Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 29

< 28 April	30 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carpenter named articles[edit]

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

This has been created and is being maintained as a substitution for the page Carpenter (disambiguation), which the creator of this list almost completely deleted and replaced with a link to this list! Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "almost deleted" and "replaced" but my intent was reorganization, see: here Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the two parties can get together and agree on what belongs in the disambiguation page. There is nothing harmful or controversial in any of the information in this list, no reason that I can see that it shouldn't be on the other page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for inclusion on disambiguation pages is not whether information is "harmful" or "controversial" (anymore than that's the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). It's whether the entries are ambiguous. A user looking for Carpenter (crater) is not helped by having to wade through dozens of entries like Carpenter frog or Joseph Carpenter Silversmith Shop, which we can be pretty sure they're not looking for. Propaniac (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It duplicates parts of Carpenter (disambiguation) and Carpenter (surname), then throws in a really vague criterion - "Carpenter related" - to justify the addition of other entries. From the comments on Talk:Carpenter (disambiguation), this appears to be an ill-judged attempt to get around the guidelines for dab page entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of the information given false or harmful to anyone? Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user who cleaned up the disambiguation page, and yes, I think my comments at Talk:Carpenter (disambiguation) provide a pretty good explanation for why the nominated article exists. I'm not going to !vote either way on whether it should be deleted, but the motivation for creating this list really, really baffles me. The creator appears to be interested in the genealogy of the Carpenter family, and if the list were limited to topics actually named after, or related to, people named Carpenter, that would make a lot more sense (although it still would not be a substitute for a disambiguation page). But I don't know why he insists on including entries like Carpenter ant and Carpenter's glue and The Walrus and the Carpenter, topics that have nothing to do with each other except including "carpenter" in the name. Propaniac (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to give opinions about the motivations of editors, then I think both sides in this debate suffer from Wikipedia syndrome. Why can't we all just get along? Let this person have his page where he can put all the carpenter items he likes and you guys keep your disambiguation page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't nominate it nor did I say it should be deleted. I just said I don't understand it and it's not a disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as a hodge podge list of anything that happens to have the word "carpenter" in it. There is no real realationship between any of the list items. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD is second-guessing the good work of Propaniac in dealing with a relatively new editor whose interests did not at first fit in well with how stuff is usually organized. The list-article is the compromise solution that was part of getting the disambiguation page(s) put into order. Let it be for a while, say a year, and then revisit it. There's no good purpose served now by coming down hard, repeatedly, unrelentingly, on the newish editor. --doncram (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What good is served by encouraging a new editor to create inappropriate articles? Thsi is not a situation where sourcing is at issue and there is potential for improvement. The very premise of this list is a bad idea, and time won't fix that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Carpenter (disambiguation). It happens, now and then, that people will disagree with what the content of a particular page should be, and that's why each article has room for a "discussion" subpage. If I had been Jrcrin001, I would simply have reverted the abrupt removal of content. If an "edit war" followed (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't), then good, let some neutral parties intervene. This is, after all, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and no two people have the same vision of what Wikipedia ought to be. It's better if folks can work together. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I requested help to avoid edit wars. And I get this. List pages were suggested as a resolution or compromise. I had no objection until the removal of partial named articles were removed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The contents that were removed are contradictory to the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline and the Manual of Style guideline, as far as I see (and nobody has offered a contradicting interpretation). I would be happy to discuss, with any interested user, whether specific entries I removed are in fact allowable under the guidelines, or whether there are reasons this is a special case where the guideline should be overruled. But in the absence of such discussion, I don't see why I should not continue to revert edits that simply ignore the guidelines completely. Propaniac (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your right, of course, in that this is, after all, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem - a list page being created - was due to the strict interpretation of what can be and can not be on an disambiguation page. We had one editor come in and remove all partial listings. His efforts were bully type tactics. When I enlisted help, the concept of a list was brought up. See discussion comments at: Talk:Carpenter (surname). Specifically where I requested input because of conflicts and an effort to work with other editors.

Despite abrasive tactics, I thought the effort was working toward better Wiki articles and ease of use for Wiki patrons. Yes, I get frustrated because Wiki rules CONFLICT with each other. Part of the reason is the setup and flexibility of Wikipedia. Many forget that the rules are guidelines and concensus should be the spirit of Wikipedia. I have a hard time explaining this, so I hope I this is clear.

Please remember that anyone looking up whole or partially named Carpenter related articles on Wikipedia - that do not start with "Carpenter" can not be done except by a list or partial listing allowed on a disambiguation page. If you want patrons to use Wikipedia - make it easier - even with some duplication list/disambig pages - than harder. Casual visitors do not study Wikipedia and all the rules before using it. Those with the surname Carpenter are often interested in those things related to Carpenter or partially named Carpenter. It is part of learning and taking pride in the name Carpenter. Some people do not understand this. See comments at: Talk:List of Carpenter named articles.

Another example: Carpenter House is a disambig page which allows partial listings and violates many disambiguation rules and is more like a list page. See discussion there.

I do not care if you want one disambig page with partial listings or two pages with duplication and partial listings on a list page. I am willing to maintain those list pages, as allowed by WikiProject Lists. And I see no one from the List Administrators ruling on this.

I request that this discussion for deletion be placed on hold until the page in question is reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and if it is appropiate for Wikipedia with input from them. Please note, I have asked for a review here. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously commented to Jrcrin001 about why partial matches are not being allowed in Carpenter (disambiguation) but being allowed in Carpenter House (disambiguation): "I think the difference is indeed the reasoning, which i tried to explain out at Talk:Carpenter House (disambiguation), i.e. that all places on it are likely to be known as Carpenter House (including John Carpenter House and Carpenter Homestead, etc.) Like Propaniac suggests, Carpenter ant is easily enough found in the search box and having it in a Carpenter disambiguation page would be more surprising than helpful to most readers."

Jrcrin001, I and probably some other editors here have never heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and their authority will probably not be accepted. I have some sympathy for Jrcrin001 as a relatively new Wikipedia editor, hitting up against the fact that wikipedia policy/guideline statements do indeed conflict and require interpretation. However one more policy/guideline for you is that "forum-shopping", searching around for different forums to find some support for a fixed position that you hold, is also a problem. This relatively unimportant topic of whether there should be a list about articles having Carpenter in their name is spreading too widely, causing more disruption than it is worth, in my view. Although I !voted Keep above, I don't think there is a single whole-hearted supporter for having such a vague, unlikely-to-be-useful article in wikipedia, besides Jrcrin001. Since no supporters have shown up, it becomes time for you to let it go. You could, however, ask at the Lists wikiproject and/or elsewhere for other editors to comment here. --doncram (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hurry? Let the list people have their say. It will take a few days for their input. The page can be merged or deleted later.

I would also state I appreciate your efforts in trying to mediate the partial deletions that were once part of the Carpenter (surname) article. And I also thank • Gene93k (see above) for echoing this discussion on the List page before I listed the related Carpenter list articles on the list page for review. I add no intention of forum shopping but trying to get the conflicts resolved.

And to think this all started over a robot DAB error posting and my honest efforts to resolve that. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded duplication of disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The subject is clearly notable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable subject. This is a family history of a man who "is best known for his first wife" and his notable ancestors, but "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability." A navigation box credits him as Lord Treasurer of Ireland but as his tenure was apparently unremarkable the article Lord High Treasurer of Ireland is sufficiently descriptive. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThe offices of Lord Treasurer of Ireland and Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire are sufficient for notability in my opinion. This is one of a large number of articles which the nominator redirected, and which have been reverted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I will add that he is considered notable enough for an article in the ODNB. Michael Durban, ‘Cavendish, William, fifth duke of Devonshire (1748–1811)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 30 April 2010. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a significant political figure, and is clearly notable. The Dukes of Devonshire were one of the richest and most prominent families in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and I'd say that virtually every holder of the title is going to have enough written about them to make them notable. Note that the ODNB entry includes a bibliography with a number of works that deal in some detail with the duke. ETA: notability is not earned by merit; it is conferred when a subject is written about in reliable secondary sources. Inclusion in the ODNB is prima facie evidence of notability. No further discussion is really needed. john k (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It begs the question to say that he was a member of a prominent family, and if every peer is represented in the ODNB no matter how lackluster his life then clearly inclusion in the ODNB is insufficient to establish notability. WP doesn't permit articles on just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB does not by a long chalk include every peer. This fellow, far from being any Tom, Dick or Harry was three times invited to join the cabinet, and held high office in the government of Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Duncan says, the ODNB does not at all include all peers. For that matter, it doesn't even include all cabinet members (the 5th duke's grandfather, for instance, served in some cabinets but doesn't get an article in the ODNB). It describes itself as "a collection of more than 57,000 specially written biographies, which describe the lives of people who shaped the history of the British Isles and beyond from the 4th century BC to the 21st century." OUP is pretty clearly claiming that everyone in the ODNB is notable (they even use the word "noteworthy" to describe its subjects.) john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:John Kenney "virtually every holder of the title is going to have enough written about them to make them notable." The title may be notable even when the man to whom it belongs is not. I don't dispute the notability of the title. I dispute the notability of the man. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand what notability is? Notability means that somebody has been noted - that reliable sources have written about them. That's all. Reliable sources have clearly written about the 5th Duke of Devonshire - the ODNB is probably the easiest example to cite. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No doubt this individual is included in sundry lists of British births, but you might as well introduce parish birth records as publications establishing notability. That is, they don't. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are very good at arguing with straw men. For other users, I'd note that Yappy doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of notability guidelines; he apparently thought that a British prime minister was non-notable. john k (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dismissing the ODNB as a "sundry list of British births" displays either astonishing ignorance or a bad-faith attempt to misrepresent the evidence of notability that has been produced. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, is that what he was doing? The ODNB is a biographical encyclopedia of notable figures from British history. It is not a "sundry listing of British births." john k (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ""The 5th Duke is best known for his first wife." I described that source fairly and accurately. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Jacqueline Kennedy is best known for her first husband. That doesn't make her non-notable. And what does that have to do with the ODNB? john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - As that phrase appears nowhere in the ODNB entry referred to, I am forced to assume that you are deliberately lying in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that the ODNB entry substantively differs from the WP article? Please elaborate, or else apologize. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't bothered to read it before dismissing it as a parish register? I can email you a copy if you provide me with your email address, alternatively you can access it yourself if you have a library card from a British local authority. Many public libraries around the world will also have access. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps simpler is better: the ODNB account doesn't differ substantively from the WP article. Read it yourself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it - and unlike you I'm not lying about what it says. Did you notice the three invitations to join the cabinet? You've made a series of lousy redirects which were undone, and you're trying to salvage some pride by bringing one of them to AfD, but your nomination is without merit and in bad faith. Stop painting yourself into a corner. The man is notable - the Lord High Treasurer is enough on its own for that. The entry in ODNB is enough evidence from secondary sources. Three invitaions to join the cabinet are enough. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominem attacks and personal abuse are not helpful. Please address yourself to the topic directly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so above. Now, have you actually read the ODNB article which you claimed to have "described fairly and accurately"? I repeat my offer to email it to you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. What I ask, again, is that you explain how that account substantively differs from the summary I quoted. He married well, but was he otherwise remarkable? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make whether he was "remarkable." The point is that there's a 1500 word article (that is, about 6 pages) about him in the principal reference work of British biography. He has been remarked upon, and is thus notable. He was lazy and untalented and not particularly ambitious. So what? That's not what notability is about. We're not judging his merit as a human being, just whether he is the subject of discussion in reliable secondary sources. He obviously is. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was Lord High Treasurer of Ireland. He was Governor of Cork. He was Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire. He was asked on three separate occasions to join the Cabinet. You are refusing to read a reliable reference establishing notability (a work that was awarded the Dartmouth Medal). You claimed to have described that reference accurately when you had not read it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The office of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland doesn't appear to confer notability on the officeholder. Perhaps the same is true of appointment as Governor of Cork. Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire is a vanity title, listed as such at the end of this man's article. So, your answer seems to be that the summary I quoted is consonant with the account in the ODNB. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being the principal financial officer of the government is enough to confer notability. In his era, Lord Lieutenancies were not "vanity titles" (they aren't that nowadays), he commanded the county militia (and he took the duties seriously, as you would know if you took me up on my still-standing offer to email it to you). My answer is that your "summary" of an article you are too stubborn or lazy to read for yourself is deceitful and dishonest and disruptive. You are trolling. Stop it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I caution you again, refrain from personal attacks. Feel free to quote from the article for the benefit of all editors; no need for you to illegally distribute a copyrighted work. Otherwise, refrain from insinuating what can't be demonstrated from the text. The list of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland includes very few individuals with WP articles, which I take to mean that holding the office is not prima facie notable. Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire is deemed an "Honorary title" in this article; whether or not "he took the duties seriously" is beside the point. I don't know what his duties were as Governor of Cork. Do you? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to send someone a copy of an ODNB article, as far as I'm aware. It would pretty clearly constitute fair use, just like it would be fair use if I xeroxed it and gave it to a class I was teaching as a reading assignment. Beyond that, I fail to understand your point. Is it that the 5th Duke didn't have any monumental accomplishments? This is true, I suppose. But not-having-monumental-accomplishments is not a synonym for non-notable. Because of his title and family background, he was an important Whig political figure for a generation. The fact that he is notable because he inherited lands and titles and a sense of himself as guardian of the Whig political tradition from his father does not mean that he is not notable. A subject can be notable for all kinds of reasons - as I said before, personal merit is not a requirement. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it not illegal to email someone a copy of an ODNB article, it is actually enabled and encouraged by ODNB through the "email this article" link on every biographical article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Clearly meets notability guidelines, since he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This sort of nomination is unamusing "performance art" that just wastes everyone's time. - Nunh-huh 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he passes WP:POLITICIAN. A nineteenth-century British duke would have been a member of the House of Lords and thus a member of a national legislature. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most definitely keep. It is blindingly obvious that the subject meets WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN as he was a Duke, a Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and a Lord Lieutenant. Furthermore it's a well-written researched and referenced article that adds value to Wikipedia - in fact, it is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia should include. To suggest its deletion is perverse; what possible justification is there to allege it fails WP:GNG? Nominating for deletion is borderline WP:VAN IMO and the nominator is clearly following some destructive agenda of his/her own Andy F (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth (novel)[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without apparently addressing the unresolved issues of notability and reliable sources, which brought me here. An unpublished novel that has no notability, either inherently or as a result of the (unreferenced and unreferenceable) claim of it having been rejected 6,000 times. No reliable sources are provided for the novel itself; the author's biography, apparently self-contributed, was deleted today for lack of notability/reliable sources, and thereby cannot contribute to any speculative notability for the novel. In short, 6001. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "references" are both to minor blogs, and both say, essentially, "Hey, this jerk keeps spamming me!" while this does serve as a cautionary tale of sorts about how NOT to get a book published, and I do applaud the guy for not going the vanity-press route, this is far too minor and lacks the appropriate references in reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. The article verges on having WP:BLP problems by identifying the author and claiming that his novel has been rejected 6,000 times. And, of course, as an unpublished novel, the subject would need to meet the general notability guideline to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, which would require coverage in independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an unpublished novel by a person who, as far as I can tell has not had any previous novels published. Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no coverage about his novel in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the issues already mentioned there seems to be a conflict of interest between the main contributor and the author of the "book".--Savonneux (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unpublished insignifcant author.... ? Sadads (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An interesting and wide-ranging discussion, but ultimately there was no meeting of the minds here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbreviations in use in 1911[edit]

