was by PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist's Neo-Stalinist and ... nationalist ... POV pushing on scores of articles by him and his tag team buddies.radek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Anti-Nationalist is making a whole lot of sense. But on the other hand, hasn't the article been improved significantly in the few weeks since the last AfD? Particularly considering that working on this article is extremely slow and tedious given that every little point needs to be discussed over and over. I agree that there is lots of work to be done, but as far as I can see the article seems to be moving in the right direction. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and good point. The problem is that with the exception of Termer's quote above (which I'm yet to verify, I've got the other Valentino paper at home, but haven't managed to get the introduction of the book yet... won't until Monday) the sources quoted are either FRINGE or don't actually theorise any cause, or explicitly claim the cause is greater than, or less than, communism. I feel the article was slowly moving towards a point where it would stall and be ready for deletion of the COATRACK with a move of a rather good theoretical piece to merge into genocide. The nomination was early, and not informed by the state of debate on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to lean towards your point of view - move the best material to genocide and delete this one. But yes I do think this AfD (as the previous one) was premature and kind of obnoxious, to be honest. --Anderssl (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can follow the link to WP:EEML and see if Radeksz was a member of this very peculiar group. Enough said. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at weaseling there PasswordUsername. You know very well that what is at issue is not the membership of the list but your false characterization of it and your vicious smears of some people on it. But you do have a history with making offensive and false accusations, right?radek (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McCarthyist attacks on me warrant no response on my behalf. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit smearing people and lying shamelessly. I am not making "McCarthyist attacks". I am pointing out that in the past you have made completely unfounded accusations against some editors, found out that these accusations were completely false, and yet continued to refuse to back down and apologize. This kind of behavior here is just par for the course for you. I'm not going to sit around and let you spread lies and falsehoods about me.radek (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link to ArbCom case of interest: WP:EEML. I do encourage independent reading of it. Have a nice day and prosperous life, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The charges of original research are baseless. Instances of synthesis between the large number of reliable sources should be brought up on the talk page. As of now, none have been. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least potentially a valid topic, since it has been studied as an entity. There may be bits of synthesis, but those can be edited out. - Biruitorul Talk 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The connecting concept that links these communist regimes with mass killing, as stated in the lede, is the revolutionary desire to engineer radical social transformation that inevitably leads to abrupt and almost total material and political dispossession of millions of people, leading to hardship and death on a scale unprecedented in history. Benjamin Valentino articulates this concept in his published works, as does John N. Gray, George Watson, Isaiah Berlin and others. Even the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, acknowledges this connection when he recently condemned communist mass killings on his video blog, stating "No development of a country, none of its successes or ambitions can be reached at the price of human losses and grief", so the notion expressed by some that this article is some how anti-Russian is nonsense. The article is well sourced, although it could do with a bit of editing to remove the wrinkles, it remains a valid and notable topic. --Martintg (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per many others here, this article is not synthesis, nor OR, but rather a valid topic the study of which seems to be growing in quantity. Sources are verifiable, and although there is room for improvement, this article should remain.Horlo (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Alex Bakharev, while article still needs work, its topic is enough notable and referenced. Also I would note that AfDs for this article feel quite rushed, in about every one and half month someone seems to start a new one.--Staberinde (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions if this is closed as Keep, can it be afd'd again for any reason, or for the same reasons? Is there a limit on the number of times, or the frequency of afding? If there is no limit, is there a historical record, and are we approaching it? Note that this article has been subject not just to afd's, but also to name changes, and extensive removal of reliable sources. In summary, is there a way to stop the nonsense regarding this article, here and elsewhere? Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 13 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. NW (Talk) 04:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor I. Petrik[edit]

