Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 April 1 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Was speedied as recreation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagle[edit]

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

Author resurrected his previously-deleted article. See WP:Articles for deletion/House of Tagle. User234 (talk) 23:33, 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. But rewrite to be about the case, and move to an appropriate page title. Shimeru (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehren Watada[edit]

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

Was nominated 4 years ago and closed with no consensus. This is WP:BLP1E. Watada was completely non-notable before being charged with the crimes and has done nothing notable since his trial ended. His case was covered by numerous sources, but everything comes back to a single event. I do not view trials, appeals etc as separate events. They are all part of one event, his refusal to deploy.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- BLP1E is about people who otherwise lead private lives. Generally speaking, people who do half hour interviews on a nationally syndicated radio show [1] aren't trying to maintain private lives. Also, a quick NPR search [2] shows the story "What Does Watada Case Mean for Military Law?", indicating that there is more to just this story than just a "refusal to deploy".Umbralcorax (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His interviews have been about....yeah, his one event. What effect his case may or may not have on military law really isn't relevent. The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable. His sole claim to notability is all connected to one event, his refusal to deploy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, this article fails WP:ONEEVENT / WP:BLP1E (if a long, drawn out one). Even if it strengthens the case for WP:BLP1E if the person remains low profile, not doing does not necessarily make one notable for anything other than that the one event. Per WP:ONEEVENT, this deserves to be and is already mentioned in Opposition to the Iraq War, but shouldn’t get its own article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Niteshift36 already put forward this point, well before I added this comment
    • Short comment: avoid BLP1E issues and move to [[Court-Martial of Ehren Watada]] or similar article title, and then test for notability.
    • Long comment: I have read the previous AfD and would argue that both it and this current AfD miss a crucial point: all the to-and-fro about whether Lt Watada is notable or not is not what should be under discussion; it is the Watada case is what should be under discussion. OK, lets assume Watada fails BLP1E. Some legal matters are long and drawn out without being notable. Some legal matters hit hot-button issues without being notable. Some legal matters have extensive media coverage, and while possibly passing WP:GNG, are still not notable. The Watada matter is long and drawn out, hits hot-button issues and has extensive media coverage. Move to [[Court-Martial of Ehren Watada]] or similar article title, and then test for notability
    • --Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of thought that when I said "The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable", that indicated I thought there was a possibility that the case itself could be notable. A great many cases are like that. Case in point Katz v. United States is a landmark case, far more important than this case will ever be, yet Charles Katz doesn't qualify for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your opinion on making it into an article about the case, rather than a bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article about the case, but let's make sure to strip out as much of the biographical data as possible. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If enough people will agree to that, I'd be willing to withdraw the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me. Novaseminary (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a pretty good idea too. That could also encompass Victor Agosto, which I also nominated for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly ok with that solution and would withdraw the nom accordingly if we could get a couple more !votes for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some calculations:

  • List of Iraq War resisters - 27,299 bytes
  • Robin Long – 28,518 bytes
  • Joshua Key - 19,054 bytes
  • Malcolm Kendall-Smith - 15,707 bytes
  • Ehren Watada - 34,575 bytes
  • GRAND TOTAL - 125,153 bytes

Notice that the total size of List of Iraq War resisters far exceeds the recommended maximum even with only four war resisters merged. Imagine what would happen if all the other Iraq war resisters with Wikipedia articles were also merged. Things would become unwieldy very quickly. For example: Kyle Snyder (soldier), Daniel Sandate, Darrell Anderson, Ben Griffin, Agustin Aguayo, Kevin Benderman, Aidan Delgado, Stephen Funk, Camilo Mejía, Pablo Paredes, Mohisin Khan, André Shepherd

-Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the list of other bios to look into. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not swayed by this argument. For one, it wouldn't be a straight copy and paste job (the redundancies, infoboxes, and other administrative stuff like categories take up a lot more disk space than you'd think, but they wouldn't be all copied), negating most o fthe article size argument. And two, we'd really have to consolidate/prune some of these articles down, they have more menail detail than is really necessary. And lastly, while the topic of military members resisting the way they are ordered to fight may be notable, the issue here is than they individually don't have notability (overlapping my second point that some of the stuff on these pages can be safely cut without losing encyclopedic focus on the notable aspects of the topic). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - My first choice is to keep. Wikipedia is not paper and doesn't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia. People are attracted to Wikipedia precisely because it is a fuller resource of reference material for interested readers. If there is no compelling reason delete, then why delete? In a digital encyclopedia, the onus is on the person to provide a compelling reason to delete. Interested readers may want to know the human angle on the story: for example, "What is it about his life story that lead him to take such a position?" Background information is essential to understanding an issue. An isolated action is not best understood in a vacuum. Mention was made of the case of Katz v. United States saying, "Charles Katz doesn't qualify for an article." But if there were an article on Katz, then interested readers may gain a fuller understanding of that case also. Why "strip away" valuable information?

My second choice is to at least keep as a legal case: The case is an important case study for for international law: For example, it is written up in this section of Nuremberg Defense (Superior Orders), and is a helpful case study for Command responsibility.

Wikipedia is a work in progress - The history of Iraq War resisters is not nearly over yet, and is still being written. Plus Watada is not dead yet. It is possible that Watada may still play a part in that overall story. If so, then where would we record his future actions? Coming up on May 25, 2010, the Parliament of Canada will be debating the issue in the second reading of Bill C440, which deals precisely with Iraq War resisters. Withing the last few months, Ann Wright and Robin Long have both been in communication with people in Canada. Ann Wright (a colonel who opposes the Iraq War) visited Toronto on Mar 2, 2010. [3] and Robin Long spoke to a meeting in Canada via a conference call [4] on March 19, 2010.

On notablility: Watada was the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to refuse to deploy to Iraq.[1]

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lack of significant coverage about the individual. The case is one thing, he is something else. Your arguments about being a work in progress and not paper are really without merit. We still have notability standards and Watada truly doesn't meet them. Being the first commissioned officer isn't really notable, especially since he was so low ranking. His rank wouldn't qualify him for an article under WP:MILPEOPLE. Being "the first" is often not really notable. Overall, you have an argument based more on WP:ILIKEIT than on actual policy. We have two proposals as alternatives: Make the article about the case and not him or merge with the list if Iraq War resisters. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size of List of Iraq War resisters or even a new article dedicated to legal arguments, issues and information of Iraq war resisters would not simply be the sum of the sizes of all the merged articles. Obviously significant paring down and tightening up would occur during a merger. Consider Ben Griffin (soldier) and my edits to Iraq war resisters, Ive summed up the important aspects of Ben Griffin and provided two high quality sources in less then 1k. If readers want to know more they can read the citations. The same is true of Watada, readers interested in the human aspects of his story can follow the links and read for themselves. Readers who want just the important details of his case dont have to wade through lengthy biographical details to get to the one thing he is known for - his refusal to deploy. Bonewah (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these dissenting arguments. The individual himself isn't notable, whil ethe case events are. Best to consolidate oll of the pertinent details of the legal cases in one list. For one thing, the so-called "human angle" wouldn't be encyclopedic, NPOV, and most likely OR. The "background info" can be adequetely covered on a legal case without giving a person's biography; giving excessive details treads into the territory of COATRACK and offer the opportunity for axe-grinders to subtley sway the article past neutral. The crystal ball/work in progress argument doesn't sway me either: we have no idea what may happen in the furture, and thus we have to judge the article based on its current state (if he becomes more relevant later, we can always split an article off later). And I'm with Niteshift on the "first" argument: not really significant.
  • Keep. An abundance of reliable, reputable, independent secondary sources discussion the subject in depth exist. Others have written about the subject, and so, so do we. BIO1E and even BLP1E are rules of thumb to help decide in the early stages, where there are just a couple of sources about a single story. Here, the notability of the subject is "indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", to quote even from WP:BLP1E. There is no content in the article that is not reliably sourced, or challenged on issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, except for a normal number of things which are really just fine details, as per any interesting subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the coverage is mainly about the case, not the individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift36, well then you should be arguing for "move" or "rename", which is a variation on "keep". Note however that an awful lot of human subject articles (living and dead) are not personal biographies but are about a particular angle that is notable. This is reasonable, and is certainly the practice in other encyclopedias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although renaming would be acceptable. The coverage runs from June 2006 to June 2010 and takes in a large number of reliable sources covering a range of slightly different events, so the WP:BLP1E argument isn't the strongest. Renaming to be about the event rather than the person could be reasonable, but there is absolutely no case for outright deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that making it about the case is the right idea. But as a bio, BLP1E really does apply, regardless of the span of coverage. None of the significant coverage is about the man, it's about his crime and the court case. Had the case not had delays, appeals etc, there would be no coverage of the man. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 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) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyle (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL problem. Google search reveals no information at all. No info on official Kate Bush sites either. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:44, 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) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of Kickboxing[edit]

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

This article has almost no content and gives no reason why it's notable. The article says the association is based in England, but the article's external link (http://www.wfk-gov.com) says the organization is headquartered in Iran. The web page says the organization was created in 2003, but the article gives sources from 1998 and 1999. The web page says it's linked to the IOC, but GAISF/SportAccord list the official kickboxing organization as the World Association of Kickboxing Organizations. I don't know if the article is mixing two organizations of the same name, but I see no reason for this article to remain. Papaursa (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The IOC's website seems to be having a few problems just now, otherwise I was planning to see what it had to say about kickboxing. That issue aside, I have not found any sources that strongly support notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing at IOC's website that mentioned this organization. In fact, that site didn't mention kickboxing at all since it's not an Olympic sport. This article seems to have a number of factual conflicts, too. I find nothing notable about this organization. Astudent0 (talk) 13:44, 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) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billard (slang)[edit]

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

Unreferenced neologism which does not pass WP:NEO. Clubmarx (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of evidence that the term is notable or widespread in its use. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:40, 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 redirect to Second Avenue Subway. only nom is not in favor of redirect JForget 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seaport (New York City Subway station)[edit]

Seaport (New York City Subway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a proposed station on the Second Avenue Subway in Lower Manhattan and is not one of the stations that are being constructed now. That station is in Phase IV, which would be the last portion of the route to receive funding, and we're only at Phase I after so many years. So WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Tinlinkin (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past precedent is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanover Square Station. Tinlinkin (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second Avenue Subway, until it's built. ----DanTD (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it may never be built, so even a redirect is inappropriate. It's just an "item from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries", to quote from WP:CRYSTAL. There is no start date, thus the station is in a speculative phase. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, it looks like they're finally going through with the line after 80 years of planning it. Deleting this and any other future station article will take a lot of information away if the MTA decides to go through with building it. That's why I didn't likew the idea of deleting Hanover Square Station. ----DanTD (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is more information, what historical information in the current station article couldn't be recreated later from the Second Avenue Subway article? Tinlinkin (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Second Avenue Subway, until it's built as per DanTD. It looks like it will be built. Some users are under the impression that WP:CRYSTAL means that all projects that don't exist or are proposed cannot have articles. In fact, proposed projects can be notable (see California High-Speed Rail and Vilnius Tram Project for examples). WP:CRYSTAL applies to topics that have potential to pass WP:N but currently don't. That's not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing particularly special or extraordinary about this station, other than the location is planned out. And there is nothing about this current Seaport station article that can't be easily rewritten about in the future. Your two examples and Second Avenue Subway (as a whole) have history, the single station does not. I don't know the contents of the deleted Seaport Station, but they had to be as rudimentary as this article is. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Second Avenue Subway. Phase 1, 63rd Street to 96th Street is currently under construction. This is a Phase 4 station that is likely MANY years away. Therefore, there is no need for a station article until it is actually under construction. (All known and verifiable information about the Seaport station can be found in the SAS article anyway.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:CRYSTAL. That way its history stays visible to those who know. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEs4Linux[edit]

IEs4Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Louis Schechter[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this lawyer. The two profiles and local news doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 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) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kissaki Kai Karate[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review. This non-notable martial art is not wide-spread (about 15 schools according to their web page). The article makes no claims of notability nor does it list any 3rd party sources. I could not find neither notability nor sources when I searched. Clearly fails WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:52, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson Jr.[edit]