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

This list contains totally arbitrary criteria for inclusion (what's so important about 1911 or the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition as a place to find abbreviations?) and appears to be composed of nothing but original research. I can't imagine any third-party sources having ever commenting upon such a grouping of information so the subject matter also fails our notability guidelines. Interesting? Yes, so perhaps a transwiki is in order, but this material is definitely not fit for an encyclopedia article. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:OR, WP:STAND, WP:V, WP:N, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOT#DIR. Them From Space 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination seems to overreach. I would be hard pressed to find a single article of WP:OR (rather it all pretty much falls under WP:CK) in this list, and it is all eminently WP:V. Yes, 1911 is a somewhat artificial legacy here. But I suggest (A) an overview of the subject of standard/classic/traditional abbreviations in English (of the kind you might happen to find in a well-edited encyclopedia for the general public in 1911) is a reasonable and important subject (if I have to give an example of the obvious existence of innumerable secondary sources on the subject: G.R. Shankle, Current Abbreviations, New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1945), (B) if it can well be divorced from the year 1911, AfD is not the place to figure out the best strategy for accomplishing that. A secondary discussion we could have here (though it seems unnecessary to me) would concern how every encyclopedia needs to give an accounting of its own abbreviations (and the 1911 EB, providing so many Wikipedia articles still awaiting updating, has left a long trail of its abbreviations in our encyclopedia). Wareh (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a fun place for articles about TV shows and sports results and the like, but first and foremost, it's an online reference work, meaning that people would refer to it for information. The meaning of abbreviations is different now than it was a century ago, as can be seen from such entries as C.S.I., F.M., M.C., R.N., and S.T.D. Perhaps this serious, no fun at all information can be placed elsewhere, but the fact that it was in the Encylopedia Britannica means that there are some people who would disagree about whether it's "encyclopedic". Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on condition of rename: 1911 seems arbitrary, and I think there's a risk that people start creating articles like "list of abbreviations in use in 1912", or "list of backronyms in use in 1911". It could get ridiculous. This is a valid article about past language habits, but needs to be clarified with a better name. Arskwad (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - I agree with Arskwad , it seems notable but the "in use in 1911" is arbitrary, it just happens to be the year of the edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica used as a source for this article. New name should be discussed (e.g. list of English abbreviations from early 20th century?).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not "list of abbreviations used in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica"? thats what it is, right? that makes it a superbly defined list, if the lede or hidden text makes it clear you cant add any more. if this is done, im neutral on deletion. if people use it, fine. seems silly to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point. While in an ideal universe we might want an encyclopedic and historic treatment of English abbreviations, what we have is an article on the ones in EB1911, and if we retitle it "early 20th century" etc., it will go from being a basically correct list to a list in need of work on a huge scale that may never be done. Wareh (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary seems like one of the Wiktionary appendices to me. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Absurd nomination whose references to policies such as WP:OR and WP:V seem nonsensical. And renaming of the article, should this be wanted, is achieved by a move, not by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My references to these policies are fully within their bounds. We cannot have article that are only sourced to primary sources. This does go against WP:OR and WP:V which both state explicitly that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Not a single third-party source has been added to this article, so it still fails WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:N. A rename, while keeping this content, is inappropriate per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Them From Space 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, these abbreviations such as Bart. or B.A. are not original now and were not original then. The Britannica is thus a third-party source and we can readily add other sources from that year to supplement it, e.g. the Cyclopedia of law and procedure. We already divide our coverage of abbreviations into sublists per Lists of abbreviations and subdivisions arranged chronologically are as sensible as any. The example of Britannica is prima facie evidence that such lists are encyclopaedic and so there is no case to answer here and the matter should be speedily closed so that ordinary editing and discussion may continue at this and related articles per our editing policy Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For practical purposes on Wikipedia, 99.99% of the time Britannica is a secondary source because it builds upon primary sources. So for an article on rock music, Britannica would be fine to cite. But in an article specifically about the contents of Britannica, citing Britannica is not good enough because it is a primary source, since the article deals with the source itself. To get secondary sourcing for this one would need to find an article in another encyclopedia, newspaper, etc. that talks about the abbreviations in use in 1911 (or in the 1911 Britannica, if you're going with the rename). Without independant referencing we could write articles about literally anything ever written just by citing the source, notability criteria be damned. Them From Space 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is the abbreviations, not Britannica. Britannica is being used as a source in the normal way. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as the "creator" of this article, I'll explain this articles presence. It was a splitting off of the 1911 EB content that originally formed the article abbreviation when created in 2001, as by 2004 when I took this action, there was enough new Wikipedia content describing the concept of an abbreviation to not necessitate this list. I split it off rather than just wipe it as at that time, it would have been a net loss to just remove it completely from Wikipedia (and at that time, removing "placeholder" content was not done with wild abandon). Really what would be logical is for someone to go through the articles linked from Lists of abbreviations just to make sure we have all the relevant ones on this 1911 list, then there would be no need to retain this list. zoney ♣ talk 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename i suggested a rename above, but never gave my !vote, so here it is for visual clarity.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although this list topic has a verifiable definition, there is no evidence to suggest it is notable outside of the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for clarification. Are these abbreviations entries that are explained in the Britannica, just like "A.C.A.B." is in Wikipedia, or are these used in the running text, like "H.P.P.T." is in Richmond Royal Arch Chapter No. 3? --Lambiam 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have some relation to the EB1911 article "Abbreviation". Wareh (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Although I'm in favour of renaming the article, I'm against a possible renaming to "List of abbreviations used in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica", since they are generally not actually used by the EB, anymore than "A.C.A.B." is used by Wikipedia. Instead, I'd suggest "Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica". --Lambiam 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the list contains several abbreviations I don't find in the 1911 EB article "Abbreviation": J. · J.C.D. · J.D. · S.J. · S.T.B. · S.T.D. What is curious is our lede, which – apart from the first sentence – has been taken verbatim from EB, including the wording "now or recently in use" – when was "S.T.P." last used? --Lambiam 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom; why is 1911 important, and why are relying on one source for that notability? Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing special about 1911, and nobody has produced any evidence that this specific topic has received any significant coverage. Material in a book which happens to be published in a particular year is not coverage of the topic "so and so in the year such and such". If it were then we could extract any detail from any book and write an article about that topic in that year, thus producing thousands of new articles. Not notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Keeps outnumber the Deletes, this is an interesting discussion that can only get better when other than the usual suspects gather.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to some other project. While the list of abbreviations used in the 1911 EB would be useful to have in one place if one were reading the 1911 EB, this is Wikipedia, not the 1911 EB. It appears that many of the abbreviations on this list already can be looked up on Wikipedia separately, either by the abbreviations linking to pages that have their definitions spelled out or to disambiguation pages or at least pages with "other uses" templates at the top linking to disambiguation pages. Thus, if one finds an abbreviation from this list used in another Wikipedia article (say, one copied from the 1911 EB), one should normally be able to look up the abbreviation directly to find its meaning rather than having to refer to this list. I would also note that the fact that an abbreviation is shown on this list with a particular meaning (say, "R.N." defined as "Royal Navy") does not mean that that was the only meaning the abbreviation had in 1911, just that it was the meaning that the EB had occasion to use; presumably the 1911 EB made more references to the Royal Navy than to registered nurses, even though the "R.N." abbreviation for "registered nurse" did exist at the time. Similarly, the absence of an abbreviation from this list does not mean that it did not exist in 1911, or even that it was not used in the 1911 EB, since the introduction to the list indicates that it was not meant to be all-inclusive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (Mine is the first vote above, to keep.) For me, the bottom line is this. The existence of the bulk of these in a list in the EB1911 article "Abbreviation" is confirmation (of what I believe could be shown otherwise too if necessary) that a list of abbreviations of this kind is thoroughly notable and encyclopedic knowledge of the kind our encyclopedia and others aspire to contain. Second, I think it is clear that, in the ideal world (a.k.a. the eventual state of Wikipedia towards which we work and aspire), the article does not keep any title with "1911" in it, but is instead Abbreviations in use in English-language publications vel sim. This article could serve as the root source for content ranging from the history of abbreviations, different styles of usage, etc., to the abbreviations themselves, listed according to whatever organization seems best when the subject is viewed in its totality. Now, to move to my third point, I think some caution is in order when rearranging and moving this content, because we simply have not even begun a discussion (and this is the wrong place for it) of what scheme of organization would be best. My bottom line is this: (A) I think an AfD discussion is a crude way to achieve a good renaming, and may well produce a renaming counter-productive from the point of view of the topic's future development, (B) I don't feel ready to throw out or disband what is, at least, a single coherent collection (related to the year 1911)--so that if we rename soon, I'd like to see an article with several other sections with expand tags, and the current content in a subsection that includes "1911," simply because we don't yet know how better to label and divide this material. Two final little points: (i) I suspect that this content was originally part of Abbreviation, and was broken off because it overwhelmed that article, (ii) I consider the statements "this is Wikipedia not EB1911" a bit less obviously true than they seem, since in many of the subjects I edit, a lot of our articles (say Lysias) still are essentially the EB1911 and are unlikely to evolve far beyond that soon. Wareh (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that some Wikipedia articles are basically copied from EB1911, the abbreviations used in those articles can and should be linked to appropriate articles to explain them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There could be an arbitrary list for every such year. There is no point as it does not convey useful information. Xtzou (Talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hasn't been established why this particular list of abbreviations passes WP:N.Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of another case where content printed in the "article space" of EB1911 was deleted because the Wikipedia community deemed it non-notable? Wareh (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a special case. The year is special and relevant because it is the year of publication of the source, and describes the contents. If we had such sources for every year, we could well have doubts about whether to have this particular one. But to the best of my knowledge , this is the only reasonably reliable list of the sort available for the period. I would retitle it as list of ... in the 11th ed. of the EB. ,but that's a detail. We could perfectly well do it for earlier if they have such lists, there are only a few of them really important. The next good one to do it for is the 14th, and we;d have insoluble copyright problems there. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously this material is fit for an encyclopedia article.--Milowent (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UVM Latin Day[edit]

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

Insufficiently relevant; unimproved stub; will not materially enhance UVM page to be added to it Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided other than a primary source, namely a schedule of this event from a few years ago. (Amusingly, the source is credited as being authored by a "Patrick Gym"; however, Mr. Gym is not an actual person, but a building.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are better sources (i.e., UVM Latin Day), but every university presumably has yearly events like this one that attract high school students to campus. This event appears to be successful one, but still not notable.EMBaero (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsotne Kharabadze[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has never played professionally and fails WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the Soccerway profile linked in the article the subject has played eight matches in the Umaglesi Liga, and, according to its Wikipedia article, that league's organising body is the "Professional Football League of Georgia", so the prima facie evidence is that the subject has played professionally. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the organising body's name includes the word professional proves nothing. The league just as easily be a semi-professional league which would still mean that Mr. Kharabadze fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can determine that the Umaglesi Liga is in fact semi-pro and not an actual professional league the article should be kept. If it is a professional league the subject passes WP:ATHLETE.Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The onus should be on you to prove notability, not for us to prove non-notability. Giant Snowman 06:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in a top-level European league Eldumpo (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a european top-level league is insufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. The league must be fully pro, and I am yet to find any indication that the Umaglesi Liga is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athlete is guidance of course, and what is your definition of 'fully pro' Eldumpo (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fully pro league is exactly what the name suggests: a league in which all players are professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The burden ought to be on the inclusion of this article being supported by reliable sources to say that the subject meets WP:ATH. All the more so for a BLP stub only sourced to stats pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata (GregJackP (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Roberts[edit]

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

Biggest claim to notability is as mayor of a town with a population of 12,000. Lacks press coverage. Article is essentially an unsourced resume. Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. An unsourced biography of a living person. Created by a user who has made no contributions since creating the article. The photograph is also attributed the same user as photographer. This has the appearance of a promotional bio created by a friend or colleague of Mr. Roberts. A search of google news archvies reveals only a handful of passing references to him. Does not appear to have the requisite non-trivial coverage in mainstream media to meet notability req'ts. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mayors of cities of this size aren't notable by WP:POLITICIAN, and there's no demonstration that he's notable for any other reason. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only does he not meet WP:POLITICIAN but it's worth pointing out that the mayor of Solana Beach is not an executive elected by the voters. Per the city's website:
Solana Beach is a General Law City operated by a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council serves as a legislative body and consists of five Council members, one of whom is chosen to act as Mayor for a one-year term on a rotating basis.
--Lincolnite (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as names gets few ghits and reliable third sources. --Morenooso (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey W. Young[edit]

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

Unnotable, minor public official whose only significant coverage comes from the various obits (the only sources for the entire article) upon his death, and he was unheard of before then. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N.

He has NOT "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges"
was NOT a "major local political figure" nor did he ever receive "significant coverage"
Does NOT meet WP:N

Wikipedia is not a memorial nor obituary archive nor a WP:NEWS site, and Young may have had an "interesting" life, but it doesn't make him notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I see the argument, and the notability is weak, but seem barely adequate... and it is a well-done article of its sort. I see little reason to keep it but no reason to delete it...thus I dropped my PROD.- Sinneed 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what notability you see? His obit being published is not notable. People gushing about his life in said obits (which are generally not written to say "hey, look, I was just a regular person" does not make him notable. He has, as noted, received absolutely no coverage outside of those obituaries. I'd also disagree with it being a "well-done" article considering the tonal and NPOV issues. If there is no reason to keep it, why keep it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I must decline, I have a vague recollection of hitting some minor mentions when I did the PROD, but I just don't think this article is worth this much effort. - Sinneed 13:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about a figure in the field of alcohol abuse, not politics per se. The article has already survived one attempt at deletion and was immediately given a DYK line.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK doesn't mean it is notable, nor is someone removing the prod (particularly when they explained above that they really didn't see it as being that notable still). Young was not a "figure" in any field, except as proclaimed by their descendants in their obituaries. A figure is important before they die and during their career, not waxed about poetically after the fact. Also please remember that it is considered polite to identify yourself as the article creator when arguing keep in discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been over 1,200 viewings of the article as of April 21.Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? The viewings all came when it became a DYK. That has nothing to do with whether it is deleted or not, and that really isn't that many. WP:POPULARPAGE -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Paid advertisements written by family members obviously cannot be accepted as independent coverage by WP:RS sources. See [1] and [2] and note the fact that references [3] and [4] are identical. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. The article was created days after Mr. Young's death, drawing from obituaries. Sad to say, most of us aren't recognized for our contributions to society within our lifetimes. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New material found:

In 1967, however, as he was seeking a second term against fellow Democrat U.S. Representative John R. Rarick, McKeithen fired Young as his aide de camp. D. Dalton Smith of New Orleans was indicted on public bribery charges stemming from reports that Smith offered Young $25,000 to influence Young's decisions in government. After dismissal from the McKeithen staff, Young turned state's evidence. It was Young's testimony before a grand jury that led to Smith's indictment.^[1]

There is also an acquittal of Young on another legal matter, but I don't have details of that now.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention in a single paper from the 60s still doesn't make him notable, only slightly more interesting. He isn't even the focus of the article, just mentioned in relation the investigation as a whole. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than a single mention. He is also in Life Magazine article about Jimmy Hoffa. There are other sources that I have not yet been able to pinpoint.

Weak keep. Moderately notable and actually quite well-sourced, although as most of these are obituaries it does need a bit more. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes have been made to the story that should negate the previous posters who urge deletion. I am looking for more information as well. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as there needs to be clarity on whether the improvement is enough to outweigh the early policy based delete votes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a lot of reliable references indicating that the subject is notable. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources indicate that the subject meets the general notability guide. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Duplicate nomination. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gayrights10[edit]

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

WP:SOAP applies. Point of view piece expressing opinion only NtheP (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN another editor submitted Afd at same time as I did. NtheP (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ... discospinster _talk 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gayrights10[edit]

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

Personal essay, fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP. NtheP (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed above. JeffJonez (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life Application Gospel Ministries International[edit]

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

There is no evidence of this organization meeting WP:ORG or WP:N. Article was also created by the person who runs the ministry, so there is a big problem with WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING here. I can find nothing about the ministry doing a Google search other than the Wikipedia article and pages operated by the ministry. This topic does not meet the requirements for inclusion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:NOTABLE. I had a similar search experience to Nihonjoe's. Thundermaker (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Edit summary of the article's creation: "New Entry submitted by Chairman & Founder of Life Application Gospel Ministries International, Inc." That should about sum it up. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N, besides. Heather (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to establish notability, also there are several issues with the article such as COI, as mentioned above. EuroPride (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hoeprich[edit]

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

NN person, little content or context, poor sources. delete UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Nothing in the article even makes a claim that he might merit an article. --Jayron32 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no independent, reliable sources that would back up a claim of notability. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also searched of independent, reliable sources, including NewsBank and Google News Archives, and found nothing to back up a claim of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While what sources I found show that Hoeprich is well appreciated in the Scottsdale Unified School District,[5] he has not achieved Wikipedia criteria for notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps this individual should be notable for his work with young people, but at present he does not meet Wiki standards. Evalpor (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Marrs[edit]

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

I believe this article to be a complete hoax. The title "Vancouver Island Princess" does not appear to exist. References to other Wikipedia pages, while generally invalid, are particularly telling in this case, as the page used as a reference (Jacqueline Agnew) is a blatant hoax, and has been tagged as such (and will probably no longer even exist by the time anyone reading this nomination goes to check!). Author has repeatedly removed the {{prod BLP}} template without providing any references, and then when pressed, provided two references, one to the hoax WP page, and one to a website that indicates someone with this name competed in a high jump competition (where she tied for 7th place). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Speedy Delete if the BLP prod calls for such). No evidence of notability, unable to find any reliable sources. None provided. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search found no reliable sources to establish notability. Per this link, there does appear to be a high school student with that name on Vancouver Island. At best, a completely unsourced biography of a high school student. I note also that this the only article ever created by this user. User name is "Missvi" = Miss Vancouver Island? May be a hoax or joke by high school students. Cbl62 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely inappropriate page consisting of an unsourced, seemingly absurd biography of a living person who is a minor. (The only source provided does not confirm anything stated in the article, nor does it suggest notability.) Consider possibly speedy deleting this article as vandalism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. on balance, there is no evidence of notability-it would be very different if the publication were actually famous or even highly cited, but they are not even notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aging Research Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable center, part of a walled-garden created by User:Sgaran (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan). A Google search gives many hits, but most are to other centers that have similar names. The references given in the article contain several abstracts and minor publications that have not or only a few times been cited. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Imaging Microscope System. In the absence of any evidence that this meets WP:N, the article should be deleted. Crusio (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google returns 23,600 results for "Aging Research Centre (ARC)"

The Aging Research Centre created the first world wide web site dedicated to aging research in 1994. The Centre has been an important centre for research and has tried to inform the public on issues that pertain the aging research. The centre was also involved in the development of the first Automated Imaging Microscope System and has been involved with using bioinformatics to better understand the aging process. The centre has been support the publication of many articles pertaining to the aging. The aging research centre was cited or was involved in the following publications:

Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, Voelker MA, Sternberg H, Timiras PS (February 2010). "Estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged female mice". Neuro Endocrinology Letters. 31 (1): 15. PMID 20150877.
Gouw, A; Mahuron, K; Manandhar, S; Tin, A; Garan, S; Hakimi, P; Timiras, P (2009). "The plasticity of neural cell reprogramming: Role of growth factors in inducing neuroglia to neuron and to neural precursor cell". Experimental Gerontology. 44: 129. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2008.08.025.
Garan, S; Freitag, W; Gouw, A; Rizvi, B; Prashad, S; Csapo, V (2009). "Shortest path algorithms combined with natural language parsing, map pathways involved in neuroendocrine aging". Experimental Gerontology. 44: 129. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2008.08.024.
Gouw AM, Panchal H, Mahuron K, Wadhwani H, Manandhar S, Garan SA, Tin A, Timiras PS (June 15, 2008). The Potential Role of Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) and Curcumin in Transforming Neuroglia into Neurons. The Endocrine Society 90th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved February 27, 2010.
Garan, S; Freitag, W; Csapo, V; Chrysler, P; Rizvi, B; Shewaramani, N (2007). "A computational systems biology approach to neuroendocrine aging: Initial results". Experimental Gerontology. 42: 142. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2006.06.016.
Garan, S; Yaghmaie, F; Saeed, O; Gouw, A; Freitag, W; Voelker, M; Jafar, P; Kaur, J; Nijjar, S (2007). "Novel methods in computer-assisted tissue analysis: Customized regional targeting of both cytoplasmic and nuclear-stained tissue". Experimental Gerontology. 42: 141–2. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2006.06.015.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, et al. (November 2006). "Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience. 24 (7): 431–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.08.008. PMID 17034982.
Yaghmaie, F; Saeed, O; Garan, S; Gouw, A; Jafar, P; Kaur, J; Nijjar, S; Timiras, P; Sternberg, H (2007). "Tracking changes in hypothalamic IGF-1 sensitivity with aging and caloric restriction". Experimental Gerontology. 42: 148–9. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2006.06.043.
Saeed O, Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, et al. (February 2007). "Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells are selectively maintained in the paraventricular hypothalamus of calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience. 25 (1): 23–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.11.004. PMID 17194562.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, et al. (November 2006). "Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience. 24 (7): 431–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.08.008. PMID 17034982.
Yaghmaie, Farzin; Saeed, Omar; Garan, Steven A.; Gouw, Arvin M.; Tran, Tien; Ho, Jacqueline; Zhao, Liu Y.; Voelker, Mark A.; Timiras, Paola S. (March 2006). "A Study of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I Receptor Immunoreactivity in the Supraoptic Nucleus of Young and Old Female B6D2F1 Mice". The FASEB Journal. 20 (4): A536.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, Freitag W, Timiras PS, Sternberg H (June 2005). "Caloric restriction reduces cell loss and maintains estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the pre-optic hypothalamus of female B6D2F1 mice". Neuro Endocrinology Letters. 26 (3): 197–203. PMID 15990721.
Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Saeed O, Freitag W, Timiras PS, Sternberg H, Voelker M (November–December 2004). "A survey of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus of young, old, and old-calorie restricted female B6D2F1 mice". Experimental Gerontology. 39 (11–12): 1771.
Voelker M, Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Sternberg H (November–December 2004). "Protocol for higher resolution histological images of the mammalian brain". Experimental Gerontology. 39 (11–12): 1770.
Garan SA, Freitag W, Yaghmaie F, Oster B, Chrysler P, Bacinello R, Honeyford K, Yaghmaie P, Voelker M, Timiras PS (November–December 2004). "Towards a self-learning, self-assembling systemic map of neuroendocrine aging histological images of the mammalian brain". Experimental Gerontology. 39 (11–12): 1767.
Garan SA, Freitag W, Yaghmaie F, Oster B, Timiras PS (January 2003). "Phenomics: a new direction for the study of neuroendocrine aging". Experimental Gerontology. 38 (1–2): 218.
Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Massaro M, Timiras PS (January 2003). "A comparison of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged C57BL6 female mice". Experimental Gerontology. 38 (1–2): 220.
Garan SA, Neudorf J, Tonkin J, McCook LR, Timiras PS (December 2000). "Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System". Experimental Gerontology. 35 (9–10): 1421.
Neudorf, Jason; Garan, Steven A. (February 2000). "Automated Imaging Microscope System". Linux Journal (70): 32–5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)

Comment Several of the above publications are (not peer reviewed) meeting abstracts. The other articles have not or only rarely been cited (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan). --Crusio (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP [User:JohnEisen|JohnEisen]] (talk) 2:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Note: This comment was added by User:12.149.202.41. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Plus a bit of socking seems to be going on here, which should probably be looked into. Nsk92 (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm sure you know, but to keep everyone in the loop User:12.149.202.41 and User:64.85.252.225 have been reported as possible sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the absence of reliable sources indicating notability, this centre doesn't appear notable. Google News has no hits, and Google Web seems to find only Wikipedia mirrors and the centre's own site. I would have said merge into Steven A. Garan, but that's also up for AfD. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author should be encouraged to read WP:FAQ/Organizations. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no published third-party coverage about this centre or other evidence of passing WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - although an article about ARCs in general would be a good thing. Currently does not pass WP:ORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Lack of independent citatons as per nominators comments and Radagast3. Off2riorob (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bainzu flip[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an established term; at least, I can't find any primary sources for it. JaGa^talk 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of AGI projects[edit]

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

Comparison article that compares a single piece of software, itself barely notable. Pcap ping 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a comparison article that does not actually compare anything. It seems to me that this is more like a list than any comparison. Note that we do have List of artificial intelligence projects. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could've been a useful article if it had sufficient content and data for comparison. Since it doesn't, maybe redirect it to List of artificial intelligence projects if such a redirection is acceptable. --IO Device (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the content could be hosted at the AGI wiki at http://agi-wiki.org/ which will liberally host anything related to AGI --ChuckEsterbrook (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at ~1h13min of Approaches to Defining and Evaluating General Intelligence by Pei Wang during AGI Summer School 2009 proposes a similar classification. This could be a more formal basis to restart such a page. Utopiah (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Independents[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD and renomination. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N. The previous nomination was closed as keep, no consensus (non-admin closure) I am renominating it as the AfD was up for 2 weeks but generated no discussion. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – You are right…Crystal Ball…Let’s see after it is published. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I felt sure I'd commented to delete a short time ago when it was first up. Perhaps I got distracted. Anyway the result of that afd was no comments at all. This article is barely worth the time to delete. Perhaps that's why I didn't comment last time. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This book was published and this is the second time it has been deleted. It was printed and sold at San Diego Comic Con 2006. There are follow up issues coming. I'm told that this page cannot be restored. That's unfortunate and pretty sad. I wonder if this is some random form of deletion of published books or perhaps a suggestion from a competitor. Regardless, I wonder who will be the next deleted comic book. Spider-Man, Superman? Why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWilliamRyan (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (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 redirect to Automated tissue image systems. no evidence of actual notability, but redirect per Tim vikers DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Imaging Microscope System[edit]

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

Non-notable system. A Google search gives 54 hits, several of them WP or its mirrors, none indicating any notability. A PubMed search renders not a single hit. The system seems to have been published originally in the Linux Journal, not a usual venue for developments in the life sciences. This article is part of a walled-garden created by User:Sgaran, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan. In the absence of any evidence that this meets WP:N, the article should be deleted. --Crusio (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automated tissue image systems. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Google returns about 2,450 for "Automated Imaging Microscope System (AIMS)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)

~~KEEP~~Automated Imaging Microscope System (AIMS) played an important role in shedding light on the effects of caloric restriction on cell populations in the hypothalamus. AIMS was the first fully automated system that could scan large areas of tissue, reconstruct these large sections digitally, count cells that expressed different receptors and create a three dimensional volumetric model of the densities of those populations. A list of the publications that resulted is shown below:

Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, Voelker MA, Sternberg H, Timiras PS (February 2010). "Estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged female mice". Neuro Endocrinology Letters 31 (1): 15. PMID 20150877.
Gouw, A; Mahuron, K; Manandhar, S; Tin, A; Garan, S; Hakimi, P; Timiras, P (2009). "The plasticity of neural cell reprogramming: Role of growth factors in inducing neuroglia to neuron and to neural precursor cell". Experimental Gerontology 44: 129. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2008.08.025.
Gouw AM, Panchal H, Mahuron K, Wadhwani H, Manandhar S, Garan SA, Tin A, Timiras PS (June 15, 2008). "The Potential Role of Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) and Curcumin in Transforming Neuroglia into Neurons". The Endocrine Society 90th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved February 27, 2010.
Garan, S; Yaghmaie, F; Saeed, O; Gouw, A; Freitag, W; Voelker, M; Jafar, P; Kaur, J et al. (2007). "Novel methods in computer-assisted tissue analysis: Customized regional targeting of both cytoplasmic and nuclear-stained tissue". Experimental Gerontology 42: 141–2. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2006.06.015.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, et al. (November 2006). "Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 24 (7): 431–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.08.008. PMID 17034982.
Yaghmaie, F; Saeed, O; Garan, S; Gouw, A; Jafar, P; Kaur, J; Nijjar, S; Timiras, P et al. (2007). "Tracking changes in hypothalamic IGF-1 sensitivity with aging and caloric restriction". Experimental Gerontology 42: 148–9. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2006.06.043.
Saeed O, Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, et al. (February 2007). "Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells are selectively maintained in the paraventricular hypothalamus of calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 25 (1): 23–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.11.004. PMID 17194562.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, et al. (November 2006). "Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice". International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 24 (7): 431–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2006.08.008. PMID 17034982.
Yaghmaie, Farzin; Saeed, Omar; Garan, Steven A.; Gouw, Arvin M.; Tran, Tien; Ho, Jacqueline; Zhao, Liu Y.; Voelker, Mark A. et al. (March 2006). "A Study of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I Receptor Immunoreactivity in the Supraoptic Nucleus of Young and Old Female B6D2F1 Mice". The FASEB Journal 20 (4): A536.
Yaghmaie F, Saeed O, Garan SA, Freitag W, Timiras PS, Sternberg H (June 2005). "Caloric restriction reduces cell loss and maintains estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the pre-optic hypothalamus of female B6D2F1 mice". Neuro Endocrinology Letters 26 (3): 197–203. PMID 15990721.
Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Saeed O, Freitag W, Timiras PS, Sternberg H, Voelker M (November–December 2004). "A survey of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus of young, old, and old-calorie restricted female B6D2F1 mice". Experimental Gerontology 39 (11–12): 1771.
Voelker M, Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Sternberg H (November–December 2004). "Protocol for higher resolution histological images of the mammalian brain". Experimental Gerontology 39 (11–12): 1770.
Yaghmaie F, Garan SA, Massaro M, Timiras PS (January 2003). "A comparison of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged C57BL6 female mice". Experimental Gerontology 38 (1–2): 220.
Garan SA, Neudorf J, Tonkin J, McCook LR, Timiras PS (December 2000). "Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System". Experimental Gerontology 35 (9–10): 1421.
Neudorf, Jason; Garan, Steven A. (February 2000). "Automated Imaging Microscope System". Linux Journal (70): 32–5.

The editors of the journals listed above all agree that the discoveries that resulted in the work of the Automated Imaging Microscope System were important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)

Comment Many of the above "publications" are in fact only meeting abstracts (often not peer reviewed). The others are articles that have not or only sporadically been cited, not showing any notability for this system. If I search for "Automated Imaging Microscope System (AIMS)" on Google, I get 25 hits, not 2450. --Crusio (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP [User:JohnEisen|JohnEisen]] (talk) 2:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Note: This comment was added by User:12.149.202.41. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above "JohnEisen" account does not exist. Consider it a vote by this IP. Jamie S93^❤ 12:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:12.149.202.41 has been reported as a possible sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear wikipedia colleagues, I would like to update you on a issue that has become disturbing to me. A few days ago Wim Crusio and I had a disagreement over the word "Phenomics" which has been used in many scientific publications and online dictionaries. Wim Crusio has been changing the wiki entry to re-direct it to the word "Phenotype" and I have tried to keep the word as a stand alone term. After his repeated failed attempts to redirect the word to "Phenotype" he has decided to carry out a reprehensible vendetta against myself, my work and my co-researcher who passed away in 2008. As you can see by Wim Crusio's edit history on the following items, he started to delete and alter the following items, on April 29, 2010, which was directly after our disagreement over the word "Phenomics" :

Steven A. Garan,  
Aging Research Centre,  
Automated Imaging Microscope System,  
Paola S. Timiras

I hope the contributors to wikipedia do not encourage this kind of childish behavior. If Wim Crusio has a disagreement regarding an issue with any of my wikipedia colleagues, I would hope to stand by them should a person like Wim Crusio carry out a similar campaign. What I find utterly reprehensible is Wim Crusio's sudden interest in my co-researcher of ten years Paola S. Timiras. She passed away in September of 2008 and starting on April 29, 2010, his actions in altering her page are clearly an act driven not my any scientific motivation, but instead by a malicious desire for revenge.

Steven A. Garan

I believe that the appropriate place for discussions about the articles would be their respective talk pages, shall we continue there? Glad to see that you are willing to communicate. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in Linux Journal seems adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into microscope image processing or Automated tissue image systems Even with the article in the Linux Journal, the specific installation at Berkeley described in this article doesn't seem to be notable. The developments in microscopy do seem significant, but belong in a more general article. The author should be encouraged to read WP:FAQ/Organizations. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only 9 hits in Google scholar and they seem to all be primary sources (by people affiliated with the project). That includes the Linux J. piece cited by Colonel Warden: it's by two project affiliates. The absence of third-party reliable sources prevents us from writing a neutral encyclopedia article about this subject, and is also a strong hint that this subject does not have enough of a broader significance to warrant including. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources claimed above are all primary, and are not independent. Google searching returns only 37 results. Abductive (reasoning) 19:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No independant coverage as per User Dave Epstein and the nominators comments. Off2riorob (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.O. Arthur Dady[edit]

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

Non-notable person. JaGa^talk 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the google links. The name Arthur Dady returns a few hits, but not the full A. O. Arthur Dady. Nothing apart from his patents. Szzuk (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 productions[edit]

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

Article fails to meet general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for businesses and organizations dissolve ^talk 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's never a good sign when the 'company' web page is a blank page. It's just some guys home project. Good luck to him but delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have recommended a redirect to Blake Ian as it is essentially the name of his-self-publishing label. Except that the article about hi is also under AFD, and I cannot see any notability for him either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McReynolds[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced article whose author is also the subject of the article; does not appear to meet Notability standards either for politicians or musicians (there was previously a list of albums Ryan McReynolds has written, visible in the earlier diffs of the article). I have been watching this article for a couple of weeks and communicating with the author to let him know what he needs to do. At first I believed he was going to be able to come up with sources that would establish notability, but I realized a couple of days ago that he has been removing the notability tag, and that he likely does not have anything else he can add. —Soap— 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way as a mere local party official. No assertion of passing WP:MUSIC. Quite a clear case, it seems. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Soap and Mkativerata. This one's a pretty easy call. Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Zero Option[edit]

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

This is a historical novel by an Australian writer. It tells of a fictional conspiracy surrounding the shoot-down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. It has not received any significant reviews that we can find, though the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did publish an article about it.[6] The author of the article, user:Bert Schlossberg, is essentially a single purpose editor with a website devoted to the KAL 007 crash. The book does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Will Beback talk 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an essentially "single pupose editor with a webite devoted to the KAL 007 crash" says a lot about me, nothing about the issue at hand. "It has not received any significant reviews that we can find, though the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did publish an article about it." contains the word "though". I see no reason for mininizing what follows the "though" and of course there are the capsule reviews mentioned on the "The Zero Option" discussion page Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard requires that the book have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". One article does not suffice. I can't find when and where the one-line reviews were published, but if they are only a few lines long then they are probably "trivial" for the purposes of this discussion. Will Beback talk 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This book is not notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reviews on Google Books, not listed on Amazon, not listed on Barnes and Noble - only the publisher appears to have it for sale. Concerns about COI, given the article creator's links to rescue007.org, and the prominence he has given in linking to this fictional article from Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven A. Garan[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable researcher, who has created a walled garden (including Automated Imaging Microscope System and Aging Research Centre, which I will propose for AfD separately). The article contains several claims to notability. 1/ Research ("leading scientist") and publications. Several of the listed publications are abstracts. The Web of Science list 14, if the search is done on "Garan S*" this increases to 16. Total citations 8, h-index=2. 2/ Major role in the invention of the Automated Imaging Microscope System. The claim of a "major role" is not sourced and, in addition, there is no indication at all that this system itself is notable. 3/ Director of the Aging Research Centre. Again, no indication whatsoever that this Centre is notable. Note that on the homepage of this Centre, the name of Garan is linked to the current WP article. 4/ The claim to have coined the word "Phenomics". In the article that he created on this subject, it is claimed that this word was coined in 1996, but no source for this is given. In this autobiography, 2003 is given, but the word was already used before then. Even if this fact can be substantiated, it is doubtful that this single fact would be enough to establish notability. In conclusion, this biography does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academics), hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When is a scientist is notable because of publications and citations? Middle authorship on papers with more than three authors should not contribute to notability. MiRroar (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:64.85.252.225 has been blocked for repeated removal of the AFD tag. JForget 22:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have reverted[7] the edits of User:Sgaran who had pasted a copy of the Steven A. Garan article into this AfD page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google returns over 2500 Results S A Garan. Steven A. Garan is scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in Berkeley, California, director of bioinformatics at the University of California Berkeley, Center for Research and Education on Aging (CREA), and founder of the Aging Research Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)

Actually, Google returns only 277 results for S A Garan. This is a common mistake; one has to click to the end of the results listing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Google returns at most 500 hits for anything. For instance, when I just tried "Wikipedia", it told me there were about 219,000,000 hits, but then only returned 266 of them. So I don't think there's any useful information to be gained in jumping to the end of a long search; it tells you only about the limitations of Google, not about the number of times the subject is actually mentioned on the web somewhere. The estimate it gives you on the first page is more useful for counting something more meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the search term. If the search term has no spaces and cannot be a misspelling of something else, the front and rear return numbers are generally quite close. With a name like Steven, Google tries alternate spellings, and ditto with the last name. This leads to an overstating of the results. Returns max out at 1000, with Google trimming to less than that most of the time. A clear example is "Automated Imaging Microscope System" which has 12,700 claimed returns, but only 38 if one goes to the end. Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nom.02:11, 1 May 2010 12.149.202.41 (talk) Since a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and director of bioinformatics at the University of California Berkeley, Center for Research and Education on Aging (CREA), this person must be rather important.
Keep, per nom. BIll23 (talk) 1:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC
- Comment. The above "keep" comment was actually made by 12.149.202.41 (talk · contribs), the same user who left the keep comment above it, and was misplaced at the start of the debate. I have moved it into its chronological position and struck out the duplicate comment. There is currently no registered user named either BIll23 or BIll232. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rather comprehensive nomination statement. Ray^Talk 06:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:12.149.202.41 and User:64.85.252.225 have been reported as possible sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedia colleagues, I would like to update you on a issue that has become disturbing to me. A few days ago Wim Crusio and I had a disagreement over the word "Phenomics" which has been used in many scientific publications and online dictionaries. Wim Crusio has been changing the wiki entry to re-direct it to the word "Phenotype" and I have tried to keep the word as a stand alone term. After his repeated failed attempts to redirect the word to "Phenotype" he has decided to carry out a reprehensible vendetta against myself, my work and my co-researcher who passed away in 2008. As you can see by Wim Crusio's edit history on the following items, he started to delete and alter the following items, on April 29, 2010, which was directly after our disagreement over the word "Phenomics" :

Steven A. Garan, Aging Research Centre, Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola S. Timiras

I hope the contributors to wikipedia do not encourage this kind of childish behavior. If Wim Crusio has a disagreement regarding an issue with any of my wikipedia colleagues, I would hope to stand by them should a person like Wim Crusio carry out a similar campaign. What I find utterly reprehensible is Wim Crusio's sudden interest in my co-researcher of ten years Paola S. Timiras. She passed away in September of 2008 and starting on April 29, 2010, his actions in altering her page are clearly an act driven not my any scientific motivation, but instead by a malicious desire for revenge.