Victor I. Petrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a self-proclaimed genius with significant WP:BLP and WP:V problems. There does not seem to be any record of his scientific publications or of citations of him that I could find by doing GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches, so the subject does not seem to be a traditional WP:ACADEMIC case. Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about him. There do seem to be some Russian newsmedia sources but they are very confused and contradictory and mostly local rather than national. A GoogleNews search in Russian returns two hits[37]. The first of these hits is an article[38] by a Russian academician Kruglyakov about the dangers of pseudo-science. The article lists Petrik as an example. Here is another article, in an almanach "Lebed'" (Swan):[39]. This article says that Petrik's claim to be a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences did not check out upon verification; it also says that the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (for which Wikipedia does not have an entry) is a kind of a vanity club and not a legitimate academy like the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article provides a lot of other critical info about Petrik such as a claim that he spent several years in prison for some sort of swingling; compares him to Trofim Lysenko, etc. On the other hand, this article [40] in a local St. Petersburg newspaper presents him as the next Einstein. I don't quite know what to make of all this, but, in view of the dearth of solid and reliable information and in view of very significant WP:BLP problems here, I think this entry should be deleted. Kinoq (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was created by User:T.petrik, suggesting possible WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems. Kinoq (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Kinoq (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Kinoq (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- a difficult article to evaluate, given the apparent lack of sources in English. On the other hand, if the claims about various awards are true, then he likely meets WP:PROF. I think it's also worth noting that the nomination of this article for deletion was Kinoq's very first edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree with you: even if the claims about awards were true, none of them could substantiate the alleged notability of Petrik. He is unlikely to be a member of RAEN, but anyway RAEN is not a recognized scientific organization in Russia or anywhere else. It is doubtful that he is a doctor of engineering, but even if he were, it is of no importance: there are dozens of thousands of such doctors (кандидат технических наук) in Russia. He has not graduated from the Leningrad university in physics, but even if he had, there are several hundreds such alumni every year only in this university, not the biggest one in Russia. If he really made his inventions, why didn't he publish his result in scientific journals?Pasteurizer (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that this AfD nom was the first edit from this account but it is not my first Wikipedia edit. I had a WP account which I had not used for about a year, and I lost a password to it. So I created this new one. Yes, the absence of English sources is a problem, which, in my view, is a (secondary) reason in favor of deletion of this article from en.wiki since it makes it much more difficult to verify any info provided here. Regarding awards and credentials, etc. A number of published sources (in Russian) explicitly claim that the various awards/homors/degrees listed by the subject do not check out. The "Lebed" article cited in my nom explicitly says that when the journalist tried to verify the fact that Petrik is a member of RAEN ("Russian Academy of Natural Sciences"), Petrik's name was not in fact listed there. Similarly, the author of this article[41] (again in Russian) tried to verify the fact that Petrik holds the degree of doctor of technical sciences with the official Russian governmental agency that registeres all such degrees and says that Petrik's name is not listed there. If the Russian journalists who tried to verify Petrik's awards and credentials explicitly state that they were unable to do so, I think we have to conclude that there is a major WP:V problem here. Kinoq (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the sources tend to point towards coverage that would indicate notability although the current sources are not of sufficient quality to indicate such notability. My gut feeling is that with some work this article could make it... RP459 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the issue of notability is somewhat secondary here to WP:BLP and WP:V considerations. A number of Russian news-sources (citing bona fide Russian academics) explicitly characterize Petrik as a fraud and a scientific imposter. Some others praise him as a self-made genius. There are, as far as I can tell, no sources covering him or his work in traditional academic sources, such as scholarly journals. Clearly, this creates a major WP:BLP problem. In case of a highly notable subject the notability considerations would outweigh BLP and WP:V concerns. But in this case the opposite is true. The subject is not particularly notable, the available information about him is very contradictory and highly flammable, and the amount of information that could be characterized as genuinely reliable and verifiable is rather small. In such a situation, also in view of WP:AUTO concerns, I think it is better not to have an article about the subject, at least for the time being. Kinoq (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources referring to him as a fraudster, then perhaps he is notable as a fraudster (and those claims would then be included in the article). Obviously going down this path requires caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, that is a part of my point. A number of sources characterize him as a fraudster and a con artist while other say he is a genius. We here are not in a very good position to judge either way. In my view there is not enough reliable source coverage to justify notability as either a genuine academic or as a faudster. In such cases WP:BLP considerations should prevail and they imply that it is better to be on the safe side and to wait until, so to speak, the smoke clears and better and more reliable coverage is available, before having an article about him here. This is particularly true since there is so much highly negative and information about a living person that would have to be included if the article is kept. Also, WP:ACADEMIC does say that the standards of inclusion for things related to pseudo-science are supposed to be pretty strict. Kinoq (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure these sources are reliable. One mentions him in passing, and the other looks to probably be a blog. In addition, in what seems to be a BLP, we have to take a lot of care that negative information is well-sourced. -- Atama頭 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no sources available to either satisfy WP:N or WP:BLP (the latter is especially concerning). -- Atama頭 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete in absence of reliable sources to indicate notability for WP:Prof or anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment There are no reliable sources at this point, & the material in the article is either false or nonverifiable--and to a considerable extent is a copyvio of reference 3. But I agree with User:Nomoskedasticity that if there were material showing a verifiable NPOV of him, he might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of verifiable sources for his accomplishments. Given the existence of sources such as this I think we need to be very careful what we assert as factual about this person. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since I'm not an administrator, I can't check an editor's deleted contributions, but it appears that the author has only edited for one day (to create this article) and hasn't been back to Wikipedia since (over a year and a half). I don't think userfying the article for the author will be useful. If T.petrik does return to Wikipedia and wants a copy of the article added their user space, they can request it at any time. If this article does get deleted, you might want to leave a message on their talk page suggesting that they make such a request, just in case. -- Atama頭 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such use isn't permitted by CC-BY-SA, because of the BY. If the article isn't salvageable, then it should be deleted. Took a closer look; changing my vote.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:18, 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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Network Analysis Module[edit]