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

Unreferenced with extraordinary claims. Bibliography is fake. Links to blog pages. HumphreyW (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. References articles in a scholarly journal (with on-line copy) and in the NYT. And the "blog" in question is the official blog of the Oxford University Press, not some random scribblings on the web. I see absolutely nothing fake about this. Hqb (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: How the heck is a biography that is sourced to reliable sources fake? Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preconceived ideas should not be allowed to prevent an encyclopedia from accepting knowledge different from that which has "always" been "known" to be "The Truth". Neither should an encyclopedia be the space to divulge or discuss new ideas, of course. The information compiled in this small article, however, is not new. Nor is it "my opinion". This piece of information may be found in many scientific publications (of Human Science). I was as mystified "as the next man" when I found it, but I marveled and was curious enough to check on and confirm it.
Please refer to:
  1. [11], where you can see the article America's First Lexicographer: Samuel Johnson Jr., 1757-1836, by Martha Jane Gibson. American Speech, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Dec., 1936), pp. 283-292. Published by: Duke University Press
  2. Please refer also to The Connecticut magazine: an illustrated monthly, Volume 5, by William Farrand Felch. In [12] , you can see part of pages 526, 529 and 531, where Johnson Jr. authorship of this first dictionary is mentioned.
  3. Philological quarterly, Volume 19 By University of Iowa, pgs. 298 to 300. See part of it in [13]
  4. an electronic fac-simile of the article published in The New York Times in Oct 28, 1898, can be read as PDF here: [14] This last one is one of the references removed from the original article, classified as "fake reference" (one of them, but not the olny one). I agree "NY Times, 1898" sounds farfetched -- I would doubt it, too, but I would check on it before accusing the article of being "gibberish". As you may easily see, the fac-simile is under the NY Times domain itself, nytimes.com
There are many more. Thank you for your attention. --Betty VH (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment by Betty VH above was moved by me from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Samuel Johnson Jr. and reformatted to better fit this discussion page. --Hegvald (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Err, whatever do you mean by "Bibliography is fake"? The 1898 NYT reference checks out fine, for example, as does the "American speech" reference. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Unfake bibliography. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, the NY Times article is a reliable source that backs up the bi(bli)ography. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a second part to Gibson's article in American Speech, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Feb., 1937), pp. 19-30. --Hegvald (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strange but true. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First tuesday Realty Publications Inc.[edit]

First tuesday Realty Publications Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thinly-veiled advert for a non-notable online real estate certification program. JaGatalk 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a California-based real estate certification program that is hardly "non-notable." In fact, I imagine one would be hard-pressed to find an active agent/broker in California who has not heard of them. -REeducationreviewer —Preceding unsigned comment added by REeducationreviewer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this Wiki page on a different real estate continuing education provider to the page in question. They are structured very similarly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Schools_%28United_States%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by REeducationreviewer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This company has been involved in California property legislation for as long as I have been in the business, which is over 20 years. There is no reason why this should be considered "non-notable" due to its historic presence in California. It is a historical source to anyone interested in real estate. Deleting this page would be a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PropertyDealer (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — PropertyDealer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Łiesand Dunin[edit]

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

Most likely a hoax. The name Łiesand does not exist in Polish and seems to be made up by someone who does not even speak Polish. It claims a reference from 1871, but the person is said to have been born in 1870. — Kpalion(talk) 21:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No plausible sources provided to showT that WP:BIO notability standard, or verifiability are satisfied. If it is a hoax, the name (which the nominator says does not sound like a Polish one) could be a phonetic joke spelling of "lies and done in." Edison (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this article is deleted, we may also want to consider deletion of Gustave Wombique. It is the only article that Łiesand Dunin links to and vice versa. — Kpalion(talk) 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —— Kpalion(talk) 21:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, it must be deleted. As well, as related articles, or articles of the same author/IP. Also, please, somebody try to check Wanda Malecka, Rodryg Dunin, and Agnieszka Baranowska. I am not specialist into Polish literature, but all these articles are extremely suspicious and dubious. It's not a question of theirs names, but of theirs authenticity. Sverige2009 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wanda Malecka doesn't seem to be a hoax ([15]) but may not meet notability guidelines. Claritas (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't doubt the authenticity of these three, although their notability may debatable. But at least they don't seem to be hoaxes, unlike Wombique (alredy speedy deleted) and Łiesand. — Kpalion(talk) 08:53, 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) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francombat[edit]

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

This is a non-notable martial art. The article makes no claims of notability and has no third party sources. I found no independent sources when I searched nor did I find anything to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability and no reliable independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 13:39, 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) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Smith[edit]

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

This person was notable for only one event: hitting author Stephen King with his car. That event is already adequately covered at Stephen King#Car accident and thoughts of retirement. As far as can I can tell, nobody has ever displayed any interest in this person outside of the context of that accident, and neither need we. (The photo, File:Smithking.jpg, whose PD status looks fairly dubious to me, should also be deleted.)  Sandstein  21:28, 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) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEARCH (organization)[edit]

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

Conflict of interest, unclear notability, one self-published source Falcon8765 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources can be added; where is the conflict of interest? Patience is a virtue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Search chp (talk • contribs)
The conflict of interest is in your name. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:20, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation of rights[edit]

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

Speedy DeleteWeak Keep, no external references whatsoever. Isn't there a CSD tag for this? OK, there are references now but I still believe external references are required. ToxicWasteGrounds 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references are now visible thanks to User:Mkativerata adding the missing "reflist" tag. John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reformatted the references John of Reading (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow/Speedy Keep -- as nom now also views as a keep (albeit a weak one). AfD is not the place to force editing changes, and this article is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 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) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Fighting Arts[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art with only 1 school. Fails WP:MANOTE. Only coverage was in local sections of D.C. papers--no coverage in any martial arts publications. Article is written like an ad and has been tagged for issues since 2006. The original AfD discussion was for "Contemporary fighting arts". Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This art appears to be taught at 1 school and has no independent coverage, except for the local papers. Clearly fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 13:35, 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 keep. No arguments dor deletion aside from Stifle. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Adding Machine: Collected Essays[edit]

The Adding Machine: Collected Essays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overriding WP:PROD proposal by User:Stifle. Rationale given by Stifle is that the article is unreferenced. However the implication of the PROD nomination is that the nominator is of the opinion the topic is either a: not notable or b: does not exist. Either way, the book is by a notable author, William S. Burroughs, and thus the article's continued existence should be covered by a debate, rather than a PROD. Therefore I am putting it under AFD. My opinion is Keep unless policy has changed to forbid such articles. 23skidoo (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Are there reliable sources to justify an independent article? Perhaps it needs to be merged with the article on William S. Burroughs or his collected works. Xtzou (Talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't know, I see plenty when I click on the "FIND SOURCES" links above. (I haven't done an AFD nomination for a long time -- this is new). 23skidoo (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Then why don't you add them and end the debate? No reason to have an unsourced page on a notable work. Xtzou (Talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable book by a notable author. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable work by a notable author – though presumably any sufficiently notable essays in this book could be split into separate articles. ( -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references added. As ever, the burden of proof is on those seeking to include content to provide proper sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced from two reviews in Chicago Sun-Times and New York Times. More offline sources from 1986 ought to exist (the back cover shows blurbs from publishers weekly and Detroit Free Press). And it gets cited a lot of times in lots of books. Thus meets WP:NB. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant author, thus thoughts must be significant, should be linked to articles on the essays themselves though. Sadads (talk) 18:05, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test Manager[edit]

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

Contested prod. Software product lacking reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 19:48, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republan[edit]

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

Contested prod of unsourced article. Web search finds this term in the form of misspellings or as a derogatory and politically charged term on chat sites favored by groups opposed to the Republican Party (United States). Delete as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms and Wikipedia:Verifiability unless sufficient reliable sources are produced to allow for a sourced and non-politically charged article are provided. Allen3 talk 19:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been used enough and for a long time to warrant notability: see [17] and [18] for usage of the term in newspapers. Claritas (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the term has not been used, only that there is no evidence of its being used by a reliable source. Unless there has been a major change to Wikipedia policy in recent days, letters to the editor and blog entries (such as your examples) are considered to be self-published and questionable sources and thus not suitable for the basis of an article. --Allen3 talk 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro Use```` As the entering author into Wikipedia of this term, I find including it as a valid use of words in use though not a dictionary use. It is as valid as nigga or nigger both of which are in Wikipedia, and though offensive are included for completeness, no? Regards pabobfin ````
  • Delete - attempt to publicize a nonceword by the self-admitted coiner of the non-notable term. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro Use I did not coin the word, but have used it in context since discovering it. I only "authored" the entry into Wikipedia, not the term. I had Realized that the word Democrat Party (phrase) was not refuted in any publications I could find on Wikipedia, and took it in hand to rectify that. It is not a dictionary, I agree, but when a word gets into language, such as nigga etc., it seems fair game to be in the encyclopedia too. Thanks pabobfin
  • Delete A google search only shows 385 hits which discounting misspellings seem to be exclusive to several web forums. The assertion that it is the equivalent to "Democrat" doesn't seem to be rooted in any known usage of the english usage. The suffixes -an and -ic both mean "pertaining to" but there is no "Republ" party.--Savonneux (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Pro-Keep Results 1 - 10 of about 2,720 for republan. (0.40 seconds) Google search today. 2720 is a far cry from 385 you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.145.4 (talk • contribs) 22:32, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this IP address is Pabobfin (although the phrasing makes me think it's possible). If it is, please note that you cannot !vote more than once. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete While the term may be used occasionally, there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss the term in depth. Sources would have to be about the word itself, not simply mention it as a neologism. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal I believe that the writer of the NY Times Opinion [19] would disagree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabobfin (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010
Allen3 already addressed this "rebuttal" above. That source doesn't meet WP:RS; it's a letter to the editor, not a fact-checked article. Are there any sources that discuss the term Republan as the focus of a full-length article? -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no use outside of the blogosphere, and its not common there either. the logical corollaries given as arguments for keep are fundamentally flawed. for its use be comparable to "democrat party", the democratic party and senior elected officials would have to have used it. they dont. and the word itself is not the logical corollary to "democrat party". the logical corollary would be "republic party", which has an old fashioned ring to it that fits them well. sounds like a fly by night insurance company trying to sound legit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal While I agree that the fly by night insurance sounds more likely for the use of Republic, that the word has existed outside the blogosphere by print in the New York Times. [20] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabobfin (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010
This example in and of itself does not establish notability, as its only a letter to the editor referring to an unsourced fact. if in fact the democratic digest's suggestion in the 50's gained any attention, then it may have been notable at that time. notable once, notable always. i did a quick gsearch, cannot find evidence supporting this as a notable use, though the digest was a somewhat big deal at the time. if someone can research paper records and show this was a word commonly used by the digest for, say, a year or so, i will change my !vote. i cant do the research myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That it has to be explained whenever it's brought up is a clue as to it's lack of notability. Short version-- in U.S. politics, if the Democratic Party must be referred to as the "Democrat" party, then the Republican Party should be referred to as the "Republan" party. You remove the letters 'i' and 'c'-- Democratic, Democrat; Republican, Republan. Get it? Republan instead of Republ-IC-an. Pretty clever huh. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Garcia[edit]

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

I can't find a single source for this person or his films. I've searched IMDB for both himself and his films, but with no success. His two most "famous" films (according to the article) get zero results on Google. Unref'd BLP since 2005. Lugnuts (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 19:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of him, or any information that would allow him to pass WP:ENT. Jujutacular T · C 19:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did some searching, and the only thing I could find was s link to NY Daily News online, which turned out to be nothing more than a link back to the Wiki article. The article's claim that subject has invented a new form of cinema is not referenced in any way. No IMDB page, either. Evalpor (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidnce of notablity, and in particular, no evidence of the critical acclaim in creating a new film style. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced puff BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The St Andrews Social Scientist[edit]

The St Andrews Social Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-notable online student magazine that doesn't pass notability criteria: WP:INTERNET. It has not launched yet, and the site content is 'coming May 1st.' The article has no 3rd party verifiable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable web content. Speedy tag was contested but IMO still applies: the site itself is merely a placeholder for forthcoming content, and the article gives no indication of notability. The article as written also said (today, 30 April) It's (sic) first Issue was published on May 1st 2010 and attracted a large readership, so is clearly unreliable. I42 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not even so much as a claim of notability, nor will it likely be notable when they get around to actually writing it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tagged this for speedy deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to delete: The original decliner needs to be slapped with a trout. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold that trout! This is not a subject I feel at all strongly about, and I am probably being unduly lenient, but when trawling through the endless trivialities and commercial promotions of Prods and Speedies it is refreshing to come across something that is clearly intended to advance human knowledge. Please note that the content is available and that it is referred to at St. Andrews Uni - guidance for postgrads. Ben MacDui 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll hold my trout. But now I don't know what to do with it. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grilled trout is most acceptable. Ben MacDui 21:25, 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. The topic is sufficiently unique and supported with RS to warrant a separate article. Although there is probably some redundancy with related subjects, that is not a rationale for deletion. Nor is POV a rationale for deletion. If the article contains unsupported or unbalanced POV then editors should improve those elements of the article. Mike Cline (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of ideas[edit]

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

This article does not add significantly to the subject area (see Propaganda, Political Warfare, Information Operations), and contains blatant POV (references to Islamic extremists as "terrorists" etc) , a lack of material concerning "the war of ideas" outside the USA, and is generally written like an essay. "War of ideas" is also not an encyclopaedic term for the article's subject. Claritas (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an important topic within the realm of unconventional warfare. Although not necessarily an encyclopedic term, war of ideas should be added to the lexicon of modern warfare.--Darkerinmyeyes (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is that meant to be a keep !vote?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got an article which covers "wars of ideas" in general - it's called Political warfare. Claritas (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, politics is about power. Wars of ideas are more intellectual - religion vs science; inclusionism vs deletionism; particles vs waves; &c. In any case, the existence of an article on a similar/related topic is further evidence of notability which argues for merger/restructure rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, you'll find that its subject matter is exactly the same as that of Political warfare. Claritas (talk) 18:02, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erhab records[edit]

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

Record label of unclear notability. Was tagged as a speedy and I felt that broader review here is called for, since it's a marginal case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:04, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Gallagher III[edit]