Steven A. Garan

Sgaran (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This researcher has no Google News or Books hits. His scholarly record is paltry, with his highest cited paper in the single digits, and he is not the first author on it to boot. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publication record and academic administration record doesn't rise to the level of passing WP:PROF. The walled garden here seems to mirror a real-life walled garden at his CREA and ARC affiliations but not big enough of one to make him notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- auto- bio promotional article, as per nominator and user Abductive's google return investigations. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with David E. Not sufficiently notable. I would have closed, except I just closed two related articles as delete & I want to give another admin the chance to see if they agree also. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navyug Sena[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, suspected COI issues. Salih (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero google hits, (well actually three including Wikipedia and mirrors). Clearly an advert for a non-notable organization. The only reason i can give for not deleting is that the manifesto is actually quite funny. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty close to a {{db-g11}} I would say. A non-political party (?!), their web site is a 404, and all that remains is an empty template on .mobi --Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable. Also, creator of the article User:Vaibhav9467 himself seems to be the founder of the organization (named as Vaibhav Mehta in the article). Seems like advertising. Shivashree (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 05:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClickStreamTV[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by COI SPA. All sources are either self-published or does not mention the company, and I have been unable to find anything beyond incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very non-notable company with some PR spam on WP. Delete. Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, should have been speedy'd a long time ago as G11. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Welding Inc[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This is basically a PR page for a very minor company. Angryapathy (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass wp:corp. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of Google News Archives and NewsBank reveals nothing to establish notability of this company. Possible COI issues as well, as the creator has never made any edits on a subject other than this company. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Belaga[edit]

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

Article on an mathematician that apparently fails WP:PROF, see discussion at WT:WPM. It was deprodded by an IP without any commentary or improvement. Pcap ping 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly minimal (mostly single digits) citability in MathSciNet and GoogleScholar. No significant awards, journal editorships, etc mentioned in his CV[8]. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has one citability with 2 digits, touched many areas of mathematics. --ukioe (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF nor has any turned up in my searching. Touching on many areas is clearly not enough for WP:PROF #1; what is needed is some sign that he has made a significant impact in at least one of the areas that he has touched on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above – Wos shows 10 papers with cites: 4, 4, 3, 2, ... for h-index of 3. This is pretty far below our typical passing range for prof #1. Not relevant to notability, but there are some violations of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR, for example the unsourced statement about what he is currently working on. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination and the other astute comments above. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also low h-index (GS cites are 30, 7, 4, 4, 3, ...), lack of references (other than his own website), and vague statements like "was active in the study of the four-colour problem" (this theorem was proved in 1976 by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenovate![edit]

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

Non-notable book. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book is the first book published by the Hult International Business School Press - Hult was ranked as the 23rd best business school in North America by the Economist Magazine - see: http://hult.edu/mba-program/our-program/rankings

Hult Press will be releasing additional books and case studies including work done as part of the Global Case Challenge with OLPC in partnership with the NGO's partners. --Innoventing (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, comes off as promotional and original research. Haakon (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to reflect above comments. More articles are being written about the book since the launch event, listing on amazon.com and official release.

Added note about review on InnovationTools.com, the top ranked innovation management portal. --Innoventing (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — Innoventing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The book seems to have generated no notice in wp:reliable sources. Google provides hundreds of thousands of hits for the word "Greenovate" but none of the top hits are about this book. Google News offers only press releases. The book was only launched a week ago so maybe it is too early to expect the book to have gained any notability; however, that would suggest it is also too early for the book to have a Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All involved editors appear to be WP:SPAs and apparently are in WP:COI. One has the same name as the author of the book. LeadSongDog come howl 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Hipco Hipco, also called Hip Colloquial, is a Liberian music genre close to Hip Hop. Hipco is Hip hop sung in colloquial, the form of English. Although colloquial English retains a lot of English syntax, it can be a bit daunting at first because it is spoken very fast, many consonants are not pronounced, and a lot of words are borrowed from other local languages. But it has become the language of choice for young rappers. And much like hip Hop, Hipco has grown into it own culture, with its own lifestyle, dance moves and music. Hipco combines traditional rap rhythms with samples of street noise and synthy background loops. Artists record themselves in homemade studios, and producers mix tracks on fifteen year-old software. Since 2000, The sound of Hipco has improved greatly with quality songs being released in and out of Liberia. Hipco, which grew from the crumbing ghettos and slum communities of Monrovia and its environs, has defied the odds to remain the popular music genre in Liberia, and serving as the medium through which rappers speak against societal ills, including injustice and corruption.www.worldhiphopmarket.com/hipco-the-living-art-liberia[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. Shimeru (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Winnebeck[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable author, failing WP:AUTHOR. Also lacks reliable sources andy (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This time, for a change, it was not me who deprodded it--in fact, I had placed a prod2. A The only published book is self-published on lulu.com. The article claims "considered as classical, intellectual works of literature." when they are in no libraries, because nobody has published them, is something I do not understand. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published author (lulu.com) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She was mentioned once in the third largest newspaper in Finland as potentially dating some Finnish dude. This has led to forum threads discussing who she is and why she is dating said Finnish guy. That is the extent of her "coverage." I doubt this can gather a single keep vote since she's self-published.--Milowent (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Only books appear to be self published on lulu.com.--Savonneux (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Association of Professional Women[edit]

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

I was googling sources to see if this was a Who's Who scam or not. All I could find were press releases or regurgitations of press release. There are some hits in google books[9], but they are all people and companies saying how they received "awards" from this organization. Said awards don't seem to have received coverage outside of the company's own press releases, aka no independent coverage to assert notability. Note the false positives with orgs that have similar names. This organization does not pass WP:ORG because it doesn't have independent third-party sources covering it, there is no way to build a neutral balanced article on this org. Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Seems to be a real organization, not sure it meets notability, and I am sure the article is a trouble magnet. If kept, I am watching it. If deleted, I won't shed a tear.- Sinneed 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like EnricNaval, I visited this article because it was linked from Who's Who scam (which is itself an article with WP:OR and sourcing issues). From my limited research on the topic, I am getting the impression that there are several similarly named organizations that cater to women's need for professional recognition. Several such groups are legitimate, but several are believed to be scams. The NAPW may or may not be a Who's Who scam, and they may or may not deserve an independent article, but Wikipedia ought at least to have an annotated list to help keep track of The National Association of Professional Women, the National Association of Female Professionals (like NAPW, this one is rated "F" by the Better Business Bureau), the National Association of Professional & Executive Women (this one gets a C- from the BBB), the National Association of Female Executives (this one is rated "A" by the BBB), the National Association of Women Business Owners (also rated "A" by the BBB), the American Business Women's Association, the Business and Professional Women’s Foundation, and others with confusingly similar names. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I turned up some interesting third-party coverage in Google. It seems that NAPW has sued Google and ten other organizations for defamation. I found several secondary accounts describing the lawsuit (including [10], [11] and [12]) and one primary source: NAPW's legal brief. Apparently the case is still pending. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name sounds like a neologism gone wrong. The article reads like no professional women have contributed to it. Perhaps they are going to sue WP if anyone says anything mean in their article. I doubt anyone could be bothered adding anything mean to the article. Being serious...it looks like a small time operation who are concentrating on building PR. I read all of the links and they are just PR buzz, there is nothing in the mainstream to verify notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only citation is a link to a BBB Business Review Reliability Report, which tells us very little other than that on a scale of A+ to F this business rates at F, largely because of number of complaints received. It certainly does not establish notability. The article contains a number of external links, several of which are not independent sources, not reliable, or both. There is one news report, but it is on a site which seems to have a lot of reports telling us in glowing terms how great various businesses are, so I do wonder how independent it is. Overall I see no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage does not pass WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The company is an active, large-scale and controversial "Who's Who" type organization. It is an outgrowth of the scandal-ridden Cambridge Who's Who (included in Wikipedia), operating under the same owner. It continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud submitted against it by its own clients and former employees. I believe such contrasting, topical info -- or a broader, more balanced presentation of the company and its controversial impact with supporting references -- would bring greater notability, as opposed to the largely promotional, reference-free presentation that currently exists. L12ra (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of that relates at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Can you give any reliable sources confirming what you state about the organisation? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was solicited for input, even if perspectives differ. Various sources reporting the above were previously furnished, and the Better Business Bureau's report (which I'd inserted as a reference) is certainly reliable. In any case, if such content doesn't relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria, why the current request for reliable sources? And how does this article or topic have less notability than the comparable Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam articles? L12ra (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A business is not notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it "continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud submitted against it by its own clients and former employees". However, it is notable if there is significant coverage in reliable independent sources of the fact that it "continues to do business despite numerous allegations...". That is the reason for the request for reliable sources. If you can give sources that indicate that there has been significant independent coverage of any aspect of the business then that is a step towards showing that it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The difference in the cases of the articles Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam is simply that they both do provide numerous sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for reporting that the company "continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud against it by its own clients and former employees" is widely distributed public records from independent complaint bureaus. I previously cited them as references. With the exception of the Better Business Bureau's report, all were removed by another contributor or editor, or (in two cases) blocked by Wikipedia, despite what I've understood to be their reputability or independence. However, I agree that additional or more significant sources would increase the article's notability, as it has for the Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam articles. L12ra (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Jones (artist)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a now defunct studio which does not in itself seem to be notable. andy (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gene Morrison andy (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is established as founder of Rockwell Gallery which is sited in numerous publications as important London space. http://www.therockwellproject.co.uk/Press.htm according to this WP: ARTIST criteria "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." (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) The articles about the Rockwell Gallery are in major art magazines such at Art Review and in national publications in The Guardian, and the artist and gallery have been reviewed in multiple places. The term "defunct studio" is incorrect. Rockwell as you can see from the articles was a noted gallery space showing high profile artists such as James Jessop and Dan Coombs. (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while he may not meet the standards of WP:ARTIST there are sufficient refs to meet GNG. (GregJackP (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per GregJackP.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. Ty 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the references are sufficient, and I agree: the guideline is significant critical attention, and that is normally proven by reviews, which are present. The argument that there are thousands of others equally notable is opposed to the policy of NOT PAPER. . DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gene Morrison[edit]

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

Contested PROD : No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a studio which does not in itself seem to be notable Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (BTW the studio only lasted 5 years and then closed). andy (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reece Jones (artist) andy (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a coverage in Guardian, BBC, ArtRabbit, Viatico. See also the section Selected Publications at this website. In my opinion, the subject has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and meets WP:ARTIST #3. He is not Picasso or Monet, of course, but the information is verifiable and the article could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from WP:ARTIST #3 is: "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." These references don't show that. For example the Viatico reference has only one paragraph on him. The context is set by #1 which is that the artist should be "regarded as an important figure" or "widely cited". Having been the subject of a few reviews simply doesn't meet the standards of WP:ARTIST. There are many thousands of good, modestly successful artists exhibiting here and there - the guidelines are clearly intended to distinguish them from artists who are "important", "major" or "significant". andy (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, our opinions may differ. No problem. This is a borderline case. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, Rockwell was a gallery space showing many significant London artists, you are incorrect in referring to it as a studio. (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per [13] and John Moores exhibition [14].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the article and as given above are sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. Ty 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3plive[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA employee of the company. Have not found any significant third-party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Biehl[edit]

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

This article appears to be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Although the murder of a young person is tragic, there is no reason to have a Wikipedia article on that person if that is the only reason they are considered notable. If the crime itself is notable, then an separate article (with independent sourcing) needs to be created asserting its own notability, and the information in this article can be merged. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our article is very badly sourced, but there are some 600 hits on her name in Google Books, many of which appear usable as nontrivial sources about her. A clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how Amy Biehl is independently notable outside of the event (i.e. her murder). WP:VICTIM clearly states "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission". I'd like to restate my suggestion that, assuming that this crime is notable, an article should be created regarding to cover the event. The information from the Amy Biehl article can then be included in the event article to provide complete and encyclopedic coverage of the case. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BIO1E: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." My opinion is that the wealth of coverage of the Biehl case justifies a separate article about her. In any case, the nomination isn't a request to merge her article with one about the incident she became involved in, as BIO1E suggests for incidents with lesser coverage — merge requests aren't handled through AfD and no merge target exists. Rather, it's a request to delete this information from the encyclopedia altogether. That would obviously be the wrong thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully cognizant of what AFD is for, I was simply suggesting a merge to an appropriate target as a potential option. AFD discusions do sometimes close as "merge to article x". If you tagging the article for rescue results in a policy compliant article, then everyone wins. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The topic has great notability being covered in detail in numerous books. The nominator seems to want someone to move/merge the content for him. AFD is not an article editing service. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not looking for anyone to do anything for me. I nominated the article for deletion per WP:VICTIM which I quoted above. How is Amy Biehl notable outside of her murder? If she is an important figure as a result of her murder, what changes in law, attidudes etc, resulted from her death? If that information was included and reliably sourced then I could understand the importance of the article, but in its current state it simply appears to be a memorial page for the victim of a tragic crime. If, by bringing this page to AfD and having a light shined on it, the article becomes properly sourced and notability is established then that is a positive outcome. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary for her to be notable ourside her murder? Isn't it sufficient that she be notable, and that there is enough media coverage about her instead of just about the event to write an article? We don't ask politicians to be notable for something other than their political offices; we don't ask athletes to be notable for anything more than their athletics. For that matter we don't ask Pokemon characters to be notable for something other than being a Pokemon character. So if someone is independently notable for being a victim (as happens rarely, but as I believe is the case here) then why would we ask for her to be notable in some other way as well? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google book search. She gets a lot of coverage in books. Its not about the crime, but what happened as a result of this. One book is titled "Forgiveness: breaking the chain of hate"‎ and mentions her story on Page 172. Dream Focus 23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many people would find this discussion quite offensive about the possibility of deleting this article. Amy Biehl did become famous due to the way in which she was murdered; however, she lived a short yet valuable life in which she inspired many people (see {Paul Theroux's Dark Star Safari for a further discussion of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addis10april (talk • contribs) — Addis10april (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - meets criteria of WP:GNP. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are out there. Especially about her having a High School named after her. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dune universe. Shimeru (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune[edit]

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

PROD declined. Zero references with which to establish notability of this particular subset of in-universe material; the title is awkward and thus an unlikely search phrase; and every incoming link is from the tangled web of purely in-universe cruft that makes up WP's greater Dune coverage. Looking for references, I've found the odd result which could tenuously be considered to cover the subject "language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune",[15][16] but the only one which directly covers any material actually in the present article appears either to be a copyright vio or the source of one (see the paragraph beginning "Herbert’s attention to linguistic detail").[17]

If a merge target which is not likely to remain an abandoned stockpile of fancruft can be found then so be it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dune universe; seems like an obvious target as it's not about any one book or character. --Gwern (contribs) 16:13 29 April 2010 (GMT)
The question is whether a merge saves any encyclopedic content. That does not appear to be the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say so. There's plenty to merge. The Voice, obviously, may already be there. The dinner party scene is analyzed with something like 10 pages of William Touponce's Frank Herbert, and it's one of the very few (only?) parts of Dune that Frank Herbert recorded himself reading; the languages themselves would go fine in the terminology list. And so on. --Gwern (contribs) 21:52 29 April 2010 (GMT)

Merge to Dune universe. Dune is one of the most notable franchises in SF, and as such imparts notability on major aspects of the work. The question remains whether the current material is verifiable and does not contain original interpretations (for example, who ordered linguistic determinism?), but I remember seeing extensive discourses on the topics of the article, and if I remember correctly Dreamer of Dune also contains some usable material, so I'm confident that is not an unresolvable issue. Dune universe is actually on the large side, but the present article is not long. --Lambiam 22:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic should be merged to Dune Universe, but the actual commentary appears to be original research. Needs legitimate references to authority before it is notable enough for merging. Sadads (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested The content is sufficiently verifiable from the primary source and is not OR, but this is not sufficiently significant for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disney XD. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (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, with no prejudice towards creating a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Romania)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The only evidence about this tv station is that Disney has apparently registered the webdomain associated with it. Considering that large companies often register many domains, to use if they ever decide to actually create the brand (or in this case tv station) connected with it, this is only sufficient to stat some discussions on fora (the only sources outside Wikipedia for this), but this is clearly insufficient for a speculative article. Fram (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies often register domain variationa they don't intend to actually use, usually to prevent domain squatters and the like. In any case, not our place to speculate on what may or may not happen someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree we shouldn't have an article on it, but it sounds like a reasonable redirect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney XD, where the Disney XD stations are listed, and where readers might expect to learn more. When this one merits inclusion, the article can be recreated or restored. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#g5. Article was created by and only substantially edited by User:Roman888 and his socks. No prejudice against creation of a new version of the article under an appropriate title with enough sources to demonstrate that the event transcends WP:NOTNEWS. Given that Roman violated copyright in almost every article he created and as a last act under his primary account threatened to continue doing so while hiding his real sources, nothing he produces can be counted safe. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aminulrasyid Amzah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS Codf1977 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article which you mentioned has been in the news recently in Malaysia in various media outlets, newspapers, internet sites and blog sites. In fact this article is of national interest in Malaysia as compared articles such as Kugan Ananthan or Teoh Beng Hock who have died recently in custody by the police.Monkeybuttgirl23 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be tempted to delete based on WP:1E, and let wikinews handle it if needed. Syrthiss (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Actually I don't mind if it's deleted, but I'm 100% confident it will be recreated and kept at a later date. The death has caused a significant uproar in the Malaysian media and has already become a political issue, much like the deaths of Kugan Ananthan and Teoh Beng Hock. The Home Ministry has already announced a special panel to investigate the shooting. This is big news, and even if the boy himself isn't noteworthy, his shooting definitely is. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Killing of Aminulrasyid Amzah. As a person, Aminulrasyid Amzah is not now and will not be notable. However, the event of his death and the actions that follow show signs of notability. Changing the name is consistent with other articles on notable crimes of non-notable subjects, e.g., Kidnapping of Shannon Matthews. Maybe it's a bit recent of an event for an article, but I'm willing to err on the side of caution here and keep it; if six months go by and the story completely fades away, then a second AfD is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and move~~. I agree with all of the above. Not an ordinary killing. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck pending me filing a SPI on the article's creator. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel best-selling music artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