Cisco Network Analysis Module (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a networking product which has no notability, only sources are from Cisco's own website, also the majority of content reads like an advert. QueenCake (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really frustrating to see the discussion on this issue. If you plan to delete a product that has 6000 customers and nearly $60m of annual revenue, then a lot of products listings on Wikipedia should be removed. There are a number of non Cisco originated articles on this product - here are a few:

Now - as I had mentioned before, if you think there is advertising related content, I am more than happy to try to fix it. Ash1932 (talk) 15:52, 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, JForget 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either the admins are not reading the article, or I am doing a real poor job in explaining the concept. First, this is *not* a software - it is a hardware based offering and has added on a virtual platform recently. Second, this is not a product that you would use in your home - it is used by large enterprises and service providers globally. Finally, your reference to "6000 customers" is in poor spirit - if you have not heard about it, is exactly why I put in the article. This product has been around since 2000 and is the only integrated service management offering by Cisco. Can you please tell me which exact statement in the article is advertising? I took great pains to make it factual. I am happy to change it further. You have a valid point on historical references - and I will dig up historical information and post that here.

However, this auto-reply of "Delete" without even understanding the article reflects very poorly on the admins. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia of "Educating someone" ? Ash1932 (talk) 21:59, 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, NW (Talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure this deserves a sentence somewhere but we don't need an article on it. get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

  • Delete I cant find independent significant coverage of this Power.corrupts (talk) 10:02, 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. Black Kite 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Analyzer[edit]

Project Analyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any reviews on the software's own webpage. Did my share of searching google and found nothing.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:56, 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. The general consensus here is that the subject is not adequately notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Youra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dan Youra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a nonnotable businessman that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The original AfD closed as a keep over a year ago, although I can not see anything more than trivial coverage of this individual. Some passing mention has been made about the lawsuit related to his company, but nothing especially distinguishing regarding his biography. There also seems to be a serious conflict of interest with the creator. ThemFromSpace 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the references are sufficient. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the references shows that the first covers his company, the second is a only a passing mention, the third is not independant of the subject, and the last is from a small local news organization. This is far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that WP:N requires for articles. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Throwing Google at this guy and leaving out wikipedia produces page after page of directory entries and redundant links to twitter and flickr and whatever this UToons thing is (it doesn't seem to be notable either). GNews produces exactly nothing. As far as I can tell he's "notable" in any sense only for a flash-in-the-pan trademark scuffle of no especial importance. I would also note that in the year since the last AFD the article has hardly been touched. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 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) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for any mention outside his own webpage or Wikipedia mirrors and couldn't find anything either. PirateArgh!!1! 09:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I voted keep, above. I added some further references. I would argue that an article about his company counts the same as an article about him, since my impression is that it's a two-person business. The travel writers association reference I moved to external links, since I agree that it is not independent of the subject. I think that notability is now established. Some of these references will not show up on a Google search, but are still valid, since the links are to a scanned PDF on his site. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't lack of references; it's that the article says nothing that is really notable. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Eastmain puts forward a good case. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which references do you feel establish notability? I've looked over them all again and I still fail to see significant coverage of him, or any thing that he has done which deserves mention in an encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 6 November 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) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability is NOT the same thing as notability. There's not a single reference here that establishes notability. Even if a million references could be found, and none of them established notability, those million references would be beside the point. There are people who appear to believe that just because something or someone is mentioned a few times on the Internet, the entity is therefore notable according to WP standards. But this is not the case. This gentleman simply owns his own non-notable company. We're not here to provide WP:SPAM for him. Qworty (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any establishment of notability here -Drdisque (talk) 16:09, 15 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 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition[edit]

Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this singing competition. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 25 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, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from that site mentioned above:
article 1, "L’IX Concorso Internazionale di Canto Bidu Sayão, mira a rivelare nuovi talenti e a diffondere il canto erudito." (to reveal new talent and spread the knowledge of singing)
article 3 "nati a partire dal 1º gennaio del 1974 fino a 1º gennaio del 1991." (born after Jan 21 1974 & before Jan 1 1991)
to me, those two conditions mean: not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure! Important competitions are all for young artists!!! What is the difference between an importat one and a less important is if the competition is international or not, and if the competition has a relevance in the continent.
The most important world level opera competition is Operalia, wich is also for young talents! This is the most important international competition of South America and should be kept in my opinion! --Arancam (talk) 13:48, 7 November 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) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To respond to Arancam, the problem is not that it's an international competition. That's great, that's fantastic. But the problem we have is that, despite its international scope, even if in name, does not unto itself convey notability. We absolutely, positively need that, and we need it to be verifiable from reliable sources. You answer your own questions in importance, but importance is truly subjective, and doesn't meet our requirements. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this becomes neutral like the same number of "keep's" and "delete's", then it should be closed. -- ISLANDERS27 05:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is, though, that this isn't a vote, it's a consensus - so the number of keeps versus deletes don't matter worth anything. It's the commentary therein. Eastmain's note may have some merit, but if there aren't any reliable sources then it's not going to survive despite the number of keeps or deletes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here there are a lot of reliable sources, such as Correio Braziliense newspaper and Estadão newspaper, which are ones of the most important newspapers of Brasil, and also some internet sites. Something more can be found here. It's not me that is having a subjective point of view regarding the importance. It is obvious that as it is one of the most important opera event in South America, (and this is an objective point of view!!) this article should be kept. If someone else could help in reviewing the article it would be great. We can try to make it more complete... but anyway it is not just something to forget about only because it's not known by everyone here! --Arancam (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable sources also on the important Brazilian Newspaper Folha de S. Paulo --Arancam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Arancam has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! --Arancam (talk) 11:54, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna (feed reader)[edit]

Vienna (feed reader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 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, JForget 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is odd that the article has been around since 2005, with a notability template on it for a long time, and nobody was able to produce a secondary source. Racepacket (talk) 01:57, 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 keep. NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Edwards[edit]

Lilian Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested. Fails WP:PROF. Self-proclaimed "keynote speaker" whose only proof is own employer webpage and amateur youtube "interview". Drdisque (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to check, you will see it is a university website, not a personally-produced website. Your suggestion is premature at best, ill-considered at worst. GeorgeLloyd (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, you still fail to establish any notability for subject -Drdisque (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A selection of her papers. Also, editor of "Law and the Internet", and full professor at Sheffield University.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, speedy close. GNews search demonstrates that subject is regularly cited as subject matter expert by major publications like New Scientist[42] and BBC News[43]. No coherent rationale for deletion, other strong signals of notability as mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a google search is done for the "award" she was given, it results in only results referring to her, indicating the either the award was only given once or it is so irrelevant no other recipient claims to have received it. -Drdisque (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead wrong. [44] [45]. (Now excuse me while I dissolve in laughter after discovering that a mjor international lawfirm somehow ended up with the mofo.com domain name . . .) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not quite as cut and dried as "strong keep, speedy close", HW. But I think the point to make here is that it isn't the award that makes her notable. In fact, the award is a bit of a red herring, because in itself it would be a weak (though arguable) indicator of notability. Here, the combination of the papers she's authored, the books she's written and edited, and the position she holds, together with the award, are all contributory factors to a keep position.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "speedy close" proposal was based on her being recognized as, and quoted as, as subject matter expert by significant reliable sources like New Scientist and the BBC, not so much the award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 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, JForget 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:PROF per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Anna Lincoln 12:44, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Profane Genocidal Creations[edit]

Profane Genocidal Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, from a band that is most likely also non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find the band to be notable, given their biography in their main article, and I would therefore argue that per WP policy the albums of a notable band are themselves notable if there is enough information present in an article. This album page could be categorized as a stub though. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSIC, an album from a notable band may be considered notable, just by nature of it being released by that band. But this band is not highly notable, nor has this album received significant coverage in reliable sources. And the article consists almost entirely of a track listing. According to what I have seen at WP:MUSIC, articles that don't have significant mainstream coverage, and consist mostly of a track listing should just be integrated into the article for the group. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:34, 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, JForget 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Tough decision on this one, I disagree with the nom that the band is non-notable in that they have released two albums on Century Media Records, and there is plenty of WP:3PARTY coverage for those two albums plus a full biography of the band at allmusic. Unfortunately this album predates the band's signing with Century Media Records and the only WP:RS I can find covering it, actually only mention it in passing when discussing the later two albums, here (translated from Italian) and here. It is listed at allmusic but not reviewed. I'm leaning towards keep because their more recent albums (deservedly) have pages so going back through their discography provides a nice historical record. If anyone can find me a nice review in German or some other language I will change to Keep and get rid of the 'weak', but I looked and couldn't find anything decent. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaiel Jabbari[edit]