Charles R. Gallagher III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion, I believe this page requires further discussion. Someone closely connected to the subject (who is an attorney) appears to have provided the bulk of the text, and it's a close call whether the subject meets our article guidelines. I believe that the subject is article-worthy although the page in its present form does not meet our high standards for independent sourcing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL. This attorney has been practicing for ten years, and may become notable, but he is far from there. He's never taught at a college or law school; he's not a partner at a major law firm; he hasn't chaired any ABA or state bar committees or sections; his only awards are of the local "best young lawyer" or "up-and-coming" variety. Maybe he'll become notable, but until then, delete. 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced policial WP:SOAP, not clear expansion of existing article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Nationalism[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a biased political screed and I don't see how it can be rescued. — e. ripley\talk 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has been substantially improved since its origin. It gives a good summery of Nationally-based Socialist Policy over the past century. It needs to be improved by contributors willing to add references and cite sources for this article. The facts seem to be correct, just unlabeled. Even though the tone appears to be against these policies, another section supporting these policies and stating reasons that they benefit society could be added. This way, both opposing points of view will be reflected and readers can decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.189.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, unsourced political essay. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've nominated this for speedy deletion as A10: a recently-created article that duplicates another existing topic (primarily Left-wing nationalism). — e. ripley\talk 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "article" violates one of the five pillars as well as policy. This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. Kill it with fire.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has been marked for speedy delete, which it does not qualify for; but it is clearly a non-encyclopaedic, biased, self-opinionated political rant, and should not be here. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, slanted POV entry. Hairhorn (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant attempt to add political attack commentary to an encyclopedia. the phrase is used here, which is unrelated, and on Nazi websites, which i wont link to. not in common use, obvious pathetic attempt to tie liberalism to fascism, which has no supporting sources within mainstream commentary or even within advocacy journalism. basically an unsourced hate speech term. People of course have written legitimately about the connections between apparently opposite ideologies, and neo-liberalism, in its embrace of some corporate values, shows signs of overlap, but thats really not what is attempted here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete this article, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 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. unanimous consensus Minus the nom JForget 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Darlings (novel)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for the work itself. The author may be a bestselling author but not all works are automatically notable, even by a bestselling author.  Frank  |  talk  16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notable does not mean popular, as you seem to be asserting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 April 2010
    That is your inference, not my assertion. My statement is that just because the author is a bestselling author does not mean that the work itself is notable. In addition, there isn't any notability asserted for the work in the article anyway. Some admins would delete that under WP:CSD#A7; I decided to nominate here instead.  Frank  |  talk  19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rushball[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non Notable game, WP is not a manual or guide. Codf1977 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. It looks like there's a small chance that this sport might be legitimate and perhaps even notable, but it's difficult to determine because everything is in Russian. The article itself might as well be written in Russian too because I don't understand a word of it. The article in its current form is not helping en-wiki. SnottyWong talk 20:45, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People aged over 85[edit]

People aged over 85 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel the value of 85 years is arbitary, and that the topic is unmaintainably broad and redundant to the existing article Oldest people. Marasmusine (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Way too arbitrary; there are literally thousands of possible links to pages that already exist in the project that could go on such a page. (Not everyone born in the 1920s is still alive, of course, but how does one decide who is placed on this list?)  Frank  |  talk  15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary or not, there would be thousands of people with Wikipedia articles who would fall in this classification. While the contribution is appreciated, and (redacting comments that show my earlier ignorance on such matters) I recognize that a good deal of work has been put into calculating how many years and days the individuals have been alive, the list so far (50 names) is only the tip of the iceberg. At the moment, it's a minor chore, but a chore nonetheless, to change the information daily (i.e., if you're 93 years, 1 day today, then you'll be 93 years, 2 days tomorrow). If I were doing a list like this myself, I'd confine it to people who are still active in their profession at the age of 85, like Senator Byrd. Since 85 seems to be a hangup, maybe there should be a list of living octogenarians, list of living nonogenarians, etc. I'm surprised that, since we have a category for every other aspect of people, we don't simply have Category: Living octogenarians (for some reason, we have moronic categories called "living persons", which takes into account about 7 billion people or so). The categories would be easy to maintain (when Richard Adams turns 90 next week, it would be "Duh, he's not in his 80s anymore"). I do like the format, but I don't see how one would keep it under control. At some point, you'd have to divide a list further, probably by age rather than alphabetically. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would note, however, that this article uses a template called {{Age in years and days}}, and once a person is added to the article with their birthdate, their entry can stay as it is (without requiring further changes to their age) until the person dies. All the work in terms of calculating the individuals' ages in years and days is being done automatically via the template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much too general and arbitrary. And what about dead people? (To clarify: Should they be included?) --Cybercobra (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, if such a grouping was necessary, it would be better suited to a category than an article. Secondly, as an article, it is meaningless and has the potential to become very long, cumbersome and meaningless. In theory, the article (going by its title) could list any individual, living or dead, who ever lived beyond 85 - as long as the information could be verified in a secondary source. In other words, as an article, the subject matter is assumed notable and therefore the content, as long as they agree with the subject and can be verified, is limitless. By extension, one could argue that the topic isn't notable and that the article should be deleted on the basis of lack of notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but raise the limit to 90, just because 85 is not all that old. Looking down the list of notable people who are really old, many names led to thoughts of "My God, is he/she still alive?" The article specifically is limited to "notable people", so your Great Uncle Reggie (unless he is notable) will not be cluttering it up, and eligibility for membership can be determined by a n automatic computation. Certainly dead people would not appear in the list. So it is a useful listing of notable people of a particular antiquity. Per WP:LIST, redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial. Edison (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In which case it would have to be renamed "Notable people aged over 90". Otherwise Uncle Reggie could be included if his age (over 90) could be verified by reliable secondary sources... Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In previous AFDs when I have raised a similar issue about adding "Norable" to the ar5ticle title, I've been told that that is contrary to the acepted style for titling articles, since we do not have "nonnotable" article subjects. There is a presumption that only notable entries belong in a list. Like "Deaths in 2010" would not include random nonnotable people. Edison (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose we objectively determine how old is enough to be "all that old"? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have several lists, broken into subcategories, with the much more restrictive cutoff of 100 years, under Category:Centenarians and Lists of centenarians. We don't need this one as well; it is redundant and unmaintainable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not disagreeing with the delete, but I'm curious about how any list or category about people aged 85 to 99 would be redundant to the list or category about centenarians. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have never seen 85 as a mile marker, like 100 is. Why not 84? 86? However, I could see a niche for a List of active state leaders aged over 80. Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 2 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) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really cannot see the point of this article. As lists go it's far too arbitrary, will require constant maintenance and will never be anything like complete. It's also badly titled - even if kept (and I still don't think it should be) it should be List of notable people aged over 85 or something similar. All people over 85? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Araw ng pighati[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, WP:Verifiability. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author's propensity for using Blogspot and Multiply as references is my reason for the verifiability tag. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. We're not in disagreement then... while the film does exist, reliable sources toward notability have not (yet) been found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not seeing that this is a notable film. Edison (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup... I'm hoping that a Fillipino wikipedian comes up with something I cannot myself find. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
    I can't find anything at the Tagalog Wikipedia [21], but I don't suppose that means much... -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thesis film has its own article? I doubt this thing is notable despite the mentions in those above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... even a thesis film might win notable awards... but I'm not seeing it yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell this film scored a shared third prize in the short feature film at an awards ceremony for alternative films, and this is the only thing that has garnered it any independent coverage (see the links provided by Michael Q. above). I can't find anything to satisfy the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for films. I trust Michael Q. to keep looking for sources, and I'll reconsider my !vote if any more are found, but at this point I doubt they'll appear. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I now agree with deletion. Currently available sourcing simply does not meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just removed the External links from the article, as they were all about the film Requiem for a Dream and not about Araw ng pighati. If the film ever becomes notable, we can bring the article back. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vital[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable person, with an entirely unreferenced article (which appears to be written by someone too close for comfort). His job in itself is no reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss him in depth--the only reliable mention I can find is this. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Clarke[edit]

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

Although this person should be notable under WP:Athlete for having competed at a fully-professional level of sport, there is no indication that this particular player achieved the notability that would normally arise from such a position. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Can find no sources to verify notability. There is a former rugby player named Phil Clarke, but this is clearly not the same person. Davnor (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced (I don't find anything concerning an injury while playing against Saracens). What little I can find doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE, if rugby is treated the way that other professional sports are treated. He played in 2001 for Bedford Athletic, which plays at Level 5 in a regional league in the Midlands. As an analogy, a lower level regional league in professional baseball would be the Class A Florida State League, which, while "fully professional", isn't significant enough to treat its players as if they were equal to major leaguers. I'd be surprised if rugby fans would have a "let's let everyone in" standard for player articles. Mandsford (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The club was actually Bedford Blues, who play in the second-level national league. For baseball fans that would be the rough equivalent of a Triple-A league. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 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) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McWhinney[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article, speedy deleted twice (A7, G11), repeated copyvios, including this version. Needs to be deleted and salted. GregJackP (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only primary sources appear to provide anything approaching significant coverage. Considering the creator is removing page tags out of process, I agree with GregJackP that salting may be warranted. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i want to play around in my sandbox and make sure the article is reputable before posting again. It is my first time writing an article so I would appreciate if it didn't get "salted" The above comment was placed on the article by Bella624. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • It's my first article and I will be sure that it is perfect before posting again. I will validate before posting. I would appreciate if it was not salted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella624 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC
  • Delete aside from the copyright infringement issue, the article provides no references which establish notability of the subject in accordance with inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Pumpmeup 15:52, 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) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ਗਾਲ਼ਾ[edit]

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

Foreign dictionary definition with no sources. ALI nom nom 13:47, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Brando[edit]

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

Walken said it himself he has no idea what the project is. It probably died years ago. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/19/100419ta_talk_stevenson Peppagetlk 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An abandoned film project is not very important, true. Nor will anyone's life be made better by reading an article on it. However it has been covered in depth by reliable sources, including the BBC, so it qualifies to have an article here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Probably should have added that he said he has no idea what this film project is. I don't think he was ever attached to this project. --Peppagetlk 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From an Empire magazine article and other research into the topic, my sense is that production planned to use pre-2006 archival footage of interviews of Walken and others where Brando was spoken about as an actor. No small wonder that Walken was not aware. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Article cleanup, (a surmountable issue), has begun. The topic has been covered in multiple reliable sources since 1996 [22][23][24]... the back-story in which Brando decided to leave retirement, the difficulties and postponement faced by production upon Brando's death, and coverage now that the project has been brought back to life, show the topic as worthy of inclusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In expanding and sourcing the article, I did find a 2006 article at Empire Online that stated "...Featuring interviews and work by Christopher Walken and Hend Sabri, the final footage should be a feast for Brando fans...".[25] But with more recent articles[26][27] showing Walken's dismissal of a connection with the film, I removed the text about Walken actually being in the film from the article. Though I may be able to incorporate the Empire reference, if others can find RS verifying that footage of him was to actually be in the film, the information would be welcomed to return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources found are convincing. Dream Focus 07:41, 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.  Sandstein  06:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enochlophobia[edit]