To quote last AFD: "WP:UNDUE, not to mention most of this page has mostly unsourced (and likely false) claims." Also lacking in sources; very short list; synthesis. Last AFD was open for 14 days with only a neutral !vote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that people won't be any more interested this time around. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination comments at the last AfD. –Chase (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced synthesis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unverified. I cannot find sources for many of the claims in the article, leading me to believe that they are fabricated. Intelligentsium 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career. This would seem the sensible compromise having read the often reasonable rationales of other !votes. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dutton Douglas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Person who would not be notable was killed by a "pre-notable." This is still preserved in her bio, but "struck a classmate and killed him" would be sufficient with footnotes. Being killed does not make him notable. It must appear in her bio, but his name is irrelevant. Actually so are his accomplishments. What if he had been the lowest performer in the class? So what? Student7 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's surprising that this long-standing article is being nominated now, just when a book by Laura Bush is coming out in which she talks at length about the effect the accident had on her. See this story in The New York Times, for example. "Struck a classmate and killed him" would not be adequate -- it would omit the information that she ran a stop sign, for example. This article can be augmented with information from the book once it's published. Some of that might go into the Laura Bush article but going into full detail would be clutter there. I suppose this article could be moved to Laura Bush fatal car crash or the like, but that would really be fetishizing the "one event" idea. Its current title is where readers would actually look for it. JamesMLane t c 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some AfD maven's help needed. This nomination is procedurally messed up. What's been nominated is the talk page. It needs to be changed to a nomination of the article under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination), and it needs a box with links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (2nd nomination). Also, the article talk page links to the second AfD but not the first, which should be added there. I hope these tasks will be tackled by someone better versed in AfD mechanics than I am. JamesMLane t c 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be sorted, thank you for noticing this. –xeno^talk 15:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laura Bush per WP:BLP1E. Dutton himself unfortunately isn't notable other than being the victim of a car crash involving Laura Bush. Previous nominations have had people comment that to merge it would overpower the Bush article. Much of the relevant information is already there, and what is actually notable here (that he won a popularity contest at school for example I would argue isn't) could easily be contianed there. Laura Bush is a fairly large article and some minor expansion of one paragraph is not going to attract undue weight. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the accident is equal opportunity. if Laura sails blithely through 3 seconds earlier, it is Douglas who strikes her, killing her. She does not grow up. She does not have an article. It is Douglas who goes on to potential fame, marrying (say) Hillary Rodham and merits an article when she becomes President! This is not really an effort to "diminish" anyone who actually doesn't deserve it. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see the relevance of this point, but in any event it's mistaken. The accident was not "equal opportunity". She had a stop sign. He didn't. JamesMLane t c 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Laura Bush, or rename to something like Laura Bush fatal accident. Michael Dutton Douglas himself is not notable, and should not have an article; WP:BLP1E technically doesn't apply here, but we should treat it in the same spirit. The article should be rewritten to focus on the event itself, or else merged into the main article. (As an aside, I just looked up Chappaquiddick incident to see that the person killed in that event, Mary Jo Kopechne, does have her own article; however, there's a stronger claim to notability there, and in any case WP:WAX applies.) Robofish (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage of it in Laura Bush (could always use some detail while keeping it npov I suppose). The subject of this article isn't notable on his own though per WP:BIO1E. The event wasn't notable at the time, but it got significant coverage later on because politics etc. which in my opinion would be WP:SENSATION, so not in favor of a merge. A redirect to the appropriate section heading in the Laura Bush bio would seem appropriate.--Savonneux (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laura Bush#Early life and career. Well, he kinda fails the "L" part of WP:BLP1E but I think the spirit applies; this kids' name is only known in the context of dying at the (albeit unintentional) hands of a future First Lady. This doesn't rise to the level of notoriety of Mary Jo Kopechne, as Ted was an adult and a senator at the time, as well as the controversies and innuendo that followed his career forever after. A better analogy would be to Donald Turnupseed, the kid who killed James Dean; his name would be of no consequence if he hadn't accidentally killed a movie star. Let's do the same here. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Given his prominent mention in Laura Bush's new autobiography, and the subsequent news coverage of that mention, he is more notable now than he was the first two times. Redirecting is not the answer-- it's not fair to Laura Bush that her supporters or detractors would constantly be editing her biography to have more, or less, about this tragic event. For the same reason, it's not fair that this would be retitled as something with Laura Bush's name in it. As to the tired old "one event" objection, do you know why there was only one notable event in his life? Because someone ran over him with a car when he was only 17. The fact that he is referred to in greater detail in 2010 is another event entirely. But for all that, Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a reference source. People refer to Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) for the reason that they are curious about something that they have been made aware of and they want to find out more about the subject. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A more prominent mention in her biography doesn't make him any more notable in his own right since it's still inextricably linked to the fact she became First Lady 27 years later. Redirect would keep the information available. --Savonneux (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirect would keep the information available only if, having been merged from this article into Laura Bush, the information stayed there. It is completely foreseeable that Laura Bush partisans will resist including all this information in her bio, on grounds of "undue weight". Per Wikipedia:Summary style, it's more appropriate that the Bush bio have only a summary, with full detail in a daughter article. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Mellon Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

The article is about a collegiate rugby club—and the word club is key here, because rugby is not a varsity sport—and does not cite any independent reliable sources. The article has been tagged for improvement for a year and a half, so the lack of sourcing is indicative that the team does not meet the general notability guidelines. Further, there's no evidence of specific notability for winning a national championship tournament or the like. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent reliable sources are present, and none are likely to appear. The chances of a university sports club (in the American sense, as C.Fred notes) being notable are virtually nothing. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after improvement. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda King[edit]

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

Not notable except for having been an ex-girlfriend of Charles Bukowski. Hasn't done anything on her own that was covered in the press, apparently. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG as a search for her name and poet only gets 10 ghits or less. Meets or exceeds invalid criteria as her being best known for being the ex-girlfriend does not transfer notability. --Morenooso (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significant factor is not what she is known for, but how well she is known for it, i.e. the degree of coverage she has received herself, even if the catalyst for this was an association with someone else. See sources below. Ty 07:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Charles_Bukowski#Black_Sparrow_years, where she is mentioned. If sources are found (there may be ones in print), I will consider keeping the article. There is no purpose in deletion, when someone may search for her name, if only in connection with Charles_Bukowski. Some refs:[18][19][20][21] Google books:[22] Ty 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at the minimum merge and redirect). Changed to keep per above sources. There is plenty to write an article about her both during her time with Bukowski (e.g. this book - see p. 85 on) and more recently. Ty 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work...Modernist (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty's sources. Traxs7 (Talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't know if this is relevant but I just wanted to note that we do have an article on Joan Vollmer. Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, or failing that, strong delete. Notability is not inherited, so I really don't see a claim of the significance or importance of King in the article at all. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty's sources. I have added a reference to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ty's rationale (yes, I know he !voted keep). There are sources, and frankly, there's probably enough for a showing of bare notability. However, this is not a biography, and it likely never will be - instead, its a vehicle for talking about the subject's relationship with a highly notable person. Since that's what the sources discuss, that's really where we need to cover her. Maintaing this as a separate article is bound to lead to an undue emphasis on the few years she was with Bukowski. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dira (recording artist)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is a tweet about this article. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Zakka[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability in music (WP:COMPOSER & WP:Notability (people)). The body is about early developments in the selection procedure for Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and has little biographical information in the way of Zakka. While having two songs in the Greek national final for a major artist by a new, previously unknown songwriter is a very impressive accomplishment, it does not warrant notability for the creation of a separate Wikipedia biography page. Rather a few lines about the songwriter can appropriately be accommodated into the Greece ESC 09 article. Imperatore (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has since begun a career and is writing for other artists, the article just needs to be updated GreekStar12 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated. Plus the fact that the article itself seems to contain more content about Eurovision and others, than it actually does about herself.Greekboy (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Caesari[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP - Fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced (except for IMDB entry) bio of a living person. A search of Google News Archives and News Bank reveals only one hit -- an article with a passing reference to her as the host of "Best of British Babefest". See link here. Not enough to show notability IMO. Sealing the deal for me, her own web site in its "Related Articles" section only lists one article being published about her -- and it's this Wikipedia article. See link to her web site here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom and Cbl62, babefest or not. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was technically no consensus, by which I mean work on the article and relist if desired, as I am about to explain: . The present debate is too contaminated by ethnicity-based arguments, personal accounts and interpersonal conflicts, to be valid. The relevant arguments here are the somewhat dubious nature of the sources, and the SYN in conflating the events of the entire period. They're connected, because thee is no real doubt the individual events occurred--the part of the sourcing which is challenged as inaccurate is the part where some historians , particularly McCarthy, do call it a continuous series of events--and there is some doubt about his status as an unbiased expert. I do not think the article can stand as it is, but a much better case could probably be made for an article for the period from the Russo-Turkish war thru the years after WW I. This is technically a non-consensus close, but it is actually a request that the article be tightened , perhaps as I;ve suggested, that a wider range of sources be used, and then, if it still seems unsatisfactory, another AfD be held with some degree of moderation in the discussion. Emotions have been expressed sufficiently already. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims[edit]

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

Where does one begin? At best, this article is a disconnected, frantic compilation of material which purports to speaks of a genocide directed against a one or two groups of people, by varying groups, over a period of about 150 years. Let alone the fact most of the sources used are by Justin McCarthy, a controversial historian and a notable denialist of the Armenian Genocide and not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, that it is written in a highly POV wording, this article appears to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules: WP:OR, WP:Synthesis as well as a possible WP:POINT. The creator of the article has most recently been arguing to insert doubt on the Armenian Genocide article and one can only speculate that this was created to invent a fictional balance between one real event (the genocide of the Armenians) and a loose series of events under the heading of a word that carries so much sentiment (genocide).

This is just a hodgepodge collection of material which no respected scholar has ever described under so singular a term as genocide. That atrocities occur in war is undeniable, but this really pushing it. That Muslims were forced to leave after these wars took place is true but that still does not even come close to meeting the definition of genocide and the fact that the creator of this article placed a tag stating that he created this article based on "good faith" is belied by simply reading this article critically. Perhaps the information can be integrated in the actual articles themselves (provided that there is some actual discussion beforehand, given how contentious the material is) but not in a single article like this one. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you have well noted the article Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims is still being put together. You reason for proposing this article for deletion is unclear and likely not related to the article content but following some other personal agenda. The initial version of the article clearly shows with what great numbers where Ottoman Muslims subjected to extermination, expulsions and ethnic cleansing. The reference list consist of well established scholars who have published their work in reputable publishing houses. The topic at hand is interesting and is a well known fact that needs to reach Wikipedia audience. There are articles of such nature in the Wikipedia domain concerning other groups and this one shows the other side of the historical coin. Deleting it would be bias. The Ottoman Empire classified its subjects to Millet (Ottoman Empire) groups therefore the Ottoman Muslims should be treated as one group in accordance with historical realities. Splitting this article to several other articles will be wrong and historically flawed. The article is focusing on the faith of the largest Ottoman Millet (Ottoman Empire) during the decline of the Empire and Turks as being the largest ethnic group. Hittit (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarshallBagramyan. There exists no reliable and specialised source on such a subject. Sardur (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AGF. The article was less than 36 hours old when it went to AFD, and I can find no evidence that the nominator expressed concern over the article on its talk page, or to the primary author, before nominating. See also WP:BEFORE. If the concern is the use of the term Genocide, a move might be in order - which would not require an AFD. There might be other ways to adjust the focus of the article to make it more acceptable, following discussion. I think this article has the potential to inch into Synthesis and WP:OR, but the author has done a good job of avoiding that so far. The sources seem to be reliable, and the topic seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. I agree, though, that we should take a look at the proper title - is this article about genocide resulting in the deaths of Turks and Muslims, or genocide committeed by them? Just from the title, it's a little unclear - maybe there's something simpler that would convey more information? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a caveat, I would not object to userfication, if consensus finds that the article isn't mainspace-ready yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My, as well as others', previous experience with this editor leads me to believe that this article was not built on good faith. If you simply go through his contribution list, you will see that he has been fighting tooth and nail on the Armenian Genocide page, trying to discredit respectable academics and inserting information which isn't supported by anyone with the exception of the Republic of Turkey. It is clear enough that the "of" in the article title is speaking about a "genocide" being committed against the Turks and Muslims. The sources used are not reliable. Many respected historians and scholars have criticized two of the most prominent authors used here: Justin McCarthy and Stanford Shaw, both denialists of the Armenian Genocide and both who have been condemned for their shoddy scholarship (please read the criticism sections in both articles for more specific information). And even if they were, no where in their works do they even describe the acts as genocide.

For those who still are uncertain on what this much-abused word means, it is, according to the United Nations definition, the premeditated and deliberate destruction of a group of people with intent to eliminate them, in whole or in part. The information cobbled here looks, at best, like a list of war crimes but none of them can be nor have been classified by scholars as acts of genocide. You cannot find a more appropriate example of WP:Synthesis and WP:OR than that. Like I said above, the content here does not belong under a single heading and should be merged into their respective articles. I don't see anything here that suggests a genocide against Muslims was taking place for straight over a period of 150 years. Do you?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs a lot of work (and may not be worth the effort) but it does seem sourced. I think that it sahould be left a week or so, and if there are no major improvements re-consider.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course there are sources for several elements of the article, but you will find no reliable and specialised source on a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims". Sardur (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the creator: do any of the sources you have compiled and used compile the information collected into a single historical narrative and labeled these events, collectively, as "genocide" against Ottoman Turks and Muslims? If not how is this, in your mind, not a violation of the wikipedia policy on original research, specifically the portion that covers the synthesis of material? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am not sure I understand your question, however looking at the scale of killing and ethnic cleansing supported by a long list of sources how and what would you call this article? This article was nominated for deletion the moment work started on it(without even wasting time for the normal procedure required before nomination, I was informed by a tag) indicating that this is not an issue of content but rather some other more personal reasons against the author and the subject as a whole. I hope the outcome of this discussion will be based on good faith and objectivity. Hittit (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Austrians, Hungarians, Albanians, Serbians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, Russians etc. did indeed act ruthlessly during and after the series of wars that culminated in the collapse of the Ottoman empire. There were many atrocities against the Turkish or Moslem people in the territories that had been captured or recaptured. These could reasonably be described as genocide in the articles that discuss the various wars. But lumping them together into one article with this title implies a coordinated overall campaign with the intent of destroying the Turks. I see no sources that discuss such an overall campaign or objective. Without any, this is original research that collects disjointed facts to reach a novel conclusion. If the article were to be kept, it should be expanded to cover all cases where the Ottomans lost territory and the aftermath, perhaps starting with the Mongols and the Egyptian Mamelukes. But that would be ridiculous. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to keep, the article should of course be expanded to cover a broader period of history and geography, discussing all cases where the Ottomans were driven out of territory and where those who did not escape were killed or persecuted. I could make a start, but think it would be a massive fork. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ayamatth2, the article focuses on areas of the Ottoman Balkans and the Caucasus where Ottoman Muslims represented a significant portion of the population. The period stated is between the Greek War of Independence 1821 and 1922 before the Republic was established (end of the Ottoman Empire). As the new non-Muslim nation states started emerging these caused a welter of atrocities on the Muslim Millet with the purpose of clearing them out to seize their land and property driving hundreds of thousands as refugees to Anatolia in miserable conditions. There is no lumping as we are talking of a coherent historical group the Ottoman Muslim Millet and their nation state (the patern repeats clearly for 100 years, showing that this was not a one off event). Expansion of the article as you have suggested is not feasible and seems more sarcasm than a real propostion? Hittit (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was being a bit sarcastic, but the article is a POV fork. Events in the Caucasus and the Balkans were unrelated except in the broadest sense of being effects of the decline in Ottoman power. There is no evidence of coordination or common interest between the Russians, Greeks, Albanians, Bulgars etc. Articles such as Muhajir (Caucasus), Turks in Bulgaria and Albanian National Awakening cover the different events in the different territories. They could be improved. There is no value in an omnibus article with a title like this which does not qualify the subject by region or historical period, but does imply a coordinated campaign. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a classic example of WP:SYNTH in that it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." While it's probably not impossible to locate a source that supports a claim of a genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims (same as its not impossible to find sources claiming that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that it doesn't cause AIDS), the widespread historical consensus is not that such an event exists and it does not have a commonly accepted definition (not unlike the overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS). The burden of proof in this case is put squarely on the editors introducing such material and it's not enough to cite only that all of these events happened but also that they were a part of the wider event as defined by the article. It qualifies as a WP:FRINGE theory because it contains "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." This article does make exceptional claims and does not have exceptional sources to back up the same claims. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whoever has it read can see, that the whole article is a complete Synthesis. It is a collection of publications describing wars during centuries, riots, public unrests etc. and by means of Original Research and Synthesis represents a complete bias. It is a very good example of Tendentious Editing. The biases in edits, like this whole article, are long propagated official Turkish biases not confirmed by the vastest majority (if not all) of reliable sources. Leave alone, that no research is noted in the article to confirm the main lead and the subject of the article, which is Genocide. In addition the edits of Hittit are yet always been biased on Articles concerning Balkans, Armenia, Turkey/Ottoman Empire, history etc. I have once noticed that his behavior might be considered not only disruptive but also Tendentious Editing. He often uses talk-pages as places to make announcements, propaganda for 3rd party readers to, probably, "learn". This article is one other proof of the author making Tendentious Editing. Aregakn (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aregakn you have merely presented your true reasons for suggesting this article for deletion. You basically confirm that your attack on this article has nothing to do with its factual contents but the fact that it seems to contradict the view of your Diaspora and you feel bothered by the exposure. Regarding your comments on my editing I take it just as a personal assault on my character and not on the facts. As this is Wikipedia you should expect editing or? BTW one contributor has voted twice for deletion :). Personally I feel that since the process leading to an article being suggested for deletion has been violated and completely ignored it would not be correct to continue this discussion? Hittit (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV of if I presented reasons for deletion or not is of little importance when you bring no reasons. You edit not in good faith and almost all of your edits are tendentious. In addition you clearly do not differentiate personal attacks with pointing out an editors biased POV and tendentious editing or disruptive behavior. Aregakn (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of Hittit is irrelevant to this discussion which must be about the merits of the article, not about the editor who started it. We all have subjects that interest us. There is nothing wrong with that. "Tendentious" is a big word. I am not concerned about it, because the tendency will be for an article to balance out as other editors contribute. A biased article will become less biased over time. Bias is a reason for improvement, not deletion.