Esmaiel Jabbari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This associate professor at the University of South Carolina has an h-index around 11. Article says he won an award, but I cannot find any evidence that this award even exists. Article mentions that he is in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scopus show 81 peer reviewed articles, with citation count for the highest of 65, 55, 44, 43, 37 and an h index of 14. He's a chemist working in the field of biological macromolecules, which I claim only slight familiarity with. But I recognize about half the journals as leading ones in the field. I consider the publication record sufficient to show the necessary subject importance. I personally am willing to consider tenure even as an Associate Professor at a research university the equivalent of notability--it measures exactly the same thing we do--that the person is a leader in the field, who can be counted on permanently to enhance the department's standing. I could however also see limiting that to universities of the very highest standing. USC is unquestionably a research university, though not quite at the highest level. I am not sure there is consensus for this, however, to the extent there is for full professors at the equivalent universities. More important, I really do not see the point of devoting effort to removing articles on borderline figures, when there is so much real junk to deal with, so many old unrevised articles to upgrade, and so many really important people that w do not have articles on. There are a very limited number of people here working on subject fields like this, and it is not a good use of our time. Every time I stop to do something like this, it prevents me from actually writing a needed stub, or instructing a naive beginning contributor. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we collaborate on writing some needed stubs, will you let some of these COI BLP guys go? Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 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, JForget 00:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klíče na neděli[edit]

Klíče na neděli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been listed at WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks with no progress Jarkeld (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the plot does appear to have been (poorly) translated, and if anything it can be stubbified to just the original sentence and list of cast. No comment regarding the play's notability, as I can't read the Czech articles which mention it, but the nomination statement never contested it. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce to stub and keep. The untranslated text could be simply "commented out." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 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, JForget 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub: Until translation is done, I believe only the translator can decide if it's "worth" a PROD of AfD. I know the policy is kind of fuzzy and could probably use some adjusting, but so long as it's still listed in articles needing translation I think it's "off limits" to an extent. Either temporarily remove the English part and make note in the edit summary to check previous diff, or strike it so only the translated part is left... give it a stub tag so it doesn't get disturbed constantly anymore. Are there even any policies about deleting off PNT after a certain amount of time? It's certainly not on the page, if there is. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to daTheisen: It's in this section: If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD. When moving items to AfD, the boilerplate text on the article should be changed from {{notenglish}} to {{subst:afd}} and the other deletion steps should be carried out.
Although most of the time it'll be PROD'ed first. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub as per Blanchardb: I nominated the article as per WP:PNT's standard procedure. Perhaps Blanchardb's suggestion is the best option. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Howard, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James F. Howard, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to me to fail WP:PROF. h-index is in the low teens, and he is not the first author on the papers with then most citations. The only possible claim under WP:PROF is #5, holding a "distinguished" chair. However, as pointed out in the previous no consensus AfD back in 2006, Dr. Howard has had cared for a Broyhill family member. The family then endowed a professorship named after Dr. Howard at UNC. "At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title". I tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's not our job to distinguish the "deservedly notable". If somebody rises to notability through fraud, favoritism or nepotism, all we have to do is ascertain the fact, not delete the article on the grounds that the notability is "undeserved". --Paularblaster (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is generally true. But to me, the distinguished chair criterion is a shorthand for academic achievement, and I can't find anything Dr Howard has done to advance the field. So the real question is, what can be said about him encyclopedically? His article exists in a vacuum, with the only incoming links being Bellows Falls, Vermont and List of people from Vermont. This debate happened in the previous AfD, and the result was no consensus. So in this case, some people were unconvinced by this apparent passing of point 5. Abductive (reasoning) 10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Web of Science shows 75 papers, with citations of the 5 top ones 109, 72, 69 65, 63. He is senior author in many of them, and they are in good journals . I consider this to establish that he's an authority in the field. He seems to be the editor of a textbook [46] UNC-chapel Hill is a first-rate research university, and he has been full professor there before any question of the chair arose. UNC is reworking its site, & most glinks no longer work--I corrected the link to his home page, now [47] DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, exactly, do secondary sources say are his contributions to the understanding of myasthenia gravis? I realize this case is borderline, so I am arguing that instead of assuming that citation counts work, one needs to have a statement about the actual contribution(s). Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They say it by citing him. The authorities in a field are the people who get cited. That;s the nature of academic science, and the way notability is shown in that part of the world. We just record it. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, they could be citing him to say that he was wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 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, JForget 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I agree with DGG's analysis, I have alternate reasons: Howard is a full professor of Medicine, who sits in an endowed chair, at a highly selective university. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On reflection, questionable circumstances of the endowment notwithstanding, I think this does pass WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 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 Speedy close and send to Redirects for discussion instead. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy liberalism[edit]