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

This was nominated and deleted in March as a neologism. Just today, it was restored without the problems being fixed, but I believe that the restoring admin did it because the previous nomination was tainted — the nominator was a sock of the deleting admin; see this ArbCom finding for a further explanation. Since the content hasn't changed, I renominate this under the same grounds as it was originally nominated: "No such medical term. Heck, there is even no such Greeek or Latin word 'enochlos' or 'enochlon' to derive from. Looks like some ignoramus coined it. It is amazing how it not only infested the 'net, but even books!" Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism (perhaps Enoch is Hebrew?) Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The term is real, as is ochlophobia (from Greek ὄχλος) which is in Wiktionary. As this is an obscure term for which medical literature is scant, redirect it to an appropriate phobia, probably agoraphobia.Novangelis (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voting keep on the same grounds as I did in the initial AfD. That the term has "infested the 'net" and "even books" is pretty clearly, to me, grounds for inclusion, not grounds for deletion. If it's a neologism, it appears to be a pretty sticky one. I support the deletion of neologisms in obvious cases where the term is either brand new and/or popped up on the web for a brief period a few years ago and then fell away. This does not appear to be the case with this term. "No such medical term" seems almost like an I don't like it type of argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents enochlophobia as an actual phobia: the article is about the alleged concept, not the word. Medical sources are reliable sources for medical issues, but pop culture articles aren't reliable for medical issues. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but that seems much more grounds for changing the article than deleting it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The etymology is obviously from Greek ἐν (en) "in" + ὄχλος (ochlos) "crowd" + φόβος (phobos) "panic" + the suffix -ία (-ia) meaning "condition"; together: a condition of panic when in a crowd.  --Lambiam 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I remember, the problem with all these phobia articles is that spammers like to use fake phobia terms (or indeed any vaguely technical-sounding-but-fake term) to direct traffic around the internet. Thus you have to distinguish carefully between genuine conditions, and ones invented by spammers who know how to construct an etymologically-sound faux-phobia. And you have to be 100% certain that the sources you are using are reliable and referring to the condition, not to the word, and most certainly avoid using sources that have themselves been fooled in this fashion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social anxiety, which seems to cover the topic adequately. The term is mentioned in several popular psychology related guides available at Google Books, however, I don't consider the literature trustworthy; none of the sources show evidence that the term is used in the field of medicine. On the other hand, it doesn't look like an obvious fake term and people could serch for help and explanation here. Using a redirect seems to be the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contrary to what is stated in the present article, I think this quite common anxiety disorder (in severe cases even a panic disorder) is not a social anxiety disorder, but instead a form or variant of claustrophobia – a disorder in which anxiety attacks are triggered by different situations for individual sufferers, but share as a common factor the feeling that there may be no way out – also classified by some as agoraphobia. So redirecting to Social anxiety may not be the solution. A more common name for the specific form that is triggered by finding oneself "crowded in" is crowd anxiety, which may be a better name for the article if it is kept (although, unfortunately, that term is also used colloquially for performance anxiety, which is a form of social anxiety).  --Lambiam 13:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without trying to go through the whole problem classification with overlaps, "anxiety disorder" is imprecise but accurate. I could easily support that as a redirect. The purpose of any redirect we might implement is to help people navigate Wikipedia. In the absence of a clear target, outright deletion as neologism is a supportable position. As an article, this completely fails to establish notability and verifiability. There were no hits on PubMed for enochlophobia and one for ochlophobia (in the English abstract of a French language article). There is no such medical entity warranting an article. There are enough uses on the web, none to any major sites, to consider helping someone looking up the term. The problem is that "crowd" can refer to both the mass of people (agoraphobia) and the people within it (social anxiety). Since we would be defining a medically undefined entity, the blanket term, "anxiety disorder", is probably best.Novangelis (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anxiety disorder as a redirect target is sufficiently imprecise to be accurate, but if we redirect there, the term enochlophobia must be mentioned on the target page (see WP:R#PLA), and if it is mentioned, it should also be defined there in some way. We should then, perhaps, point out that this term has no currency in the professional field, and that its meaning ("fear of crowds") is therefore not well defined and can in fact relate to different phobias.  --Lambiam 23:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have known better. It may be that the dual meaning of crowd will create an ambiguity that necessitates deletion. It might be too much detail for an overview article to have an obscure term and a neologism. Thanks for the reminder.Novangelis (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per not a neologism. Being "obscure" to the layman is not cause for deletion of an artcle on a real term that has been in real use in real sources for many years... in news[28][29] and books[30][31]. That it might take work to improve that article is not a cause for deletion of a subject when so much sourcing is available. What is required is the surmountable issue of expansion, cleanup, and sourcing... but not a deletion. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is not a real phobia. Is it really a good idea to have an article on a word simply because it's used when the article itself could cause confusion? Notability and copyright issues are not the only valid reasons to delete articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Sorry. Sources show it is indeed a real, accepted, and defined phobia. Your assertion that it is not seems to be unfounded, while my own opinion is founded in multiple reliable sources: Abnormal Psychology classifies it as a psychoneorotic disorder. Phobias revealed and explained lists it as among known phobias. CSO Magazine and An Excess of Phobias and Manias share that it is term for fear of crowds. The Aldrich Dictionary of Phobias and Other Word Families defines the word on page 232. Phobias: everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask relates it to claustrophobia. A lexicon of lunacy: metaphoric malady, moral responsibility, and psychiatry defines it. Handbook of psychological terms defines it. Perspectives on environment and behavior: theory, research, and applications describes it in historical depth. It is covered in Taber's cyclopedic medical dictionary, Science Illustrated, A practical medical dictionary, Newswatch, The Penguin dictionary of psychology, Psychiatric Nursing Made Incredibly Easy!, etc, etc, etc. And those are just a few of the books. The topic has also been covered in multiple news articles since as far back as 1930.[32][33] While it's possible that some non-rs publications may have used the term, their usage is not reflected back on the many proper RS that have written of it. Notability meriting inclusion in Wikipedia seems a slam dunk. If you find a blatant copyvio of an unattributed sentence, either remove it or correct it.... but concerns with style and tone of an article covering a sourcable and notable topic are best treated through regular editing... not deletion because it might take some work. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I initially advocated for its deletion but references provided have swayed me that this is notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Hopefully someone will take the time to reference the reliable sources, such as the book sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changed from redirect and with reservations. I still suspect that this will die as nothing but a definition. By the sources offered to justify its inclusion, it was an outdated term in 1977. Another offers two definitions, the other being "fear of vehicles". I have serious doubts that there will be sources to establish the historical significance, beyond conflicting dictionary definitions, but I'll give it a fair chance. As the term ochlophobia has more and older support, the article probably should be ochlophobia and enochlophobia should be the redirect.Novangelis (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems to have enough to go beyond dictionary land.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 8 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) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristián Berríos[edit]

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

Technical AfD proposal: MisterWiki/Diego Grez proposed this page through PROD, Random009 (globally blocked for sockpuppets) denies the consensual PROD.

The deletion arguments given by Diego Grez are lack of sources, lack of notoriety, not work published by editor, mass flood by the author on different wikipedia projects (ca. es. fr. de.). Dereckson (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Technical word striked. --Dereckson (talk) 12:31, 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) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Gold[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG - She has only been nominated for one notable award, not across multiple years and the award she did win is not notable. EuroPride (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Website poll is not a notable award; subject fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 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 speedy delete. per CSD A9 Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry At Night[edit]

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

Suspected non-notable self-produced album. Released today so suspect fail of WP:CRYSTAL, no notability indicated on Fintan Walsh (article is on a Gaelic footballer). G-hit test on "Fintan Walsh music" leads to one myspace hit, G-seaches on the album title yield nothing. SGGH ping! 10:45, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drops Like Stars by Rob Bell[edit]

Drops Like Stars by Rob Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted by Prod, book with no indication of notability, no reliable sources. References and links lead to sales sites primarily or to internal links. GregJackP (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some well-sourced claims to notability turn up. Hairhorn (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the above reasons and because it is overly promotional. I do not believe it would be a viable article if the peacock and promotional terms were removed Porturology (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this looks like independent RS coverage, as do this and this. That seems to me to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all three links appear to discuss the book in passing, while covering the author and his appearances. At best, it shows GNG for Bell, not the book. I would not object to a !merge, but the book in and of itself does not appear notable. (GregJackP (talk) 19:28, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trivial mentions do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 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) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Light[edit]

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

A marginal political "event" that never received mainstream coverage, let alone lasting significancce. This of course was kept at the first AfD, but at that time it was not yet clear how (in)significant the event would turn out to be. Mkativerata (talk) 10:41, 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) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flupples[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable puppet show. Only 8 hits for "Flupples -wiki -youtube +puppet". Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to the article, went from a non-notable street performance to... a non-notable youtube performance. The lone Youtube video I could find had 22 views, so this isn't exactly a youtube sensation or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Starblind. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete, not notable, no reliable independent sources.The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 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 but not really. Article has been moved w/o redirect to User:Gertbuschmann/Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets for further work or reference in creating the author's Wikibooks project. I see no reason to erase the history. Deletion has been requested by the original author, below. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets[edit]

Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced textbook-style article that appears to be mostly OR and a showcase for the author's fractal images. Have tagged article and explained issues on talk page, but author (User:Gertbuschmann) shows no intention of adding sources or addressing other issues. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want my article Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets deleted (Gertbuschmann (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete big ol' HOWTO article, full of inappropriate tone ("We will state all the definitions..."), NPOV issues ("All other Mandelbrot sets are more or less ugly in their entirety") and more. Also, there are already plenty of images and info on the Julia set and Mandelbrot set articles, making this one even more superfluous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the inappropriate tone.
"If there are more than two Fatou domains, we can infer that..."
etc. Superficially, "we" means the author and someone else. But one cannot construe this "we" literally.
"If there are more than two Fatou domains, it can be inferred that..."
says the same thing without the "we". Some of these "we"s—maybe all of them—can be similarly rephrased. Even if there are some that can't, a metaphor is a metaphor. In mathematical writing, one often encounters "We assume that the function ƒ is continuous and bounded", etc., and it's not meant literally. It means that whatever statements follow are valid in cases where that assumption is true. That said, possibly some of the images should be put into the "Julia set" and "Mandelbrot" set articles rather than having their own article. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be considered a "how to" article? A "how to" article explains how to do something. That's not what this article does. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for a few weeks to allow time for improvement. The article does have several problems as pointed out above, but these are mostly minor and could be fixed by sourcing and copyediting. The topic itself seems a legitimate subject for a wikipedia article. Much of the article is fairly standard stuff rather than original research, and could probably be sourced with a little effort. The pictures may be "original research" but this is not a big deal as they are quite similar to other published pictures. r.e.b. (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously, if you know of reliable sources then please add them to the article. I have never seen sources for most of this material - it goes beyond anything in Peitgen & Richter for example; discussions with the author indicate that it is based on the author's own unpublished work ; and the author has ignored several requests to add their sources (which is how we got here). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you yourself provided a source above. That clearly indicates the notability of the topic, no? If it is just a matter of adding this reference to the article, then I really don't see what the problem is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No, no, no, exactly the opposite. My point is that this material is not in Peitgen & Richter - it is not a source for this article. We already have an article on fractal art that covers the general topic adequately. Gandalf61 (talk)
I rather disagree that fractal art covers this topic adequately. I should think that some if not most content can be both sourced and merged by someone with the time and inclination to do so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the author now wants the article deleted - see their comments on the talk page and here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It seems to be a mix of stuff: maths on fractals that's covered well in the relevant articles already, and the authors opinions on what makes a "nice" ("atractive", "striking", "surprising" or "extraordinary") image of a fractal, with overlong exposition on how to make such images, badly laid out, written largely in the first person and unsourced. So a poorly written content fork with some OR mixed in. Nothing that I can see worth keeping.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that it is "written largely in the first person" is specious at best, as I have already pointed out above. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the language can be cleaned up and other improvements done. In particular, specious arguments claiming the article is written largely in the first person are playing a noticeable role in this discussion and thereby getting in the way of discussion of issues that can be taken seriously. There is actually a community—in the sense of a mutually inter-communicating group of people—who incite each other to this sort of behavior: instead of looking for articles existing only to express personal points of view, they look for articles that use personal pronouns, and tag them as "essays", etc., without looking at the context or meaning. Thus someone writes "We can then deduce that..." when they could have written "It can then be deduced that...", and it gets nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's an "essay or personal reflection". Instead of tagging it, they could have slightly rephrased the sentence, or just recognized that a metaphor is a metaphor and is not to be taken literally. Those who do this should be opposed. Wikipedia should be protected from them. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment There is a big difference between writing "we can deduce that" in e.g. a mathematical proof and the text here which uses it to quite different effect. Try re-writing "we can get a nice play of colours" without using the first person in an encyclopaedic way. This tone is a problem from the first paragraph, and apart from the bits that replicate the content of Mandelbrot set and Julia set the whole article draws from the author's personal views on what makes an attractive image. It doesn't just need the language fixing as the whole premise of the article is flawed, and needs reliable sources but as it's largely original research they will be difficult to find. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Problems with style can indeed be addressed by rewriting, and if they were the only problems with the article then I would not have brought it to AfD. But style problems are a side issue here. The central issue, which no-one seems willing or able to take any practical steps to address, is that the article is entirely unsourced and the author has more or less admitted that it is mostly original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: to Wikiboooks. This seems to be a guide to creating images; it may have a place but it's not Wikipedia. Rewriting or fixing individual problems would not change the fundamental issue here which is there is not a notable subject for the article. The M set is notable but that does not imply images of it are; Barack Obama is notable but that doesn't mean we need an article called "Pictures of Barack Obama". Gandalf61 brings up a good point about sourcing, but it may be possible to find sources for this material. But even sourced material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia if it's in the nature of a how to guide.--RDBury (talk) 19:18, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undercode[edit]

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

WP:MUSIC not met, except perhaps for #10, but I would say this is insufficient for inclusion. Bluelinked member is himself of questionable notability. GregorB (talk) 08:30, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Awad[edit]

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

Fails to assert notability per WP:PROF. JaGatalk 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Minimal citability per GoogleScholar (there also seems to be a physisist with the same name). A number of awards from vanity outlets like the American Biographical Institute, which to me is a big red flag. I checked and the membership in the European Academy of Sciences is an ordinary paid membership, rather than elected fellowship. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I factor out the theoretical physicist with the same name (who clearly seems to be a different person: the research interests and academic affiliations don't match) I'm left with only papers with five or fewer citations in Google scholar, not enough to convince me of WP:PROF #1. I removed the obvious vanity awards from the article; some are left that are less clear, but not enough to convince me of WP:PROF #2. And I found nothing searching Google news, so it doesn't seem possible to give him a pass on WP:GNG grounds bypassing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability. MiRroar (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Found similar results as David using WoS query "Author=(Awad A*) Refined by: Institutions=(JORDAN UNIV SCI & TECHNOL OR TISHREEN UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI": 6 papers having 7 citations collectively and h-index = 2. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I believe I noticed the subject was head of some dept. at a university, was that not a WP:PROF requirement fullfilled? Correct me if I am wrong... Turqoise127 (talk) 21:43, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sampieri[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. He's had only 3 professional fights, none in a notable promotion, none against a notable fighter. Also, he has two losses and only one win. Google search consists of only fight records and match descriptions. (Deletion log). WölffReik (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010(UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be accurate his latest fight was at a notable event held by a notable promotion. Again to be accurate though it looks like he was deep on the undercard. I'm not 100% sure where concensus is to draw the line with this sort of subject. My initial instinct is weak delete I suppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fighter never fought a notable fighter. A total of 3 fights does not make him notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH since it's clear he never made a living from fighting MMA (hence, was not "fully professional""). Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fighter. He had 3 fights and is apparently retired since he hasn't fought since 2008. No significant coverage and no notable results. Astudent0 (talk) 14:54, 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) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream gay[edit]