The question is whether there is a subject called something like "Genocide of Ottoman Turks" that has been discussed by reliable independent sources. There are books and articles that described what happened to Turks or Turkic people in the Crimea and and Caucasus as the Russian Empire expanded to the south. There are books and articles on events in the Balkan region as the Ottoman empire retreated, but the article does not cite any that pull together the experiences of the Turkish inhabitants of the region as the Balkan countries gained independence, apart from the Justin McCarthy source. Possibly there are other sources that cover the overall subject of the massacres and forcible "repatriations" of people to what is now Turkey during the 19th and early 20th century, and if so that could justify an article like this, although I question the name. But there would be huge overlap with other articles.

The only way to solve it, my view, would be to make this a strictly summary-style article reproducing the leads of other articles that deal with specific topics. I am extremely pessimistic about whether that would work. The summary-style article would quickly turn into a fork. There are far too many forks in this area as it is, see Kosovo, for example. My recommendation remains to delete this article and improve articles on specific aspects. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the same type of comments on why the article should be deleted were stated after me voting. The second part was also relevant to show the goal of the creation of such article and in this way the article and Hittit's contributions are directly connected.

As for it being a collection of cases through centuries of history and speculated by the editor and creator of the article as an act of genocide is obvious. Once again, there is no reliable source with relevant academic background cited.

The content of the article is already in various articles of WWI, Ottoman Wars in Europe, Ottoman Greece etc. It might probably be seen as adding value to them in certain cases, when based on reliable unbiased sources. However, to bring them into 1 and through OR and SYNTH make it an article referring to some genocide against Muslims is, to put it mildly, non-sense and should be unacceptable for A encyclopedia. Aregakn (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Article also fails to comply with 2 other rules for an article to have the "right" to exist on Wikipedia. The first is WP:SOAP (where, BTW, the comment of WP:TE perfectly suits) and it doesn't constitute a WP:Notability. There are clear guidelines on articles that are WP:What Wikipedia is not and it is the deletion of such articles as stated in WP:DEL [|Reasons for Deletion]. Aregakn (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this discussion is getting out of hand, I encourage the participation of more objective third parties and I do appreciate the Greek and Armenian participation and their view point that an article listing the crimes committed against Ottoman Muslims has no right to exist on Wikipedia. I believe this article has a legitimate right to exist, provided that the article could be even started before it is attacked from all directions to be deleted. As all can see work is in progress, while having to create an article and at the same time forced to defend it from premature deletion in this forum divides my efforts.Hittit (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to see that the article is voted for deletion for not responding to numerous rules of Wikipedia, as noted by many, and you also fail to assume good faith yourself towards those many editors. Aregakn (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous wp:synt and wp:pov pushing. None of the reliable sources cited support that the loosely connected events described here constitute a genocide. In fact, one of the sources cited, says [23] "the combination did not amount to anything like genocide". This article relies heavily on the book of Justin McCarthy (American historian), who is "viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate" (Mann, p. 113—debate here meaning the Armenian genocide debate); see also the criticism section in his bio. Most other sources, like Michael Mann, report what he says, but do not endorse his viewpoint. Pcap ping 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the word "genocide" is not actually used anywhere in the article - in fact, it only appears in its title - would renaming to something like Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims be acceptable? GregorB (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection with the suggestion if this will prevent deletion and ensure work can continue on the article Hittit (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll wait a bit and see if there are objections, and if not I'll rename it. IMPORTANT NOTE: this will invalidate most of the "delete" !votes in this AfD, and should lead to a procedural keep - of course, with the possibility of repeated AfD nomination. GregorB (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into Persecution of Muslims might also be a legitimate option. GregorB (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel such a merger will not work since the article is focused on a certain group, historical period and a state. It is essential that it can be worked on as an article concerning Ottoman series Hittit (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Persecution of Muslims is already compartmentalized into geographical area/historical period sections, so one more section probably wouldn't hurt. GregorB (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that merging the article Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims under an overextended section covering the history of 1,5 billion Muslims around the globe wouldn’t hurt however e.g., merging articles such as The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 or Armenian Genocide or Greek Genocide or Persecution of Serbs etc.etc. under the article Persecution of Christians, which is already compartmentalized into geographical area/historical period sections would be a problem? I do not agree with this view point since it favours one religious/ethnic group and not the other. Hittit (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. GregorB (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, as you read the comments and reasons for deletion of other editors you can see why deletion is proposed and not a merge. If you see that those are wrong, maybe you can comment on those too. Aregakn (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor, the most sensible thing to do would be to delete this article and, through discussing their validity, merge its contents onto their respective articles. Many of these events possibly took place but it's wrong to lump them all together, some as far as half a century apart, and place them under an umbrella title as provocative as "genocide".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all comments - and the nomination itself - find fault with the "genocide" motive. Since, as I noted earlier, the article makes no mention of genocide apart from its title, it is a bit odd that nobody thought of suggesting a simple rename, which would fix this problem. For example, MarshallBagramyan, once the article is renamed, your nomination will lose its single valid point. GregorB (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, unfortunately you might not have noticed the reasoning of other editors for the article being a WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, being created as a WP:SOAP by an editor with WP:Tendentious editing behavior (not in good faith) and not constituting WP:Notability (Citaton: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) which all speak of a justified decision to nominate for deletion in accordance to WP:DEL. Aregakn (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What would that conclusion be in this article? WP:OR is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Could you quote any such facts or ideas? GregorB (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly! SYNTH question of yours is the attempt to present the riots, deaths and displacement during war in the war-zone as a conspiracy and genocide against Muslims and Ottomans. OR the way you wanted to know is, for instance "Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report". First of all the Editor has described it as 3 whole nations and it is a racial/nationalistic accusation. Secondly the nations as a whole are not able to organise massacres, which the Tendentious Editor is trying to show. And thirdly, it is known and obvious to anyone that Armenians (in any form of this word) could not (as they were on the other side of the empire) and did not participate in the Balkan Wars. It is clearly an OR and SYNTH with heavy biased tendentious editing from the editor's (in this case Hittit's) side. You can see the SOAPS clearly and I hope you notice that the article is a collection of information and does not constitute an article as such. Aregakn (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aregakn, short citation from Carnegie Report, Macedonian Muslims during the Balkan Wars, 1912.;

"No. 9. LIEUTENANT R. WADHAM FISHER [an English Volunteer in with Fifth Battalion of the Macedonian Legion]. Lieutenant Fisher explained the circumstances of the massacre which occurred at Dede- Agatch; “On November 19 the lower class Greeks and the soldiers began to pillage the town together. A certain number of the local Turks were undoubtedly killed. These excesses must be explained by the absence of any officers. No. 10. BORIS MONCHEV, [Bulgarian Mayor of Dede-Agatch].This witness confirmed Lieutenant Fisher's account, believed that not more than twenty Turks were killed in the massacre, and insisted that the local Armenian porters (hamels) had taken the chief part in the disturbances". These are just few eye witness accounts, the report goes on and on... Hittit (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure! The so called "eyewitnesses" smell the Armenian nationality as there is no other way they would know it. And so all the Armenians are there to fight in Balkans and kill Turks there according to you. Haha! Abandon these ridiculous attempts. Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information from the Carnegie Report is a source in the article and as you can see with a reason. If you regard the Carnegie Reports not be valid then I am sorry, I could not find a Christian Missionary source that was an actual eyewitness account to anything, but that does not stop you from relaying on their eyewitness stories. Your eyewitness is better than my eyewitness; your plight is greater than my plight…we get it Hittit (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard to your edits and claims manipulations and propaganda acompanied with racist rhetoric in the very first edit you made when creating the article [24]. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious enough? After wasting so much time and energy trying to distort the material on the Armenian Genocide article, Hittit has decided to create a WP:POINT: alleging that if a genocide took place against Armenians, then several, decades long, genocides took place against Muslims and Turks under the hands of Christians, empires, nation-states. What he has done is that he has collected every instance of anti-Muslim violence and placed it under one heading, even though none of his sources, with perhaps the exception of fringe scholars like McCarthy and Shaw, would ever contemplate doing something so brazen. That would be similar to picking every anti-Christian event in the Balkans and Middle East over the past 150 years and lumping it all in one article under the nonacademic title of "Genocide of the Christian of the Middle East". If you can find better examples of WP:Synthesis and Original Research, we're all ears. A rename is unnecessary since this article is already a fork of Persecution of Muslims article: whatever information that is worthy of adding can be added to their respective articles and the periods in which they took place. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the "genocide" problem by renaming the article just minutes ago. Regarding the Carnegie Endowment report, it's merely a question of WP:V over WP:TRUTH. I don't think that reading of "Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians" as "all Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians" is reasonable either. I don't see how this article (now titled Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims) is any different from "Persecution of Fooians" (insert any faith/nationality/locale), provided it is referenced, stays on topic, and does not violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and what have you (and you're certainly free to delete all such violations on spot). GregorB (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to think if "Bulgarians" with a direct link to "all Bulgarians" (check the link) means all or not. you just need to see how it's stated and also, to make sure, click the link and see if it is meant to be all Bulgarians. I'd suggest not to make a point of view on the exact citation of the article but to read it as is. You also did not address the issue of the WP:OR he made on participation of Armenians (in any sense of the word) in Balkan Wars! In addition you permanently fail to address WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:Notability and forking with Persecution of Muslims IF you are supporting the preservation of the article under the current (changed) title. Aregakn (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Armenians, I don't know and I don't care. The point is this: if the WP:RS supports this claim, it is not WP:OR, and if it doesn't, it should be removed on spot. I don't get the WP:POINT and WP:SOAP complaints. If the article has a point, what would that point be? That the Ottoman Turks were persecuted? Is anyone actually disputing this? As I said: it's not really different from any of the "Persecution of Fooians" article. Forking is a purely technical issue, i.e. whether it is more convenient to have a certain content here or there, and cannot be reasonably declared grounds for deletion. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you care for, but you either have to care that you are not getting the point or something is wrong with the manner I explain, though I told the samething many times. I am showing you, that the article is created as propaganda (SOAPS) citing the racist/nationalist accusations, with false OR, and false sourcing in this case of "Armenians" participating in Balkan wars and killing Turks and Muslims there. Is the PROPAGANDA (SOAPS) difficult to understand? Should I try to explain it once again in a different way? If not and you got the point of the article is a propaganda, please recall the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states that articles having "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" which is "What wikipedia is not" where on its turn it is clearly stated that "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise" are Soapboxes which are to BE DELETED as said in Del. Pol.. Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The article is a propaganda as it cites no academic reliable source for a genocide and similarly contradics with WP:SOAPS. Doesnt constitute a WP:Notability to be a separate article even after being renamed. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I could not locate any more than one day of Wikipedia contribution for IsmailAhmedov (talk · contribs), not certain but a possible WP:SOCK|WP:SOCKS Sockpuppet? Hittit (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Note. Here is a little insight and confession for you to understand why it happened so (not connected to the deetion but the comment/note):

My Mother is Jewish-Armenian, my father is a Muslim Azeri. I was born in Baku I am muslim as my dad. Due to percecutions in Azerbaijan agains Armenians our mixed-family was deprived of property, all rights and even the right to live when my mother was killed in Baku well organised pogroms. But my and my dad's livs were still indangered and we had no place to go. And you know what? The only people that came to our support were my Armenian relatives. Armenia gave me a new home and life not allowing us to be killed when your (and my) brother Azeries did their best for it to happen. Still seems unbelivable that a guy like me could have noticed your unjust actions on the Armenian Genocide page and register to comment on its talk page and after that noticed your other propaganda and wanted to tell about it? Then request an IP check! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting story, nevertheless you have one day of Wikipedia contribution and you have spend it here? For an editor that just started to edit in Wikipedia on the 30th of April and already participated in voting for deletion on the 1st of May you sure look like a sockpuppet. Looking at what you have written your are just one vote for deletion which again is not related to the content of the article in question. You have mentioned your, mother, father and other relatives but nothing on the factuality of the article you have voted on. To conclude you have not liked something I have discussed in another article so you come here and vote to delete this one. Most of the delete votes are on the same basis so you are not alone. Hittit (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are lying I said nothing about the article. You are also faking where I contributed first. I wasn't trying to justify as your comment could do nothing to me. What I said was only for you. The rest I dont care for, neither will for an opinion of such a biased editor like you. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims is an important article for my opinion. Although, the content of article can be weak and the name can be disputed, that does not mean that the article should be deleted, it means that the article should be expanded over time and the name can be changed. The article should document the events which resulted in decline of Turkish and Muslim population in Balkans. In addition, the mass killing of Ottoman Turks is not only a matter of history, because it stills goes on, for example srebrenitsa genocide can be seen as mass killing of one Ottoman Muslim group, namely Bosniaks. Kavas (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to thank User:Kansas Bear for bringing this to my attention on my talk page regarding one of the oddest lines the article's creator has inserted. In the lead, he has used Mark Levene's book to artificially buttress the weight of his argument but once again, nowhere does the author suggest that a pre-meditated plan to destroy the Muslims was ever conceived by the European powers (if anything Leven acknowledges that the Armenian Genocide took place, [Vol. 1, p. 70; Vol. 2, p.106]). That they favored it is one thing (they may have felt more secure having Christian neighbors than Muslim) but none of this still does not meet the definition of genocide, which has been defined above. His insertion of a Greek revolutionary song in the lead is not only unreferenced but is obviously not a real source that works to the benefit of this article, and I think it only speaks of his desire to create yet another WP:POINT and yet another example of bad-faith editing on the part of Hittit.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnological Map of European Turkey and her Dependencies at the Time of the Beginning of the War of 1877, by Karl Sax, I. and R. Austro-Hungarian Consul at Adrianople. Published by the Imperial and Royal Geographical Society, Vienna 1878.