Vichy liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 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 Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOW Keep Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Chemical Neuroscience[edit]

ACS Chemical Neuroscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journal has barely started, no issue published yet. Prod removed with explanation on talk page concerning stature of authors and the fact that one published manuscript has been cited (cf. WP:NOTINHERITED). Journal misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals) and a article creation is very premature (cf. WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Crusio (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is published by the American Chemical Society, it is almost certainly notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is rather premature, but it will, as an ACS journal, clearly meet our notability guidelines early in 2010 after a few issues are out. So, week keep, as it is just wasting time, deleting something that will be rewritten in a few weeks. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the prod and I apologize if it was a mistake. I will not comment on the AfD since I contributed to expanding the article (though I did not create it). Thanks also for pointing out the guidelines in WP:Notability (academic journals). I was unaware since from the history it seems to be relatively new. I have two questions relavent to this AfD. Are SCI and Scopus (which are the only scientific databases mentioned in the guideleines) the only acceptable ones per guidelines? Are CAPlus and SciFinder, databases of Chemical Abstracts Service not appropriate or inadequate? I ask (as an aside) because as a chemist by training, there are a number of journals that I refer to that are not indexed in Scopus and this makes me feel a bit inferior. There is also a practical matter; List_of_scientific_journals_in_chemistry starts with a ranking based on Chem Abstracts which I will delete from the article if Chem Abstracts is an irrelevant database for scientific journals. I guess other journals might qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia if they are cited by "reliable sources" and have a "significant" history (which the journal in this AfD CLEARLY does not have). I was planning to work on other articles on journals, however, I request a bit more more clarity on what is a "reliable source" and a "significant history." Thanks so much Antorjal (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chem Abstracts is certainly not an irrelevant database for scientific journals, but this is not the place to discuss that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow as this journal is indexed by Chem Abstracts. Anyways, no further comments from me. Thanks. Antorjal (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does being a significant editor preclude you from speaking here? Doesn't it do the opposite? - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For some publishers, any new journal can be assumed to be notable. The american Chemical Society is one of them. Similar to well established authors and musicians at the very top rank. in chemistry, they are the very top rank. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above votes all seem to argue either "it is published by a notable group so it is notable" or "it is published by a notable group so it will become notable". As far as I see, the first argument runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED and the second of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious choice. It's a peer-reviewed publication from a notable university. It's also a ground-breaking project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Which university?? And why is being peer-reviewed making it notable? And what's ground-breaking about yet another online journal of which there are already hundreds or even thousands? --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answers I read the links/references, searched it on google, and came to the conclusions I stated there. 1) Vanderbilt University 2)I didn't say that, and I guess it doesn't? 3)That's in the video--available on youtube--describing the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I appear to be dense, but what has Vanderbilt to do with this journal? It's published by ACS, not Vanderbilt. And what YouTube video are you talking about? (BTW YouTube is not a reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-chief is at Vanderbilt, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NOTCRYSTAL can be overdone. As DGG points out, all ACS journals are immensely notable in chemistry and this one will be no different. If it has not already been noted all over the place it soon will be, so, since it is written, it should be kept. It would however have been better if the editors who wrote this article had waited until in 2010. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ACS is the most respectable publisher of chemistry journals. It is almost guaranteeed that this journal will (if not yet) be indexed by ISI and Scopus ASAP, and thus automatically qualify the WP notability criteria. By no means an ACS journal is "just another journal". Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Given the consensus that given the fact that this journal is published by the notable organization ACS and therefore may be expected in the near future to become notable, I withdraw my nomination. --Crusio (talk) 18:38, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_8&oldid=1142643365"