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

I have huge WP:NPOV concerns about this article. Sourcing is dubious and there seems to be a lot of OR/opinion. In essence, it is an editorial that would be more suited to a magazine. I believe that the presence of this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. That said, there is probably a topic worth covering here, so I would like to delete the history and start completely from scratch. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is something in here that could be covered, but not the way it is. The title, while appearing to be a neologism, is actually a synthesis taken from quotes where the terms 'mainstream' and 'gay' are used in the text. Lots of words are used this way, but we wouldn't expect articles on 'red tarmac', 'green tarmac' or 'black tarmac' simply because the terms appear that way in articles on tarmac. The article as a whole is WP:OR and essentially an opinion piece, violating WP:OR as the conjuction only exists in the sources cherry-picked for the article and here, there is nothing to balance it. Sources were selected once the article was challenged, but these are effectively WP:SYNTH of cherry-picked sources to avert criticisms of unsourced WP:OR. This could be covered within an article on gay cultures & subcultures.Mish (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out in the original discussion over at the WikiProject, I also agree that this is not a neutral or properly sourced encyclopedia article; it's a synthesis of blogsourced original research expressing an editorial opinion. And as I also pointed out, I even agree with some of it, but that doesn't make it objective. While certainly these issues exist within the gay community, they exist within Western society in general — racism, sexism, classism, looksism, consumerism and the like exist in the queer community because they exist within the larger society that the queer community is a part of, not because these issues are somehow uniquely linked with being gay. Ergo, delete as WP:SOAPBOX. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mixture of WP:NEO and WP:SYNTHESIS. Jminthorne (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:35, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Stephens[edit]

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

Contested prod. Deletion reason was: "Youth player (for a major team). Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE yet. Article should only be created when he plays an official game in the first team (or in the first team of another professional club)." Contested because "Important future talent, will turn profesional and has been rumoured with many clubs, give's clubs an insight on his move and background", indicating that this indeed fails WP:ATHLETE but that the editor wants to have it as a kind of showcase for (rumloured) interested clubs. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, of course. Fram (talk) 06:55, 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. clear consensus among non SPA's - even with them there is consensus for deletion JForget 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UW Phases[edit]

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

Not notable, appears to be promotion of film project. Jminthorne (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: A lot of the arguments have centered around the fact that people were not happy with opinions, speculation or other ambiguity that existed in the article. However, I have just went through the article and narrowed it down to the facts. The article is now much more credible. As such, I will delete my "delete" note from the bottom of this space. I also did a great deal of research on the Gifford family, and found that Jessica Gifford does in fact live in Las Vegas, and a blog mentioned that she traveled to Laramie wyoming twice in one month (apparently to see a boyfriend?). I also found that Frank Gifford had his grandaughter Christiana Gifford on Family Feud along with Kathie and Frank's son Cody. I also found that Cody is dating a "Claire Schreiner" [34] click that link to go to that. So here's what I have to say: Matthew Schreiner is listed in the article as one of the founders of the phases, and it is clear that he has verifiable immediate connections to the Gifford family. I don't think it is much worth disputing this any further. Last, I would like to say that after I cleaned up that junk that was on this article, I think that was is left is pretty presentable. FINALLY, I called the number listed, and it was answered by a "Trevor Wrage." He wasn't a business type, but seemed like this was his personal phone. However, I did not mention this article, and merely stated that I was interested in getting a copy of the journal, as well as a video of one of the lectures. He said he wasn't sure if there were videos of the lectures or merely audio, but that I could get whatever volume of the journal, just to email him. The email he gave me was to [email protected].129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Update!: I have also found an article specifically listing Matt Schreiner as Claire Schreiner's brother. [[35]] This is further proof that Matt Schreiner of the Phases has connections with the Gifford Family. i don't think it's too far off to believe that he is dating Jessica Gifford.129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the recommendations in this discussion have come from IP addresses, and it's not always certain whether different edits from the same IP address come from the same person. However, I would note that User:129.72.188.191's offer to remove their "delete" note implies that they previously recommended "delete". However, this edit to this AfD was User:129.72.188.191's first Wikipedia edit, and that edit included the statement, "To that note, if this article matches the standard already used on existing, ACCEPTABLE wikipedia entries, then we should be able to keep this entry." I have not found a prior "delete" recommendation from this IP address. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare: Notability of a single film requires little to no substantiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_(2007_film). However, this article discusses two volumes of films produced by the group. To delete would be to require differenting and unequal standards for notability.
  • This is not a promotion. This group does community service projects year round. Moreover, the page merely has a short blurb about the current projects. Even more convincing, is the fact that 90% of the article refers to past projects and the group's history. Therefore, this defeats the proposition that this is a promotion. AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, this is a notable article. If you look at the discussion page of the article, it clearly supports that it meets the low standard of proof required to be "notable." This group has been influential, has made several contributions per semester to the community and to the realm of art. If you look, there are several articles on persons, that merely hold a position in a company, with the dominant portion of their articles talking about their family members and friends. To the contrary, this article speaks of this group's prominence both at their University, and to other universities. Additionally, the article speaks of the quantity of projects the group has made to both the genre of film, as well as to specific University film festivals, including "Law Ball 2009 and 2010." AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I don't mean to say that the article doesn't need cleaned up. However, it surely is notable and is absolutely not promotional by any means. AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To say that this entry is not notable is to place your own normative value judgment of notability on an entry that is of interest (and is therefore notable) to a wide variety of users. The applicable definition of "notable" states:

Presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Simply because there isn't a plethora of readily available web links does not in any way indicate that the contents of the article are not notable. Reliable secondary sources surely include print media, i.e. sources external to the Internet. The independent sources covering the subject-matter of this article include local newspapers, American Bar Association approved club newsletters, online blogs, advertisement materials for a local film festival, and a host of other sources. It seems that allowing a reasonable period of time for which such materials may be presented would preclude the deletion, speedy or otherwise, of this entry. 129.72.188.220 (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jminthorne, you appear to have a problem with this content. However, this seems to undoubtedly pass my "straight face test" for notability that I usually adhere to. I would consider this article to be within the 30th percentile of notable articles on wikipedia today. Jminthorne, I am removing this prod tag immediately. If you continue to "heckle" this article, you will be considered in abuse of wikipedia. Notability is not a preference, opinion or entertainable standard. Nor does the topic need to seem important to you. I would encourage you to review both of the following articles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. You considered no alternatives, and did not, as far as I'm concerned, follow the correct procedures.
  • Delete, notability not established. Hairhorn (talk)
  • Delete, not notable, despite the multitude of references that either do not mention the group or that are not reliable sources like the video/youtube type links or blogs. (GregJackP (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Requesting Thorough Arguments, The few users fervently requesting that this article be deleted have not made an argument as to why it is not notable. Its writers have, therefore, not been given an appropriate opportunity to correct the article. If you look at the discussion on the page itself, you will see about 5 other claims to KEEP the article as well. Furthermore, the arguments that exist both here and on the article claim that various print sources back up the claim to notability. A deletion here, is inappropriate. I would propose to remind users that notability does not refer to an article's perceived importance.129.72.189.89 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article appears to be legitimate, and claims to have reliable print sources. While I would agree that a few of the cites do not appear to be worthwhile, this problem is best resolved through fixing the article, and placing the appropriate tags on the article for cleaning it up, rather than simply deleting it. (98.127.82.129 talk) (Signature added by (GregJackP (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC))) — 98.127.82.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Most of the "sources" used as "references" in this article do not even mention this group or their videos, thus making them completely useless for citation purposes. As an example, the article claims that Kathie Lee Gifford's granddaughter Jessica Gifford appears in one of the group's videos, and cites this to Jessica Gifford's web site. The problem is that (a) Jessica Gifford's web site doesn't mention her being in any of these videos, (b) Jessica Gifford's web site doesn't mention her being related to Kathie Lee Gifford at all, and (c) Kathie Lee Gifford has no grandchildren; in fact, Jessica would be older than either of Kathie Lee's children. (If they meant that Jessica is Frank Gifford's granddaughter, well, the source still doesn't say that either, nor that Jessica was in the video in the first place.) Of the sources that do mention this group or its videos, none are reliable independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let me say first that I admire your fervor in defending this article, but what works as a 2L or 3L will not work here, nor is it relevant or material to this process. In Wikipedia, notability is a standard that is very simple to follow and it can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is shown through verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Of the 12 references listed, only 1 of them mentions the group, and it is a blog. Blogs are not normally reliable sources for Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be web sources, but they must be able to be verified. Print media is a reliable source, although student newspapers are not normally included in that category.