The map to the right shows distribution (red areas and shading) of Turks in the Balkans in the 1870s. Almost all were in what was then called Bulgaria. I found the map in Turks in Bulgaria, which mentions attacks on the Turks, migrations etc. This article is a fork of Turks in Bulgaria plus the very different subject of Muhajir (Caucasus). It is redundant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrite my comment here: You wrote "That they favored it is one thing (they may have felt more secure having Christian neighbors than Muslim) but none of this still does not meet the definition of genocide, which has been defined above." Independent of the name, the truth is Muslims are killed during the wars in Balkans. Muslim population in Balkans declined as a result of mass killings by Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. The process still goes on in the Balkans, the Bosniaks, the remaints of Ottoman Empire in Bosnia faced the danger of destruction in the recent war. Unless Aliya signed the treaty, there would be no Bosniak today in Bosnia. Why the discussion on the article is on the name? If the name is not suitable, should the article be deleted? Kavas (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin. I have just renamed the article to Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims. This retroactively invalidates the main point of the nomination (a valid one, IMO), and also the main point of the majority of "delete" !votes. Therefore, I'm suggesting an immediate procedural keep, without prejudice regarding a possible re-nomination. GregorB (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just barely an improvement, although it is still a FORK. We have an Anti-Turkism, where the violence against Turks can be incorporated. And we have the Persecution of Muslims article, where non-Turkish Muslim violence can be integrated. Either way this current article is just redundant.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears a bit disingenuous: if the article is "redundant", are you saying that the same content already exists elsewhere? If not, why did you nominate it for deletion, instead of suggesting a merge? GregorB (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, do not keep a blind eye on other reasons. Aregakn (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, and you might consider to integrate e.g., the Armenian Genocide under Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism? Or are there different standards for persecution? Ottoman Turks and Muslims are less of people therefore an article for their persecution and ethnic cleansing is redundant or needs to be swept aside and merged under a larger indistinguishable mass? This just goes to show that the whole nomination for deletion was not based so much the use of singe words in the topic or article contents, it is the sheer thinking of some that any article discussing the faith of Ottoman Turks and Muslims needs to be made redundant as a matter of personal principle. Hittit (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you continue advocating your OR and SYNTH of Genocide? Sorry to see it. I don't even want to regard your comparison. This article in no ways constitutes notability in comparison with the forked articles instead of wasting the time of all of us you could contribute to those the info you have hear. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Marshal Are you serious by claiming that this article in no way constitutes notability? This is one of the most notable cases and one of the first modern and systematic ethnic cleansings of people in Europe. How many million Ottoman Muslims needed to be killed or expelled from their homelands so that in your mind this article could constitute notability? Do you regard Ottoman Muslims as people at all? Your reasons for wanting to delete this article are sinister. BTW to all those who claim forking, have any of you even read the WP:CFORK???Hittit (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin The change of the article title does not dismiss the WP:POINT reason and the creation of the article as WP:SOAP in a WP:Tendentious editing manner. Leaving alone the WP:Notability and being a fork. Aregakn (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read WP:POINT? Can you explain in a single sentence how this article violates it? Did you notice that WP:SOAPS points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas? GregorB (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behaving like a "guru" is of no benefit. Sorry for the typos of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT states about the highly unfavorable disruptive editing type which is a result of "loosing" in editing/pushing a POV in one or more cases (often due to the edits' not accordance to Wiki rules). This whole article is a WP:POINT edit. You, unfortunately, paid no attention to Martial Baghramyan's attempt to clarify that point. Aregakn (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I didn't mean that as a put-down. I'm only trying to point out that citing policies is of no avail unless it is established how are they violated by the article. Frankly, I don't see a violation of WP:POINT. As for WP:SOAP, it's either #1 ("Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment") or #2 ("Opinion pieces") - but again, I don't think it's any of the above. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, can you please familirise yourself with the edit history of Hittit. You can at least have a look in Talk:Armenian Genocide and then you shall get the idea of the POINT editing. I wouldn't call the article as #2 but it was created with a SOAP goal. It is obvious from the manipulations in the article as I stated above including the OR and SYNTH the editor maid. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share your concern about tendentious editing; I dislike it as much as the next guy. I also understand that it is a problem even if individual edits are by themselves not problematic. (It makes it very hard to challenge, which is itself a big problem.) To some editors more familiar with goings-on around the Armenian Genocide, this article obviously appears as continuation of a pattern. But the problem - if any - essentially lies with the editor, and WP:ANI is a better place to deal with it. I still think that articles should be judged exclusively by their merit. GregorB (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Marshal. --Laveol ^T 22:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved the article back to its original title. Gregor, it's not in the best interest of the debate to use a technicality of a name change as a pretext to invalidate all !votes that made valid points and were policy based. The delete camp shouldn't be made to rehash and reiterate their points but it's very clear to me that the delete !votes—mine included—had an issue with the content of the article, not the title alone. A rename will not suffice to resolve the issue, please do not rename until the AfD has run its course. Enough editors are involved that unilateral actions like that are not necessarily productive. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the name change is anything but a "technicality" - please count how many times the word "genocide" appears in this discussion. By doing this, you've made the article worse, working directly against consensus in this discussion, which is that "genocide" is not an acceptable description of the subject. The purpose of this move was what - to make deletion easier? Also, your move was unilateral, while my wasn't: I explained what I intended to do, what are the consequences, and asked if anyone objected. GregorB (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, a "procedural keep" amounts to a disqualification of all delete rationales on a "technicality" that the article title was changed. Without restating and defending each individual delete rationale, much more was raised concerning the article's impropriety than the word "genocide" in the title. That you disagree is perfectly acceptable, an uninvolved admin will make the final decision based on all the rationales, deletes included. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin. Regardless of the article's name, all delete arguments based on unacceptability of the word "genocide" are invalid because the only appearance of this word is in the article title, which is a problem that can be solved by a simple rename. GregorB (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question GregorB, based on the already agreed changes do I interpret correctly that your vote would be updated to "procedural keep"? Hittit (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A procedural keep, as Big Bird stated above, is a disingenuous way of disregarding all the arguments that have been posted here, especially since all this breath we have wasted has not been over so simple a technicality as a name in the title. We shouldn't try to skirt the issue here; it's not just the name that's the problem, it's the entire article - the unreliability of the sources used, the lack of context, the mendacious and POV wording, the attempt to tie-in events taking place on different continents (!) as a uniform policy, etc., etc. Enough editors have expressed their misgivings regarding this article, highlighting just more than the title. Were I to think that this article was created in good faith, I would never nominated it for deletion. But since I know the circumstances in which it was created, I knew that wasn't the case. Simply read the article and please tell me what you think it is trying to tell you? What is its main goal for the reader? We're supposed to educate the reader by presenting them coherent information, not lump a pile of information on them and expect them to figure everything out. What is creator's point of dropping a single verse from a Greek revolutionary song, with absolutely no context, in the lead of the article. No information is given on why these Muslims were removed in the first place, in what circumstances they were living in, with what was going on in their lives when this took place. It's just a simplified, cardboard cut-out article with black and white articles: the good, the innocent, the guilty, the ugly - one entire mess that is virtually impossible to salvage.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Not all the issues of the article's invalidity have been dismissed, so the process is valid and all the votes stay. Trying to dismiss the voting through covering some of the additional comments of the vote may be viewed as an attempt to sabotate the process by those, who's votes you are trying to "neutralise". Have you informed them that their comments are "dismissed" by that change and tried to see their opinion on the voting? Your notes to admin is a POV and it seems you are trying to show it as procedural need. In addition you are not addressing the issue, that the article is a collection of information with no propper point and the Notability of the article is also questioned. If you see no SOAP by creating a new article about events not directly connected to each other taking part in a period of centuries, through means of falsifying the referenced sources and generalising ideas (SYNTH, OR) and by showing clear evidence of the Editor trying to break a POINT, collecting a bunch of info not related to one other, then I am sorry for that. But do not present it as the idea of the editors' community or try to dismiss the editors' voting through some changes in the article, that regard only the term "genocide". The voters are not able to address every single issue and sentence in the article so they concentrate their attention in their comments beside the voting to the most obvious violations and presenting the change of the title as a dismissal of their votes is unacceptable, in my oppinion. It is clear, that the synthesis and OR has been taking place in the whole article as I showed above in the example sentence, which you asked me to bring. The manner the article is written in by this very editor and the goal it has is propaganda. Quote: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." This is an article to be considered for deletion due to this and due to not constituting Notability as such. Please, do not make notes for admin trying to dismiss the "delete" voting as neither the Synth nor OR nor SOAP and Notability have been addressed to properly. The view of one editor (or a group) that they are dismissed doesn't mean that the whole community shares it. Aregakn (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin Aregakn has made some blunt accusations, which I believe are unjust and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If we start with the basic reasons why was this article nominated for deletion the moment work started on it and how it was done. Before an article is nominated for AfD there are 13 points than need to be followed (I have left out the last one since I feel it is irrelevant for this discussion):

1. Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL, which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.

- Not done by the nominator

2. Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.

- Not done by the nominator

3. If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, consider applying a tag, such as "notability", "hoax", "original research", "unencyclopedic", or "advert"; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

- Not done by the nominator

4. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD.

- Not done by the nominator

5. Check the "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

6. Check any interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may provide additional material for translation.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

7. Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with.

- Not done by the nominator

8. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. Related guidelines include "WP:BIO", "WP:COI", "WP:CORP", "WP:MUSIC", "WP:WEB", and, for list articles, "WP:CLN". For a list of policies and guidelines that can be useful in a deletion proposal, see Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

9. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.

- Not done by the nominator

10. If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

- Not done by the nominator

11. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

12. If you expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (perhaps because the article is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening, you might want to insert the "Not a ballot" template into it.

- Not done by the nominator. Evidence, probable sockpuppet IsmailAhmedov (talk · contribs)

Furthermore none of the other accusations added after the AfD nomination hold any merit since all of them are arguable and should be discussed in the article’s talk page, AfD should not be used as a discussion forum.

P.S. "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion"

- Not done by the nominator

Hittit (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

I pasted in some stuff from other articles. Click "[edit]" on Muhajir (Caucasus) to see a possible way to handle forking. I am extremely pessimistic about whether this works. The Balkans seem to be full of forks. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your statement in the form of your vote here, no need to go further and vandalise the article, contribution is welcome lets discuss it in the talk page on how we can expand Hittit (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The strategy here seems to be: create an article with innumerable problems, promise to fix one of them (the title) and, voilà, the AfD is invalid. Pcap ping 11:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible canvassing as per [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Although editors are invited to "participate" in the article, it's reasonable to assume that the AfD notification will be one of the first things they notice on the article. Hence it seems a thinly veiled invite to !vote here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Canvassing BigBird with all the respect an invitation to contribute to the article cannot be seen as canvassing. However since you are due diligent you must have noticed the clear case of canvassing by Aregakn (talk · contribs) where he has made sure to inform that there is a vote for deletion and invited participants some of which have directly contributed to the delete vote [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Would you comment on that please? Thank you for your alertness on this matter. Hittit (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very ironic to see that while you are accusing Aregakn of canvassing, you yourself have now just gone and done precisely the same exact thing! Regarding the litany of things that I, the nominator, forgot to do: your destructive behavior in the past month or two has persuaded me that you are not interested in creating articles with the specific goal of informing your readers.

Your activity on the Armenian Genocide article violated virtually every statute one could think of: WP:vandalism, WP:POINT, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, etc. etc. And after being ruled out each time, you now have decided to further deceive readers by cobbling every instance of anti-Muslim violence, supported by non-reliable sources to say the least, over the past 150 years and place it all in a single article titled "genocide".

Let us just dissect the first sentence in the lead: rather than defining what exactly the "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" was, Hittit has started off this article as if it's a college paper: "As the Ottoman Turkish Empire entered a permanent phase of decline in the late 17th century it was engaged in a protracted state of conflict loosing territories both in Europe and the Caucasus. The victors were the Christian States the old Habsburg and Romanov Empires and the new nation states of Greece, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." That presents the reader with absolutely no context whatsoever. Why did nations like Greece and Serbia emerge in the first place? These nations could no longer tolerate living as second-class citizens and by the 19th century, things came to the boiling point, where rebellions were launched to shake off Ottoman rule. Why do we see in the lead a Greek Revolutionary song? Where is it source? Where is the context?

The thesis of this article is untenable since virtually no scholars support it, and I am convinced that Hittit created this article only after seeing the futility of creating any doubt on the Armenian Genocide. i.e., to make a WP:POINT. His actions are highly reminiscent of what the Republic of Turkey currently does now when it wants to deny the Armenian Genocide: it says rather than the Ottoman Empire committing a genocide against its Armenian population, it was rather the defenseless, civilian Armenian population that launched a genocide against the Turks! Some attempts have been suggested to salvage this poor excuse for an article, but I don't see them as viable. There are too many problems that have been highlighted, not least because it is desperately grasping at straws (150 years of ethnic cleansing + deportations + nationalism + massacres + a Greek revolutionary song = a mess) to put together something that respectable academia clearly does not support. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and maybe merge all salvageable content into more appropriate, existing articles) - whether we call it Genocide or ethnic cleansing or whatever other name - we should not have articles on fringe theories, that are synthesized from some isolated sources. If there is some serious debate about historians on a genocide of Ottoman turks then we might reconsider having an article, but at the moment no. Pantherskin (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such thing as a genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims, it is as simple as that. --Davo88 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People will come up with any piece of progaganda that suits their views these days. - Fedayee (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. It is obviously, most supporters of this article to be deleted is armenians. I don't see why, this article should be deleted, when there is a lot of strong evidence available in internet.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is hoax, so it should be deleted. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The final phase of genocide is denying it ever happened and blaming the victim. This is a perpetuation of the christian genocides by ottoman turkey and seeks to blame the victims of kemalist policies of genocides. In addition the article titled "Turkish Genocide" has been deleted several times already.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With such a strong Armenian and Greek contribution for deleting articles focusing on the historical plight of Ottoman Muslims no wonder articles have been deleted (as this AfD shows). Nevertheless this is not a ballot or a football match, I have confidence the admins will take into consideration the long list of references and the systematic and planned cleansing of Ottoman Muslims during the period in question. There is a reference on each statement and multiple authors confirm the same pattern, the article clearly meets the notability guideliness. If articles such as Persecution of Serbs or e.g., the Persecution of Rastafari are eligible for the Wikipedia domain then surely the persecution of millions of Ottoman Muslims cannot be overlooked. I find claims sich as; propaganda or not supported by a respectable academia to be absurd. Armenians are mentioned with one word in the article, however looking at the comments on this page, one gets the feeling that Armenians play a greater part in the article, I do not know what to call this behaviour. For Marshal, your comment: “These nations could no longer tolerate living as second-class citizens and by the 19th century, things came to the boiling point, where rebellions were launched to shake off Ottoman rule. Why do we see in the lead a Greek Revolutionary song? Where is it source? Where is the context?” So these nations could no longer tolerate and they obliterated (justifiable to you?, the Muslims had it coming? not worth or notable for the Wikipedia space?), what you call a “shake off” many scholars identify as massacre, exodus, slaugher and ethnic cleansing. Regarding the sources let me know what you mean on the article talk page. Hittit (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So show me one English scholarly source that states this was a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims". What you do not realize is that by creating this article you have only given impetus to articles that DO have scholarly sources calling their events a genocide. Not to mention, other articles, such as Dersim Genocide, will also benefit from this article's creation. And since ethnic origin is SUCH a big deal with you and NovaSkola; I'm Scottish, English, French, German, and Irish. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas, you might have missed the discussion above, however if it is the word “genocide” you are voting on, I have already stated that I have no objection for renaming to “Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims”. This should have settled it. Would you have some other objections? Hittit (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you created this article without one English scholarly source stating this was a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a consensus for "persecution" instead of "genocide", and there's no mention of genocide in the article body anyway, so let's drop the "genocide" debate, no need to beat the WP:DEADHORSE. GregorB (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide or persecution, there's not a single reliable source treating these various and distant events as a whole. This article, whatever its title could be, is WP:OR. Sardur (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly you have not presented any links of these all being both planned and systematic acts. The wording and methods you use and rules you break (OR, Synth, etc.) are there to show why it is a SOAP (what you said seems absurd to you). Also with one word and 0 context you made all Armenians (as a nation) participating in some actions your propaganda-article wants to imply. These all (and as a prove the perception and understanding of the ideas in your article by readers and voters) confirms it to by nothing but a biased POV and SOAP with all the above-mentioned rule-violations. And once again, even in your comments, your perception of nationalities start playing good and bad roles: "With such a strong Armenian and Greek contribution.. no wonder articles have been deleted". You not only you accuse the national belongings but also the administration in supporting it (though it is the opposite). Aregakn (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aregakn to you I suggest to familiarise your self with WP:AADD. Furthermore, if you didn’t like the wording of a sentence why didn’t you attempt to present a rewording in the article, instead of a direct delete of the whole article? Hittit (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Rainbow[edit]

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

This were undeleted after an IP wrote "Every playmate deserves to have an article. They may not meet the porn critera, but that's because they aren't porn in the first place. They are an American Icon and part of history itself." Since it was prodded originally, I am sending it over to AfD. I do not believe that the article meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Fails GNG and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates, due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.160.132 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' I agree they are all essentially american cultural icons. A simple standard of keeping them all is the easiest way to deal with it, and the fairest, and does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG and all relevant specialized guidelines. I don't even see a reliable source for the claim that the name given is the article subject's actual name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the General notability guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Del Monte[edit]

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

This were undeleted after an IP wrote "Every playmate deserves to have an article. They may not meet the porn critera, but that's because they aren't porn in the first place. They are an American Icon and part of history itself." Since it was prodded originally, I am sending it over to AfD. I do not believe that the article meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Fails GNG and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates, due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.160.132 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' I agree they are all essentially american cultural icons. A simple standard of keeping them all is the easiest way to deal with it, and the fairest, and does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, she is just not wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bibby[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contrary to the nom’s assertion that there is no coverage for the subject, I have found references in support of the subject's notability, including this 3rd party review of Bibby’s sci/fi-humour novels; this book review; and this link to Fantastic Fiction which has a bibliography of James Bibby's books, with the latest releases, covers, descriptions and availability. Also his IMBD page also confirms that he is a TV writer, further verifying his notability. This is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Andy14and16 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just successfully hit 4 out of 4 plainly unreliable sources. Anyone can write a review on iTrackmine (FAQ page); Fantastic Fiction is a self-described family website - who knows how they verify their content; the spelling errors kind of give away Edlin as being unreliable; and it is a long-standing consensus that IMDB is an unreliable source. Not the stuff upon which encyclopaedic articles can be built. Certainly not for biographies of living persons. Your dogged attempts to save this article from deletion are valiant, but please have due regard to our requirements for sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in depth by secondary sources as required by WP:N. I know that WP articles are not required to be interesting but this one is a good example of uninterestingness being a side effect of being unnotable. The article says nothing but that he's a writer and lists his books. Having said all that I wish him well in his career. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It currently reads: "This resulted in an invitation to join the writing team on Three of a Kind (TV series), and then O.T.T. (the adult follow-up to Tiswas)." Did the invitation result in him working for either or both of these two notable shows? If so, he is notable enough, based on his work. If not, the hell with him, I don't see him listed anywhere else. Dream Focus 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was a writer for both of those notable shows, so he is notable WP:CREATIVE. Andy14and16 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE requires that "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.". Being a writer for two TV shows doesn't necessarily meet this requirement, there has to be some indication that those have been very well recieved by independent sources such as a lot of reviews, a book or movie adaptation, etc. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he has been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. None are cited as yet. Notability is primarily about sources, the guidelines describe the kind of people who will probably have sources, they are not a magic wand to prevent deletion of articles without them. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, policy is law in Wikipedia, the guideline are just suggestions to help people make a decision. This person has met the Wikipedia requirement of WP:Verify. Their notability is determined by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment. Dream Focus 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources that establish notability. Blogs, fanzines and IMDB don't really cut it. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources can be found. personal websites and databases aren't enough to meet Wikipedia standards, which most editors support, even in this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found establishing that he passes either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan-Air Flight 045[edit]

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

This is not a notable aircraft accident. There were no injuries to any of the occupants and the damage was fairly minor; the aircraft was repaired and subsequently flew for a number of years YSSYguy (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Someone needs to mentor the incredibly prolific creator of this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Hawker Siddeley HS 748#Accidents and incidents. This isn't article-worthy, but it was one of at least four cases of the HS 748 overshooting the runway. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cam be adequately covered in the articles on the aircraft, operator and airport. Not notable enough to sustain its own article. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRCC Asia Ltd.[edit]

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

Non notable company - the only ref's to in the links given are in passing. Codf1977 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable recruiting agency. Google News knoweth it not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikiforos Bithoulkas[edit]

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

Has been sitting there with a {{db-a7}} tag for almost two days, making a mockery of the speedy deletion process. This indicates to me that the article at least is not obviously speediable, therefore I bring it here. The apparent rationale is lack of Notability.

Note: this is a procedural nomination, I remain neutral. Pgallert (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to The X Factor (Greece series 2); no evidence of notability outside of that show provided or found in a search- though I'll admit I do not read Greek. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this guy is notable only in the opinion of the article's author, who also added him to the relevant navbox. A search in Greek [36] brings up five hits, from Facebook and Youtube. Constantine ✍ 10:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he was not the winner of The X Factor (Greece) there's no reason for a quick creation of his page. However, he is amongst a handful of contestants who did get signed right after the season ended, therefore some potentially notable music maybe on the way. Until his expected career takes off, his page does not meet notability for (English) Wikipedia. Imperatore (talk)
Comment: As far as notability goes, he is signed by a major recording label, has released a single that is already charting, has finished recording his first studio album which will be released soon, and is going on tour this summer with one of Greece's leading artists starting May 14th. Also, the google search mentioned above didn't bring any hits as it's neither his correct name or his stage name. Try googling him by his first name and his single. [37] אנדרוניקי (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 by User:Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to make mold by pouring way ?[edit]

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

"How-to" instructions, unlikely to develop into a successful article. Jminthorne (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Completely incoherent, bad page title, fails WP:NOTHOWTO. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 07:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:CSD#A1 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under db-context. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't sure if this qualified for a speedy delete. Jminthorne (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coverage is a bit scant, but the weight of the discussion indicates that it is sufficient for an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lincoln Crume[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All of the coverage appears to be trivial and not substantial. The only assertion of notability is that she was related to the U.S. president and that he mentioned her in an autobiographical piece, but that is not sufficient. ALXVA (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, she is only his aunt, not notable enough. CTJF83 chat 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Lincoln used her life as an example in his campaign, and 5 books about Lincoln deal substantially with her, she's notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's probably notable enough for a standout. None of the facts in here cannot be verified in reliable sources, and I've found mentions of her in a sufficient amount of sources to warrant a standalone article. There would be valuable pieces of verified scholarship applicable to Lincoln that would be lost if this was merged back to the article on him. Them From Space 07:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources appear to be there, particularly taking into account the see also section. The article would benefit form someone tracking the sources down and expanding it, but I'm not seeing any reason it needs deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the facts asserted in the article even if true would meet notability. Lincoln "highlighting" a relative wouldn't seem to be enough. And the coverage in the source cited for that assertion seems minimal at best. That does not mean she is not notable, but it is not at all clear that the sources referenced have any substantial (or more than passing) mention of her. A search for Mary Lincoln or Mary Crume in the Harrison book does not look promising either. ALXVA (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak on that it needs more improvemnets) I think the risk though is that it assumes notability is inherited. However, she as has been said by the others played a signifigant role in abes election, for that i think shes notable. but this article needs serious clean up and verifiability still Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't even claim that she played a "signiicant role" in Lincoln's election. Furthermore, as I noted in my comment above, the one source cited for her having played any role seems to be trivial, and also is original research. ALXVA (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Keep is weak, and i admit that fully. I would however endorse Mergeing and re-directing with Abraham Lincoln (captain) I think that would be appropriate considering the majority of the family history is in that article, and there really is only inherent notability going on here, and one event it seems. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tegan and Sara Tours[edit]

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

I don't think an encyclopedia is the place for a list of tour dates and venues. I don't know of anything notable about past tours, and if there is something, it could be mentioned in Tegan and Sara. Klubbit (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence that their tours inherently meet WP:GNG. There's really not much information in the article, and anything worth keeping could be folded into the Tegan and Sara article. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the group is plenty notable, to the point that I don't think an article on their tours would be unreasonable, but there's nearly no content here. I'd happily vote keep if someone was willing to clean this up into a genuine encyclopedia article, but as it is it wouldn't be a crime to delete it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Future tour dates are promotional material. For historical context, past tour dates belong in a database, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a database. I've elaborated other issues that I won't repeat here, to avoid confusion.[38] Piano non troppo (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Action Coalition[edit]

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

Non-notable, recent organization. Sources do not actually discuss the organization. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows the organization is notable. Most of the article talks about the issue they are concerned with, hence WP:Coatrack.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Polygon[edit]

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

All I can find in terms of coverage is a few trivial mentions, such as an XXL article, but nothing one could call significant coverage. Also, no major label deal, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has what looks at a glance like an impressive list of references. However, as far as I can see all of them suffer from one or more of the following defects: (1) not reliable source (eg blogspot post) (2) not independent of the subject (3) does not in fact support the assertion in the article to which it is attached. There seems to be no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Cassidy[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Delete (weak) Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? OTOH, 'first outdoor shoot in 10 years' (or whatever that was) raises notability a little. David V Houston (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates)----Milowent (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: In addition to the comment above, which I have repeated in some form or fashion on the parade of recent Playmate AfDs, I wanted to note that I added a feature in an Argentina newspaper about her, and another editor below seemed to locate one in Russian that is beyond my translation skills. There is another feature article on her already cited.--Milowent (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article is sourced and one of the two primary ones (University Chronicle) is independent of the subject, though I'd like to see more sources used. Tabercil (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepper Off2riorob and Tabercil. For the record, I don't read that. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By longstanding general consensus despite a rather obscure attempt to overthrow it in a local decision, which the community is clearly rejecting. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About 30 people commented in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010#RFC: Every playmate is notable, while about 15 people have commented in this series of AfDs. If anything, these AfDs are the obscure local decisions. Epbr123 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both are 'obscure' if you consider the number of active editors on wikipedia. What we do know is that subsequent to one "delete" in mid-2004 (article was later recreated and has existed for 5 years), an AfD for a Playboy playmate has not resulted in a "delete" close in almost 6 years.--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a Playmate, which is notable whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not, has reliable secondary sourcing. More would be better, but there it is. Dekkappai (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage found isn't quite enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant levels of coverage to pass GNG and fails PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know Spanish? If so, these links might help. And then there's this which is in a language that I don't recognize. Warning: NSFW. Dismas|^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last link appears to be a feature on her in a Ukranian source published in Russian.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The El Argentino article (a m-f Buenos Aires tabloid paper) is about how she is unusual because she doesn't have breast implants. I have added the cite to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this award is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Them From Space 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, limited news coverage is not substantial enough to satsfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer and Natalie Jo Campbell (almost all keeps) shows how the vote count of these playmate AfDs is highly dependent on which editors happen by.--Milowent (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for AfD in general. Although in this case, it actually depends more on whether the Playmate meets GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Dismas|^(talk) 07:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standard WP:BIO1E case. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is now into day 9, and is one of only 2 left open from Apr. 20 noms, the other being another playmate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rae Young. I'd say this is a no consensus to delete case (note: 3 very brand new playmate articles were closed delete). There are a ream of other playmate AfDs to be concluded in the next 2 days.--Milowent (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears from a few comments above, that there might be some additional research ongoing. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These articles about rather unknown playmates should be rolled up into one larger article. Coopman86 (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's the problem. Step 1: remove being a Playmate from WP:PORNBIO. Step 2: .... Step 3: AFDs! There was no step 2. Yes, probably a lot of Playmate articles could be treated in table form in a master list with no loss of data; but even their weights and measurements and trends involving those stats has been studied many times. There was no plan to deal with the information in the separate articles about Playmates for whom that's their only claim to fame, and until such a plan exists I think bulk article deletions are premature. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The history is quite comedic. As far as I can tell, PORNBIO said nothing about playmates always being notable until April 2009, when it was added, presumably in light of every AFD in the prior 4+ years ending in a keep. Then when it was taken out, it was treated as if it was a change in consensus instead of PORNBIO merely not reflecting whether there was a consensus either way (as it was before). In my opinion, these AfDs are a waste of time because any deleted playmate articles are being covered in List of Playmates of XXXX articles, and no information is being deleted. So now we have a more haphazard organization system, though via redirects it will be accessible.--Milowent (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for Pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. 02 May 2010
Keep Passes GNG. I'm inclined to give that even more credence than normal based on the sourced being from multiple continents.Horrorshowj (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ...Seriously, the Venus de Milo? Shimeru (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rae Young[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? David V Houston (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also other AfDs of 2010 playmates)--Milowent (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh screw it. Reliable source blurbs mention her public appearances as a playmate because that's her notability. There's also enough coverage here [39] about her as an import model to add a couple of lines to her bio so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she passes GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas|^(talk) 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Morbidthoughts and WP:OHSCREWIT. Dekkappai (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By longstanding general consensus despite a rather obscure attempt to overthrow it in a local decision, which the community is clearly rejecting. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this distinction is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Them From Space 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, had no idea about that RfC because I never edited or watchlisted playmate articles or wherever they are discussed. When I saw the mass AfDs, I looked into this RfC change. I don't see that RfC as showing a strong consensus anyway. And the RFC closer nom'ed a lot of these recent AfDs i think.--Milowent (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is now into day 9, and is one of only 2 left open from Apr. 20 noms, the other being another playmate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Cassidy. As I just commented on that one, I'd also say this is a no consensus to delete case (note: 3 very brand new playmate articles were closed delete). There are a ream of other playmate AfDs to be concluded in the next 2 days.--Milowent (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could use a bit more to hash out a consensus one way or the other, and if not possible, then to determine if it should be closed as no consensus at that point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for Pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates, due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. 02 May 2010
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no significant news coverage, no cited film/TV roles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goat (band)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. mono^{National Pretzel Day} 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom... not notable.. Traxs7 (Talk) 06:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source is apparently musicbrainz.org, which lists hundreds of thousands of artists, whether they're notable or not. There are 22,000+ just beginning with the letter G, some of which one might recognize, but most probably not. As a wise man is now saying, "Wikipedia is not musicbrainz.org". Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable enough Shorngenius (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number one Much Music Countdown videos of 2010[edit]

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

Notable? Really? Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Music-dedicated channels have constant lists of the top 10 videos or top 100 celebrity gaffes or top 20 dead hookers. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No articles on previous years number one videos on Much Music exist. Why start now? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to recreation if sources are discovered. Shimeru (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T2 SDE[edit]

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

I fail to see where the wp:notability comes from here. Can't find anything in google books about this software. All references in the article are wp:primary or automatically generated package entries. Pcap ping 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. --Darkwind (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (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) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's notable all right (if it's not maintained anymore, that's another issue, no need to delete it in this case IMHO. --Vlad|-> 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegarde Naughton[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. Fails WP:Politician and also fails WP:GNG. Snappy (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - only because User:Fergananim is so good on Galwegians, and you'll get more out of this girl than you will out of Hildegard of Bingen.Red Hurley (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable councillor. I think it has been well established through past AfDs that Galway City Councillors don't cross the bar (having myself argued for the other side in the past). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2010 (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) 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable local councillor on a council of a small city. No other claims to fame that would meet notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajam[edit]

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

Enormous DictDef; probably valuable for en: Wiktionary, which has no pages for ajam or ajami, so Transwiki to Wikt & delete from WP. Jerzy•t 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on reconsideration, there is a topic here although the article could be use a helthy cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an encyclopedic entry [40] in Eir (Iranica) and EI Encyclopedia of Islam. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (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) 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An enormous WP:DICDEF indeed... with derivation, historical overview of usage, references to a number of reliable secondary sources as well as to primary sources, and notes on usage outside the main definition, even as it changed over time. Would have to be trimmed of most of these to be included in a dictionary, as in its current form it would be more appropriate as an encyclopaedia article.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Peachbones[edit]

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

This orphaned article deals with a non-notable band and contains zero references. It is also written in a tone that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Despite having long been tagged for its many issues, few changes have been made to make it an appropriate encyclopaedic article. Primarily, I can find no evidence of this band being notable. It seems to be an overly-romantic biography of a non-notable band written by one of its members or fans I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. No references provided in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify no significant coverage found, meets non-notability unless and until suitable sources state otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 10:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Golub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim & Jean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tim & Jean

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

Non-notable music group lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN band, only trivial G News CTJF83 chat 04:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - No album, recorded their Myspace music in their bedroom, played at a festival...not very impressive. I found this article however, that states one of their songs "has already spent a significant amount of time dominating the airwaves of Triple J, a popular Australian radio station.", which may meet WP:BAND #11. This article, along with the one already cited in the article, is getting close to enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I think I'd say keep if I could see a couple more articles about them in reliable sources. My guess is they're up-and-coming, but not quite there yet. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#11 says nationally...and it isn't clear from the article if they are played in rotatoin (other 11 requirement) or if it was a one time airtime donation. CTJF83 chat 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know it's iffy, which is why I can't say keep here until I see more evidence of notability. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have also chosen as support for Moby and played concerts in Los Angeles and New York. Contrary to what the article says, they weren't the winners of Unearthed High, Howl (Australian band) were. The winners did get rotation but I've seen no evidence other finalists did. Tim and Jean did get some local interest coverage from Mandurah Coastal Times: "Teen duo playing the high note", 23 September 2009; "Jamming sweet for Tim and Jean", 9 December 2009. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photocamp Utah[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable event; no third-party sources and none found. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something significant is found. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2010 (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) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN event, no coverage even on the Salt Lake City Tribune site CTJF83 chat 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of this event in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Scholz[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week March 25, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I corrected and added information and sourcing to the article. He had 2 good placings in the European judo championships--2nd in 1969 and 3rd in 1970, but I don't think that's quite enough to pass WP:ATH. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Note that the German Wikipedia article 'Sport in the DDR / Judo' has an empty link to Dieter Scholz.[41] jmcw (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (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) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the subject's name does appear in various sources, I have not found anything that strongly supports notability. Janggeom (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The 7th Dawn. No arguments to keep and no sources after two weeks. Deleting until sources are found, and establishing a redirect to the film as suggested, as a possible search term. If sources are found, the article can be recreated with a hatnote. Shimeru (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Dawn[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not my area of expertise, so I'm not voting, but redirect to The 7th Dawn if it is undeserving. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Salvador (band)[edit]

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

the closest thing this band has to a claim to notability is being formed by former members of Sounds Like Chicken and someone who went on to join The Middle East which imo is not enough for wp:music. the band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, having looked on google and factiva. a redirect to the Irish band of the same name made sense to me but was reverted, justified by a member joining another band sourced by myspace. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looks like I misread Wikipedia:Notability_(music)'s Criterion 6 for musicians and ensembles; so yes, the current state of the article doesn't show notability. It is still possible they meet that criteria if Dave Powys' musical prolificness extends to reliable media sources. If that can't be found within a couple of months then my vote will be for deletion. While it may have to you, redirecting to an Irish band that displays even less notability doesn't make any sense to me. Kineticpast (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hadn't looked at Irish bands article, I've prodded it now, a redirect to Sounds Like Chicken would have been better. Looking for coverage for Dave Powys finds only listings unless he is the Powys from yachting. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does get deleted it would make sense to move the content about the crossover song to Sounds Like Chicken's article. Kineticpast (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any useful content to Sounds Like Chicken, which while not ideal, is really the only place for this content. It does not meet WP:MUSIC otherwise. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Like a Cannonball to the Ocean Floor[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Notability_(music) implies any official release of a notable ensemble is itself notable, I don't see a need for independent article and vote for deletion as there is little information. Kineticpast (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any useful content back to the band's page, as is customary in these cases. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sounds Like Chicken. No notabililty shown. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Bullet to the Grave/El Chupanebre (single)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Take a Bullet to the Grave/El Chupanebre (single)

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

no real notability shown for this single, being played on radio doesn't make it notable. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Notability_(music) implies any official release of a notable ensemble is itself notable, I don't see a need for independent article and vote details be editing into artist's article THEN deletion. Kineticpast (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly Going the Way of the Chicken (EP)[edit]

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

limited edition (700 copies) independent release lacking coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating from the same band another independent ep release lacking coverage in independent reliable sources.

While Wikipedia:Notability_(music) implies any official release of a notable ensemble is itself notable, I don't see a need for independent article and vote details be editing into artist's article THEN deletion. Kineticpast (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for tracklistings though. Kineticpast (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect anything useful back to the band's page; standard treatment for weakly notable albums by notable groups. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Davis (flute player)[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable sources that I can find. There's a saxophonist and several other people by the same name that show up in searches, though. The article originates in dewiki, but contains no sources there either. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found these sources which do pertain to this person, [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and added them to the article. The last 2 are from newspapers. Having said that, they are basically background biographies for upcoming concerts. I don't think this is enough to establish notability in the sense of a significant career or impact, but I could be wrong. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a review here, reprinted from the Schwäbische Zeitung. Reviews in the German press tend to be hard to find as they are often behind a paywall. - Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would have said keep, but those sources are not spread throughout article with proper formatting. We wouldn't know they are in German because they are not properly formatted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jafeluv has kindly formatted the references and linked them to the statement in the article. There's very little to "spread" since, apart from the list of records, the article consists of only one sentence. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO #1; the sources are reliable and independent, the article is expandable and verifiable. The information could be useful for people interested in the German jazz scene. Thanks to Voceditenore for the research. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2010 (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) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are sufficient, and that they're in German does not make any difference. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore and DGG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The is general agreement that the article is of poor quality at present, but there is no consensus to delete it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational configuration[edit]

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

An essay not an article so OR. No indication of topic's notability as it's not clear where the topic comes from, so a neologism. Prodded but Prod tag removed without explanation. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The four dimensions of distance - a related article probably created by the same group of SPAs, possibly as part of a college project. Also Transnational management strategies. andy (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards delete. This is actually the best or most promising of these project articles I've seen so far. It makes a bit of sense, and gives me a bit less of a headache trying to read it than the others do. Under a title like management structure, parts of this might make for a worthwhile article. But the opening sentence (Today’s companies are faced with strategic tasks emerging from the international operating environment.) all but shouts "I'm an unencyclopedic essay". It also shows the sort of meaningless but grandiose text (Did yesterday's companies not face these "tasks"? What makes them strategic? emerging? What is an international operating environement? Do all companies really "face strategic tasks emerging from the international operating environment?" What about Claire's Corner Copia?) If I were the professor grading this, and someone handed in a paper filled with this kind of patter, I'd give it a D at best; then again the class I would be teaching would be "Expository Prose 101" and not "How to Talk like a Management Consultant". But there might be a good overview in this worth saving under a less neologistic title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Another concern is sourcing: a highly popular and diverse academic topic is reduced to a single source! Even if good old Henry Mintzberg is deemed obsolete, there are still hundreds of recent books to browse. NVO (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About a weak keep as possible per WP:BARE. It is a bloody mess, but I can see how a decent article could be written about it. Google searches won't be useful here, as the term is both too common and jargon. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (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) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find substantial sources which discuss this topic in detail such as The International Business Blueprint. If this draft needs improvement then our editing policy is to improve by editing not to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot J. Silver[edit]

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

This guy has received a very minor award (2008 Domainers Choice Award) and has some scant commentary in the blogosphere and press releases, but he lack the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that is needed to meet WP:N and the reputation needed to meet WP:BIO. Them From Space 03:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (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) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing except the minor award (which anyway credited the blog, not the person) is backed up by reliable, independent sources, the WP:A-warning lingers on the talk page for almost 2 years. Looks like he didn't get enough attention to become notable. --Pgallert (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One small award does not notability make. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice the dancer[edit]

Delete I considered prodding this. Does not come anywhere close to meeting WP:ARTIST. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With four article issues, and seemingly failing notabilty. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Jack Owens, "Organized Crime Being Probed in Lousiana"". The Free Lance Star, October 25, 1967. Retrieved April 28, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1] "Jack Owens, "Organized Crime Being Probed in Lousiana"". The Free Lance Star, October 25, 1967. Retrieved April 28, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]