It should also be noted that there are three roads to deletion, and contrary to the assertion made on the talk page, a deletion does not need to be uncontroversial. The first method is speedy deletion (which does have to be uncontroversial) based on an article meeting a criteria for speedy deletion. That did not occur in this case. The second way is by a proposal for deletion (or PROD), which may be contested by anyone, and was not attempted here. The final way is by an Article for Deletion discussion, which is why we are here.
Note that in an AfD discussion, the reviewing Admin will only be guided by the reasons given by the participants (i.e., editors) that meet Wikipedia standards. This is not a !vote - single purpose accounts and IP !votes may be and usually are discounted. Please review the applicable Wiki standards and frame your argument accordingly, but do so civilly and recognize that a good number of the editors involved have a better knowledge of the issues (or the law for that matter) involved than you may be giving them credit for. Stay on point, and do not drift off into meaningless dicta and you will make a better argument. Good luck. (GregJackP (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) P.S. - remember to sign your posts and/or pleadings with ~~~~[reply]
  • Response: Yes. Technically she is frank's grandaughter, and as they are married, she is therefore Kathie's granddaughter.129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Additionally, what LAW is involved in editing and creating wikipedia entries? Are you personally an authority on this issue? Could you point me to relevant primary or secondary sources of law as to the subject? This is ridiculous and has gotten out of hand. If this article gets deleted, I suggest that the current articles on wikipedia be placed under the same high level of scrutiny. 129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing "technical" about it; see Stepfamily if the concept is unclear to you. Also, the sourcing in this article is, to put it politely, suboptimal. In order to prove that the Jessica Gifford in one of this group's films is Frank Gifford's granddaughter, somebody posts a link to a picture of the Gifford family on Celebrity Family Feud -- Frank, Kathie Lee, their children Cody and Cassidy, and Frank's granddaughter Christina. No mention of Jessica, yet somehow this is supposed to have some relevance to the mention of Jessica Gifford. The article also cites as a reference the "Sports and Entertainment Law of Wyoming Journal", a publication whose title garners no Google hits other than this very Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to the Pointed Personal Comments towards law students: You state that what is relevant as a 2l or 3l is not relevant here. i would like to know your logic. Logical reasoning is always the best method for coming to conclusions. Here, the defenders have taken your rules, that you too have cited, and have applied them to these particular circumstances. This seems to be perfect for the situation at hand, and seems to be the most preferable way for people to have a discussion. This will lead to the best outcome! Additionally, by what standard does a newspaper meet your criteria for reliability? Surely such journalism is more reliable than the predominant portion of wikipedia.org
    • Comment - Please accept my apology, my reference to what works as a 2L or 3L was not meant to be insulting, I would have said the same thing to a baby lawyer (or an old fat balding lawyer for that matter). This is not a legal proceeding and what is effective in those venues doesn't work here. A legalistic approach is discouraged, and we are dealing with a multitude of backgrounds. True, some are legal professionals, but there are many more laymen. As to the student newspaper issue, it is covered at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#College_newspapers - they are generally not considered to be reliable sources. (GregJackP (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment - Please acccept my appologies, but to state that using rational argumentative style is discouraged here is insulting to Wikipedia.org. On the other hand, which informal method would you rather me use? To state it bluntly, Tell me what I can offer so that this article can remain. dont' just say "not notable." That gives me no help. All I can do is look at what you define as notable and say that I disagree, that it IS notable. What can we do!? There are about 8 people who have contributed to this article so far, and about 15 who have directly commented to me about it, asking me why it is to be deleted. In short: please help me, not just delete my article. I am trying to HELP wikipedia, make it a better place!
  • Response to requested argument style In the above, you said "Please review the applicable Wiki standards and frame your argument accordingly." Additionally, you seemed offended by my offering of the rules before applying them in the current case. however, this is using standard and traditional logical argumentative style, and not meant to be an insult. That being said, I really wish people in this discussion would do the same, so that the arguments being given(apparently by people with more knowledge than me) could be rebutted. if you give an argument that doesnt' give a rationale or cite the rule, it can't be argued by people that aren't professional wikipedia enthusiasts. Thank you for your time.
    • Comment - no, I wasn't offended, but some of the standards that were offered were not on point for the argument at hand. For example, one of the arguments talked about a PROD, which was not used in this case. As noted above, many here are laymen, and will not cite the rule that they are using in a manner that is convenient - I try to wikilink to the standards, but don't go into a great deal of detail. GregJackP (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I think he is getting at the fact that he doesn't know why people are saying delete, not that they didnt' offer proper citation. If he doesn't know the reasoning, or rule, then none of us can even rebut the argument to get anywhere. In other words, it just beceomes a bunch of children running around pointing fingers. you MUST put a reasoning, otherwise the creators and editors can't even make the article meet your personal standards. Note: I left wikipedia for over a year for the reason that deletion happy people are making this a terrible place. It is far easier to delete a good article than to create a terrible article that will meet the sometimes irrelevant requirements of wikipedia's notability. Also note that many essays have covered the problem of notabilty: it more often comes down to a person's subjective belief of the importance of an article rather than actual notability (reliability of sources). AustinBrister (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Print Sources - You state that print sources must be verifiable. What standard are you going to hold these editors to for this article? Surely you wouldn't go as far as requiring them to be mailed to you? That being said, they stated that some ABA approved club journals and newsletters are teh sources from which much of the material has been taken from. Now, they have not yet cited these sources, but that is irrelevant to the issue of this paragraph. If you are not an attorney, you may not have immediate and free access to such material. How will you verify it? 129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if it is printed somewhere, then someone can get access to it. For example, I often use LEXIS, JSTOR, and other research methods to find references to print material that is not generally available on the net. It doesn't have to be sent to other editors, just available somewhere, so it can be verified if needed. GregJackP (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC). Thanks for signing your posts with four tildes ~~~~.[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Major contributor appears to be heavily involved and invested in subject project. Only references are self-published or nonexistent/not verifiable. Minor4th (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsubstantiated Claim: please see the discussion section of the page itself. Not a single source listed is self-published by any member of the Phases Group. Please contact the UW Sports and Entertainment Law Club at (970)381-1449 to obtain verification and/or copies of the material.
      • Comment - Austin, please be careful on what you are posting as references. First, self-published references are worthless, i.e., the DVD of the film - it is published by the group, listing you as the director, i.e., self-published. Second, please do not use references that are non-existent or non-notable, for example the "Sports and Entertainment Law of Wyoming Journal" is not shown in Lexis, WestLaw, JSTOR, EBSCOHost, etc, nor is it listed at the University of Wyoming website. It would be relatively easy to e-mail any of the law professors at UW to verify if a) the journal exists, and b) that it had such an article(s). Calling a cell phone originally from Colorado is pointless. Third, lectures are not reliable nor verifiable sources. Fourth, as an identified member of the group, you have a conflict of interest in editing the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response - now GregJackP, your getting desperate. Surely you don't mean to assert that in the cell phone age, that a phone number to a contact must re-register their phone with a local number, do you? Of course not. Second, of course a local Law Club is not goign to be on West Law or Lexis. That really goes to show your lack of credibility on those sources. They provide primary and secondary law, along with treatises. This is not one of those. Additionally, to purport that every source needs to have their contents on EBSCOHost is an absurdity. However, I would encourage you to email one of the professors, however, it will most likely be a waste of time considering that the legal staff is not the sponsor of a SPORTS and ENTERTAINMENT law club. Here, the focus is on sports and entertainment. The correlating club which would have predominance in the LAW school would be the Intellectual Property Club.
      • Comment - Thank you for your response. Where does one usually look for the casting of a movie? Do you really propose that I go throughout all of wikipedia and raise issues with every single movie that doesn't sight an independent secondary source for the casting information? That is absurd. Furthermore, in order to be notable, an article doesn't need to have very single reference establish notability in and of itself, rather they are each a chain in the conclusion. That being said, I propose that we look at the whole picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.188.191 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep - The article has many sources from an ABA recognized organization, that appears to be unafiliated with the group. The fact that others in here can't go to a website to quickly and mindlessly determine notability is no reason to find that the article is not notable. I called the number listed above, and was able to discuss publications, and request PDFs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.97.47 (talk • contribs) — 72.175.97.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: those of you who like "playing lawyer" might want to read the relevant policies first. For example, notability has to be established by third party sources, there is no presumption of notability (quite the opposite in practice). Further, entries are judged on their own merits, not in comparison to existing entries. WP:V is pretty important too, as is WP:RS. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hairhorn, thank you for your response. I don't think any of these posts intend to establish notability by comparison. However, they do tend to establish how high the bar is to be considered notable; and I don't think this is debatable to any reasonable degree. To that note, if this article matches the standard already used on existing, ACCEPTABLE wikipedia entries, then we should be able to keep this entry. Second, I highly take offense to your "play lawyer" joke. We are here creating articles, expressing views, rationally debating, and you are here attempting to dominating and assert some apparent authority, ostensibly using these rules. So of course we are going to apply the rules to this article! Furthermore, what part of this is even law, or comparable to any legal matter?129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additionally, Hairhorn, people have added plenty of third party sources - UW Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, which is entirely separate from any other UW clubs, organizations, film festivals or persons, including the UW Phases. Furthermore, I think that amongst the 32 citations currently existing in the document, at least 20 of them would overcome this "presumption" that you seem to think that proponents of this article believe exists. In other words... no one has said there is a presumption, which is why there has been added 32 citations. Your point is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.188.191 (talk • contribs)
You keep referring to a source that is not reliable, if indeed it exists at all. Talk about moot. Hairhorn (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP 76.25.35.15 added an AFD comment on the article page itself. Normally I would simply repaste it here, but as it's a not particularly helpful comment, anyone interested can read it themselves from the edit history. Hairhorn (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's go ahead and paste it here and be fair. *strongly keepThis is exactly why there has been a decline in participation on Wikipedia. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. People put up good articles and then if every single source dosent check out you delete it. Quit asserting your authority and lets just work together to improve articles rather then delete articles.76.25.35.15 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — 76.25.35.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Posted out of equity and fairness by 129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Despite all the outlandish wiki-lawyering (Shakespeare was right) and SPA claims, there are no independent WP:RS indicating real world notability. Even their photo's a joke. begone, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have used the "ref name" function to reduce the number of footnotes used in this article. I didn't remove any footnotes, just arranged it so that the same source used multiple times would always have the same call number. (See WP:REFNAME.) This is a common practice in Wikipedia and is helpful in enabling readers to review the sources used. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Metropolitan90, your help assisting the creators and editors of this article is appreciated, and what seems to be an unfamiliar occasion in wiki-land. 129.72.188.191 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No direct coverage whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in RS --Sodabottle (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With respects to the discussion up above, and while myself quite willing to congratulate and admire the entrepreneurship of the "select few law students from the class of 2011 at the University of Wyoming School of Law" who have created an "entertainment group" and its set of "edutainment videos", the inclusion criteria at WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:GNG have not yet been met. Sorry guys. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only people saying Keep, are three people that have no other edits besides that. Probably connected to the article content, and possibly even the same guy. Anyway, having some law students run around video taping things, and saying hey, we got a family member of someone famous so pay attention to us, does not make something notable. Dream Focus 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side Note: Deletionists are not, by any standard, whether wikipedia or in real life, notable under any person's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.189.121 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 129.72.189.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I almost never say delete to anything, having said Keep in vast numbers of these things in the past. So I'm certainly not a deletionist. Dream Focus 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: All anyone in here has argued against are the small facts, or interesting details of this group. Every single thing doesn't have to be notable! ON THE OTHER HAND The mere fact that they have published 2 full length movies, and 3 sets of educational videos on entertainment and entertainment law, seems to me, entirely sufficient to make them notable even if you don't believe their sources. Which brings me to my next point. Has anyone actually made a good faith effort to verify whether these sources may actually exist? 129.72.188.226 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 129.72.188.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At the top of the AFD there are links to Google search engine, Google news search, and Google book search. UW Phases gets zero results from any of them. Why is it even the general Google search can't find anything about them? Dream Focus 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that not even their films get a single Google hit other than the college site itself, and the Wikipedia article about them. [36] Dream Focus 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You said "Every single thing doesn't have to be notable." I disagree. Every policy concerned with notability does the same. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --Pumpmeup 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having a video on youtube or vimeo does not show notability. The films have no reliable sources in GHits. GregJackP (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is well referenced, but there is no assertion or evidence of notability relating to any of the criteria at WP:ORG. A Google search for their name (quoted so as to only include results with both words side by side) [37] reveals 4 pages of results, none of which (other than this page and the actual article) are related to the subject. One would think that any "entertainment" group in the 21st century would have at least one instance of reliable, non-trivial third party media coverage to establish notability (again see WP:ORG). --Pumpmeup 14:42, 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. I must agree that the Times article is a passing reference, and several of the other links offered as reference are entirely dead. No prejudice to recreation if sources with significant coverage are discovered. Shimeru (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College of Chinese Physical Culture[edit]

College of Chinese Physical Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In spite of its name, this is a charity organisation. Coverage of its activities is thin and trivial. User:DGG deprodded on the grounds that this TES connect article constituted a good RS for notability. The article is trivial and does not meet the definition of a secondary source, as it does not analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was deleted once before as {{g11}} advertising, and it's not much more than that now. As per nom, the sources fail to define this specific subject; most in-line external links discuss the general practice, not this organization in detail. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's deprodding. The Times of London is a reliable source, period. The article is a full-length feature, and is hardly trivial. Whether the reference to the organization is trivial or substantial, well that is debatable. It seems OK by me. There are also two other references, all of which need to be placed inline. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentions of this org in the sources are trivial, regardless of reliability. I was quoting DGG's edit summary, not saying the sources were unreliable. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read and reread the article. The article is about a high school wushu class. Does this GCSE class deserve an article because it was mentioned in a human interest story? The College is not mentioned until the 10th paragraph, where it says "The wushu GCSE has been introduced by the College of Chinese Physical Culture and financed by the European Social Fund and the West Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council. The college, based in Leeds, teaches a particular style of wushu called weihai lishi quanfa which dates back more than 2,000 years." Then in the 18th paragraph there is contact information for the College, presumably for interested high school teachers. How is this the "Significant coverage" required by WP:N? Finally, WP:N says that "Multiple sources are generally expected.". This is one source, so even if it did analyze the topic as secondary sources are supposed to do, this organisation still does not deserve an article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:53, 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,  Sandstein  06:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Times is certainly a reputable source. The Times Educational Suppliment (TES) is a free magazine given with the paper. As such its editorial standards aaren't quite so high and it is aimed at the 'lifestyle market' i.e. true, but tedious. Despite its length that source is trivial. It doesn't pass muster for WP. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox For Sustainable Living: A Do-It-Ourselves Guide[edit]

Toolbox For Sustainable Living: A Do-It-Ourselves Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to state grounds for notability. All references are to sources originating with the publisher. bd_ (talk) 05:57, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beer diver[edit]

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

Non-notable game lacking GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael hairston jr[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Google news search turns up no hits, and a regular Google search turns up no info besides the fact that he exists. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 04:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As nom says, this fails WP:N, simply put. Considering the guy calls himself "the Reaper" and the article was created by none other than User:Thereaper666, this seems like a pretty obvious case of self-promotion - not reason to delete in and of itself, but certainly doesn't add to the case "for". Badger Drink (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails WP:NOTABILITY so badly. Just because he exists doesn't mean he's notable. Tagged as A7. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Mod[edit]

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

Non-notable counter-strike mod. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 04:11, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as he's never played professionally and WP:GNG per this search. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:31, 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Hall[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG per this search. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: In this case I don't understand why three quarters of all citations in this article have to come from a source that's not independent of the subject. You seem to have access to those (particularly the offline ones), would it be possible for you to improve the article with them? --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Most of the offline sources referenced above are available through NewsBank. A summary of the article can be viewed for free, but access to the full article requires payment of a fee. I wish I had the time (and money) to improve every college football article. I spent hours last night researching this and other AfDs. I have also spent many hours in the past two weeks rescuing college football articles of living people that are completely unsourced. The immediate goal here was to determine whether this article should or should not be deleted. What I will do for now is to add the list of article citations to the article talk page in hopes that an interested Virginia fine will pick up the mantle and weave them into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 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.  Sandstein  06:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Calloway[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and also fails WP:GNG per this search. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:22, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal-Conservative Judaism[edit]

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

not notable as article -- perhaps some material could be integrated into Union for Reform Judaism or United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism Savant1984 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete i dont believe this is a valid concept. conservative judaism is not really comparable to conservatism in general. it has more to do with the way in which services are held. many strongly liberal jews can and do attend conservative temples, but dont use this phrase. More importantly, this is unsourced entirely. one of the temples listed i removed, as its website states clearly its a reform temple, so it cannot be listed here. I would welcome a sourced statement showing this term is used anywhere, but link is not using the phrase as defined here, and is inadequate anyway. 13 ghits? i dont think so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VER and WP:NOTE; the available sources ("Liberal-Conservatist" is mentioned once in [38]) leave something to be desired. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VER and WP:NOTE; the content here seems to be almost entirely the product of original research. As far as I can discern, the viability of this article depends on the hypothesis that "Traditional Reform" and "Progressive Conservative" Judaism are viewed as essentially the same thing, an assertion that does not seem to supported by reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete not a formal denomination as such, just a way of describing the services. Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Peek[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and after a good faith search, he fails WP:GNG as well. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: Instead of (implicitly) arguing that this is not a well-researched AfD submission, you could have rescued the article with this truck load of links. Are you still going to do that? --Pgallert (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I wish I had the time to improve every college football article. I spent hours last night researching this and other AfDs. I have also spent many hours in the past two weeks rescuing college football articles of living people that are completely unsourced. The immediate goal here was to determine whether this article should or should not be deleted. What I will do for now is to add the list of article citations to the article talk page in hopes that an interested Alabama Crimson Tide fine will pick up the mantle. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cbl62's research is very compelling. I would like to see it added to the article, but I don't want to do it. Our discussion here should be "is the subject notable" not "is the article complete" --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Subject is clearly notable after another great research effort by Cbl62, so I'll withdraw this nomination. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information strategist[edit]

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

Essay on non-notable neologism with citations all to a single paper on an obscure website Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vehemently. To use so many words with apparent obliviousness to the fact that they haven't said or meant anything yet makes this patter patent nonsense: It is all about the information. Many professionals do not realize that they are information strategist in various forms and degrees. The information strategist is an emergent field in the information age. The discipline is so new that several other disciplines are attempting to lay claim. In the end, the information strategist will most likely break out as an independent field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - It closely resembles MBA-speak, that hideously dishonest bastard hybrid of sociological blather, psychobabble, and marketeers' hypocritical lying cant. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is evidently a notable topic as may be seen from sources such as Competing with knowledge: the information professional in the knowledge management age which has a section about this role. There are numerous other sources of this sort and so our role as editors or information managers is to dispassionately sort and summarise this, not to censor or spin to suit our personal opinions. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on the Google book search at the top of the AFD. This is a verifiable thing, and quite notable. Dream Focus 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nonsense that was here before has been removed and replaced with a reasonably informative stub by Colonel Warden; well done. The topic itself may support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. Racepacket (talk) 13:20, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Harris[edit]

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

An undrafted free agent this year, Harris played at an extremely low level college and fails WP:ATH while a search doesn't show anything that makes the subject notable through WP:GNG. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:51, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Turntablist Federation[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement without references. Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 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 per WP:BLP1E. Chaser (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Grace[edit]

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

This is BLP one event. A prestigious career track with a well known judge, but writing a controversial email is not sufficient to be notable. BLP issues too. There are links, but note that most of the references come from blogs with the exception of the Boston Globe source which is a fair characterization as 1-event. I'm not even sure whether the boston globe source is a web content or newspaper content. Shadowjams (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The sources cited include the Huffington Post, Associated Press (the reference has since been deleted, however), the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. The statements in the article can easily be linked to those sources. It is not just the email that is notable, but the response of the Harvard Law Dean, who is a Supreme Court nominee. Also note that this story is only 24 hours old, is continuing to draw media attention, and will likely expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 02:16, April 30, 2010

Comment: Just a nit, but this is one of a couple of places on this page that refer to Martha Minow as a Supreme Court nominee. That's incorrect. She's reportedly on the short list of possible nominees to replace Justice Stevens. Apologies for my ignorance of the proper place and format for this comment, and no, I don't have a "yea" or "nea" on keeping the main article. (I'd think it's newsworthy enough, but, again, I'm too ignorant of Wikipedia's standards to make an informed judgment.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Leo Marvin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that at the very least the admins should hold off on deleting this for a few weeks. It has the potential to develop into something bigger (see: Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy). Roscelese (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entry has an important error. The email was originally written in October 2009, not during 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.5.238 (talk • contribs) 03:15, April 30, 2010 — 140.247.5.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I can edit it to October 2009, but I need a source for that information. The sources I have (and they may be wrong) suggest the email was written in April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 03:33, April 30, 2010
I know personally from one of the people involved in the conversation that originally spurred the email that the conversation and email occurred last October. There is no currently no citable source on this other than various comments in the Above the Law posts on the story. This link from Boston.com is support for the fact that the email is at least several months old: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/04/e-mail_sparks_a.html. Again, I know personally from someone involved in the original conversation that the email was sent in October 2009, so to say otherwise is inaccurate, but I can't provide a citable source establishing October as the origination date. Please at least correct the entry to indicate the email was sent some number of months before it was made public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.74 (talk • contribs) 4:02, April 30, 2010
Thanks for clarifying, and I'll change the date (just FYI, you can make changes as well by going to "edit this page" on the main article page, tab at top of screen). Csm32 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The admins, if possible, should prevent deletion of the summary of the content of the email, which IP 140.247.241.12 has continually deleted. The content of the email is what makes it newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 4:07, April 30, 2010
  • Comments - First, I indented the comments and added signatures where needed. If I made a mistake doing that, please fix it. Second, discussions about the accuracy of the page should happen on talk page, not here--this is cluttered enough already. Third, the relevant criteria that I should have linked was WP:BIO1E. Despite the claim that the Dean's response is the subject of the article, it's not written that way, nor is it titled that way. Even if it was styled correctly for that, a dean making a statement about a student's comment is hardly notable by itself. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the dean is a supreme court nominee and the student is a future federal clerk for one of the best-known judges, I think it is noteworthy. Further, an article should not be deleted if edits to it can fix weaknesses - if the article isn't "styled" to highlight the dean's e-mail response, and you object to that, you are free to edit the article to include more of the SCOTUS nominee's response, which is linked to.

The Dean is NOT a SCOTUS nominee (even if she was, it would make far more sense to put this information on her page). Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency or personal blog. This seems more like a personal attack than a valuable article.

The Dean IS a candidate: The washington post reports: Few candidates on the list have a more personal connection with Obama than Minow. He reportedly said while he was a senator that he decided on a career in public service because of law professor Minow, who changed his life. It was at Minow's father's law firm in Chicago that Obama met his future wife. An expert in human rights, Minow is a prolific author. She has been on the faculty at Harvard Law since 1981, and she replaced Elena Kagan as dean after Kagan became solicitor general. In 2009, Obama nominated her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, the government-sponsored organization that provides civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. See the article about her candidacy at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/supremecourt/2010candidates/martha-minow.html. Where do you get your information that she isn't a candidate?

This is not an attack, it's an objective report. And the dean is on Obama's short list http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/04/ann_williams_martha_minow_on_o.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=azcSsmJTRaPY&pid=20601087 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/14/harvard_dean_considered_for_supreme_court/ (Harvard Law dean considered for Supreme Court)

  • Keep. Agree, because it could possibly have impact on the supreme court nominee and has been reported on many news outlets. --68.55.72.211 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is about a law student who wrote a private email containing some inflammatory remarks about race, which was leaked. She was brought before the Holy Office and made to recant her heresy. An interesting story, to be sure; a tale of betrayal of private trust and the defense of dogmatically defined truths. But the least significant part of the story is the name of this law student, and she did nothing to seek this kind of publicity for herself. So far, she is indeed known for only one event, and was not seeking the limelight for that one event. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd also report that the current state of the article does not reflect the tenor of the chief source of the story, which apparently is a "Gawker" website that describes itself as gossip site.[39] Gawker claims that this entire campaign is the result of a fight between two female students over a boy; and moreover, the leaker has expressed similarly inflammatory statements in student editorials.[40][41] All of this suggests to me that l'affaire Grace is not quite going to rank with l'affaire Dreyfus in the history books, although it is an amusing glimpse into the lives of those future legal professionals who've misspent their youths polishing their CVs and credentials to get into Federal clerkships. Thank God I'm a lawyer in a small firm in a small town. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP 140.247.5.139 has erased the content of the email and all parts of the story that made it notable. When this happens, I have been undoing the edits and will continue to do so. I have no wish to edit something added to the article that is objective, fair, and true, but deleting the main parts of the article is malicious and wrong. Csm32 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an article based entirely on an undated email written by a non-noteworthy student to two other students. Some months later, one student decided to publicize the email's contents. The fact that the students involved attend a well-known law school is not enough to transform this into a noteworthy topic. If wiki contained pages for every single minor controversy that garners some news coverage, the site would become entirely useless. It's also worth noting that 95%+ of the edits to the page have been made by CSM32, whose entire wiki history comes as a result of this page.Leuchars (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has made the 7 o'clock news/msnbc and the Wall Street Journal, along with 200+ other sources. A SCOTUS nominee emailed the HLS community about it, and commented on it along with other high-profile HLS professors and non-HLS professors like blogger Ann Althouse. Grace has a clerkship lined up with the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit. The controversy isn't minor.— Csm32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please sign your posts, CSM32. I think it was already fairly clear that you were a "keep" vote, given that you're the creator and near-sole contributor to the article. Leuchars (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, WP:BLP1E applies here. I don't see lasting notability coming to this woman as a result of one email. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. You're back after the 5 months of inactivity. I think this is a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It has almost no relation to this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to being irrelevant, I don't think the comparison really holds. Kiwi Camara was a child prodigy who published in medical journals at age 11, was the youngest person ever to attend Harvard Law, openly used racial slurs at school, was the subject of a book, and later defended one of the highest profile copyright infringement cases in the country. He was the subject of national press long before he set foot at Harvard and continued to attract national attention afterward as a result of his subsequent activities. In contrast, this person wrote one email that prompted some controversy. Prior to 2 days ago, no one had ever heard of her. Leuchars (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep A search for "Stephanie Grace" "harvard law" returns over 16,000 hits and this story is still developing. The article isn't linked/footnoted YET, but that can be fixed. Many notable people are involved in this controversy, and Stephanie Grace will be clerking for a very public figure. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC) — 76.19.118.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, this article should not be deleted under any circumstances. Grace is not a child who doesn't know what she's saying. Nor is she someone on-track to have a low-influence legal career. She's clerking for a circuit court judge; she's on-track to hold positions and shape laws that will affect the very people she thinks aren't "intelligent." Her views are who she is, and people have a right to know (or find out later) what those views are. I don't know what's more appalling--that Grace thought her views were acceptable and accurate...or that so many people want to let her off the hook because she's young and presumably helpless/unknowing. Wikipedia is about truth, and covering up the truth of who this woman is not what this site should be about.--deering — Deering24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Political views are not a reason to delete or keep a page. Instead, please look at WP:Notability to understand what this site is about. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As User:Ihcoyc says above, "...the least significant part of the story is the name of this law student, and she did nothing to seek this kind of publicity for herself." A private individual's statements do not make the individual notable simply because the statements are ignorant and/or reprehensible, and ended up being publicized. That this individual might one day have a position of influence is not relevant today. At present, the statures of Harvard Law School and Judge Alex Kozinski are the reasons this story has turned into a scandal. It wouldn't get any attention if Ms. Grace weren't a 3L from a top echelon school and hadn't been chosen by one of the nation's top judges for a clerkship. Yes, the story is still developing and may lead to notable outcomes, in which case those outcomes might merit a WP entry with relevant details. --AslamKarachiwala (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this isn't an encyclopedia "article", it's an unadorned dishing of dirt. If this woman merited a bio then maybe this could be put in under it. But since it tells us nothing about her, other than she has (IMO) nutty ideas, it is hard to know why she merits attention. The article seems to have no other informative purpose or substance than to do a private individual's laundry in public. Perhaps it would merit a news article in a local paper or blog in her Judge's District -- if it is not libel. But it is not a Wikipedia article.

That doesn't mean I don't think that a woman holding racialist views clerking for a judge is of grave concern. But she is not a public figure, and the article is way too incendiary and too potentially libelous to let pass without some justifying substance, and without significant substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.106.214 (talk • contribs)

Delete: This a private affair that has blown out of proportions. Wikipedia should be politically neutral, and this crusade against Grace is not. There is even political blogs that encourage people contributing on wikipedia to keep this article. If wikipedia decides not to remove the entire content than at least it should be placed under Sociobiology or what other issues she is touching with her controversial musing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.144.208 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Having moved beyond blogs this person now figures within newspapers; additional MSM such as Fox News and MSNBC are likely. By definition that makes this person and this article newsworthy. This isn't about the relative famousness of the people within Wikipedia but whether or not the person has made news. By appearing in the news that hurdle has been cleared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.119.245 (talk • contribs) 22:42, May 3, 2010 — 99.39.119.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yeah, you're right. Weird because the IP wasn't added... they added it when they made the edit. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This actually has already made MSNBC (in response to the "keep" vote above. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36862758/ Csm32 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned several times already, "whether or not the person has made news" is not the appropriate standard. Per WP:BLP1E: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Leuchars (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Grace is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, she will be drafting opinions for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. With the exception of a SCOTUS clerkship, a federal clerkship is the highest profile position a recent law graduate can aspire to. Csm32 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In and of itself, having a clerkship is neither notable nor "high profile" in the sense that that language is describing. There are literally thousands of law students who take federal clerkships every year, including several hundred at the CoA level. There's a reason that the vast, vast majority of federal clerks don't have their own wiki pages. Moreover, abstract predictions about what she might eventually do after she leaves a job that she hasn't even started are insufficient to warrant a page. Leuchars (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are fewer than 50 clerks (far fewer, if each chief judge takes 2 clerks for a total of 26) who land a position with a chief judge, and Kozinski is one of the best-known judges. So, placing Grace among "thousands" of clerks is misleading. Csm32 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most CoA Judges hire 4 clerks per year, not 2. Either way, it's entirely irrelevant to the larger point. Look at the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Since he took his seat, Chief Justice Roberts has had 20 clerks. Exactly zero have wiki pages, and I doubt many would argue that it should be otherwise. Clerking in and of itself is not notable enough to warrant a wiki page, particularly not for a CoA judge. The fact that the subject of the article has been offered a clerkship is not enough to shoehorn this WP:BLP1E into an article. Leuchars (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make note here that I put a Keep suggestion up yesterday or the day before and it has been deleted. It looks like several other Keep suggestions have been deleted as well. Pistolina (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Edited to make it clear that I am aware these are not votes in the majority sense)[reply]

  • Comment. You have made only two edits from that account, both within eight minutes of each other today. Accordingly, there is no !vote that has been deleted as you allege. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just checked the page history to be sure and can't see anything that's been deleted, though one !vote was moved to keep things in order. If you want to check yourself, click on "View history" near the top of the page. The edits are listed in reverse order and show the number of bytes so you can easily find the few times a little bit has been deleted (usually someone editing their own comment). --Zeborah (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notoriety is on a large-scale level of discussion now far removed from gossip blogs and in mainstream news media as well as meriting large scale public relations work form HLS. It seems well worth the keep as the story breaks. Elefuntboy (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that changes 1Event reasons nor does any of that coverage have much to do with the individual rather than the incident. Not to mention the privacy concerns discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC
  • Comment: There are no privacy concerns at this point - her name has been reported by multiple news sources including the Boston Globe. Furthermore, there are no libel concerns as long as the objective language of the email is reported, absent subjective judgment. The article, as it stands, it a reporting of the facts. Truth is a defense against libel - i.e., x is not libelous if x is true. I'm a litigator (unfortunately), so I know from whence I speak. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too know "from whence I speak"... I'm not making legal claims about privacy either way (although I've rarely met litigators as confident about a legal opinion as that). More claims of reasonableness. That's not necessary though since aside from the legal blog reaction, there is nothing to indicate this "story" has legs outside of a few scattered news reports, or even if the story was notable, that the individual is notable under any of those sources. Instead, I'm seeing a flurry of brand new or seldom used accounts, or IPs, that have commented on this AfD. I still haven't heard a compelling argument why this individual is notable as we use that term on Wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it was "suggest Keep," not "vote Keep." Not sure how much that changes the underlying purpose of the comment, which was to ask others who would like the subject of the article to be "accountable for her hate speech" to come here and "suggest" that this article be kept. Given that the vast majority of the edits to the article have come from a small handful of users who have never posted on anything other than this topic, I think it's certainly worth taking into consideration. Leuchars (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is well sourced, important, and part of a larger conversation about systematic racism at Harvard Law School and other influential institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncwillard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then I believe it should be added to that larger conversation. I'm sure there's an article about systemic racism or IQ/Race correlation somewhere on here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's critical that the Stephanie Grace entry be included and expanded. This debate over her email gives us a window into the thinking of a future judge. As a member of the Harvard Law Review with a federal clerkship, she's likely to serve as one of the nation's judges and will craft our laws, including future intrepretations of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the ADEA, etc.
Clearly Grace brings a great deal of value to the jurisprudence and I found her email thoughtful.
The entire body of her email should be included, and it would be interesting to add links to any of her published law articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator33 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — Aviator33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete If wikipedia published every private email that any student wrote who has an outside chance of possibly twenty years in the future having some publicly visible position, then the website would not be useful. This article seems to be contributed mainly by one person. Who's to say that is not the same person that originally forwarded the email and pledged to "ruin her life"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the way in which the email was made public is "good," but wiki notability isn't determined by how a story became public, it's determined by, inter alia, whether it is public and whether people are interested in it. Regardless of how the e-mail made national news, the point is that it DID become national news. Whatever motivations led the person to leak it are irrelevant (and if the article expands, that person could very well be named in the article as she has been named in news media). I'm sorry about my extensive comments on this issue; I've tried to respond with what I think are logical points and hope I'm not becoming a nuisance. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with your point, but that's exactly it...the story is public...the email is public. Stephanie Grace is NOT a notable person. Who is more likely to end up a Supreme Court Justice or President of the U.S.? Stephanie Grace, a standard Harvard Law Review Editor of whom there are 40 per year? Or Zachary Schauf, HLS class of '11, and now the current PRESIDENT of Harvard Law Review? I don't see a wikipedia entry for him. Nor do I see an entry for Joanna Huey, the past president of Harvard Law Review. The only reason Stephanie Grace is notable is for a personal email she wrote. I will admit that her email is notable, but should there really be a Wikipedia Article "Stephanie Grace's Controversial Email"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I've noted on the discussion page, a line was recently added to the article by Andy4U2 which I think is too subjective, calling the email racist and misogynistic. I started the article and attempted to make it as objective as possible. When I added back the text of the email after Andy4U@'s edit and voiced my concern (in the discussion page) that the addition of "racist" and "misogynistic" was too subjective and prejudicial, the text of the email was erased. I don't want to get into an editing war by continually adding back the text of the email, only to have it erased again by Andy4U2, which is a SPU account. Wiki should stick to the facts, and interpretation is not fact. Csm32 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of concerns should be reserved for the article's talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 01:34, 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) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hathaway[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. I cannot see what in this article meets an applicable notability guideline, and a search did not turn up reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.  — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:47, 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 delete.  Sandstein  06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Denmark[edit]

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

Denmark fails WP:ATH and after a good faith search on google news also fails WP:GNG. He has yet to appear professionally and played at a lower level college team. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:43, 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) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference for the Integration of Science and Technology into Society[edit]

International Conference for the Integration of Science and Technology into Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable conference ad by COI editor since blocked Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 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. clear consensus minus the nom even though the article is very messy JForget 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Ann Matz[edit]

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

I found this article with a {{prod blp}} tag, but it does now have a couple of reliable sources confirming some basic facts,[42][43] so is no longer eligible for that procedure. However, the sources offered, and others that I could find via the searches linked above, come nowhere near the significant coverage required for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • She is listed by name (see 11 September) under "ORESTE AT THE VENICE BIENNALE".[45] Ty 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the web site of Progetto Oreste, which I already linked in my nomination. I can find no evidence that anyone outside that project has published anything that notices the subject in any way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She also took part in Documenta8 at Kassel,[46] another major art event. I take these as being the artistic equivalent of WP:ATHLETE. Ty 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, seems to need clarification though...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .. but article needs some work Traxs7 (Talk) 04:00, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please be specific about which sources you consider sufficient, because the references in the article certainly don't amount to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:NOTE? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 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) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Nihen[edit]

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

Article ihas existed for five years and is an uncited stub Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I haven't found significant coverage of her in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 22 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 now pending, among others most by same nominator, I think). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its worth noting that far more of these recent playmate AfDs ended in keeps.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Milowent. Presidence has been shown to keep these articles, plus it does us no harm to keep them---they are obviously notable enough that some people might be of interest in the articles. In fact looking at the number of people who have visited her page, it is safe to state that averaging 20 people per day since this article was created is not that bad.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, just to put into context, Wikipedia's least notable porn actresses average about 100 visits per day. Epbr123 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Several Playmate articles have been deleted over the past few days, so there clearly is not a precedent that they are notable. Subject fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as my vote remains a Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see from the refs at the article that she satisfies WP:BIO. Some are pay to view, some are passing references. There should not be automatic notability for having a staple through your nude picture in the center of some magazine, or for being a model for some company, or for being on the cover of some magazine. Edison (talk) 22:04, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Gaelic Football Championship 2010[edit]

European Gaelic Football Championship 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, there are no references whatsoever. If reliable references were added then I will withdraw this Afd. ShockMetric 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 15 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) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem had been a lack of references, although these apparently were added after the nomination was made [47]. I totally don't get the WP:CRYSTAL objection, made five days after the April 10 round of play. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 01:20, 30 April 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ledger[edit]

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

Seems to quite clearly fail WP:ENT; a couple of TV episode appearances, a "regular" appearance in a short-lived series and being related to Heath Ledger doth not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 01:19, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Espinosa[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 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. Considering bahamut0013 to advocate deletion bacause the improvements he asks for have not occurred.  Sandstein  06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Coulston[edit]

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

"John C. Coulston (also known as “Jack Coulston”), was the real deal, the kind of man the movies try to portray: the handsome, brave, loyal hero." You've got to be kidding me. A run-of-the-mill US serviceman and businessman, no sign of notability. Fences&Windows 00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per criteria one of WP:PEOPLE. He has received a notable award for his war service. However, the article may need a rewrite, and citations should be made inline. Gosox(55)(55) 00:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do note that he has received significant coverage in only one source, an obituary in a local newspaper.[56] The only other source in the article that even mentions his name only mentions his name. I have looked for other sources, and I can only find his marriage notice from 1951, a plain record of his attendance at a 1982 chemicals conference, and two possible notes about his military record that I can't access ([57][58][59][60]) I can find nothing else online about the man (this primary source of a John Coulston talking about the Holocaust may or may not be the same man). We cannot write articles on people on the basis of an obituary in a local paper. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a genealogy website. Fences&Windows 07:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE - the Distinguished Service Medal is one or two steps below automatic notability - and his business career is unremarkable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not pass WP:MILPEOPLE in my opinion. A PUC is a unit award, so it does not add to notability IMO. The DSM is notable to an extent, but not enough by itself to satisfy MILPEOPLE. If the subject's actions were mentioned in significant detail in reliable secondary sources (such as books published by reliable publishers), it might help to improve notability. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a lit bit of clean up work formatting the references and in doing so found that most of the references do not mention the subject at all. They reference the existance of hotels, companies, etc, but not specifically the subject or if they do, only in passing. The only significant coverage is the obituary. I can't even find anything that confirms the award of a DSM. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional weak keep: if you know me, you know I disagree with the notion that service crosses don't confer sufficient notability. However, the sad state of the article makes me hesitate. If not's not made NPOV and better referenced (most of the current refs don't mention the man at all, and all but one that do only in passing), my vote changes to weak delete when the AfD ends. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Much research potential;most cites preinternet;serving his country thru 7 major campaigns deserves retention [olemisterpete] 11:34 30 April 2010 — Olemisterpete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Catalano[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, as an amateur, who hasn't competed in the world championship. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:56, 16 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) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found some BBC news coverage of her and added it to the article; I believe this amounts to significant coverage in a reliable source and establishes notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, it's a stub--but stubs are okay. Sourced, notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ladies snooker is an amateur sport unlike the men's game. To what extent is amateur sport notable? Clearly the Olympics are notable but they are a televised international event. As the winner of the British Open I would say Catalano is notable if ladies snooker is notable, but ladies snooker is entirely British based, the tournaments are generally unsponsored and the events are not televised and the only coverage of the events seem to come from dedictaed snooker sites. IBSF tournaments carry a higher profile than ladies events but we don't have articles about IBSF snooker players - the cut-off point for snooker player articles generally are at the professional level. There are some players like Allison Fisher who have articles about them but she has become a notable pool player in the US, and the current ladies world champion Reanne Evans who has received an invitation to participate in the new Grand Prix next season on the men's circuit. I would say by the precedent for other snooker articles Catalano does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but to be honest I don't really know how the notability of amateur sport is gauged. If Catalano is notable then there are an awful lot of other players who should be on here. I would suggest addressing the notability of the IBSF divisions really before considering the ladies game. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 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) 00:13, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 0 votes in three weeks - no objections for re-nomination later JForget 00:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Castrée[edit]

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

Contested Prod, no sources, notability in question, looks better as a list. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lots of hits under her own name, and "woelv" and "Ô PAON" which she also records under. Don't know if any are suitably reputable, though. Lots of blogs, download sites, etc. there's [61] and [62]... David V Houston (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the page creator. While I agree that more citation is needed, especially for the biographical material--and I have been meaning to add these--I really don't think notability should be in question, considering the artist's 2 releases on one of the most important and influential music labels (K Records) and several of the world's premier art comics anthologies (Kramers Ergot. Drawn & Quarterly). Charmingtedious (talk) 15:16, 19 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.
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, 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) 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While indeed "notability is not inherited", the critierion for notability has clearly been met. In the category of musicians: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Also, To my understanding, BLP in itself is not a rationale for deletion. You are going to need to articulate what, precisely, your objection is. 174.31.154.120 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Croft (writer)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and no references. There are hardly any mentions of him when Googled. —ems24 03:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I have sourced the article now. He is not to be confused with "Andrew Crofts" the ghostwriter (Reconsider's second link points to the later's website). There is a BBC Radio Four program by him which somewhat shows his notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 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) 02:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexsander Freitas[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 12:30, 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) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Rogers[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG. Only nominated for one award and the winner of a non-notable award. EuroPride (talk) 12:44, 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) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Panther[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO - She has only been nominated for awards in 2009, not across multiple years. EuroPride (talk) 12:45, 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) 00:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Hsu[edit]

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

Non-notable person. She fails GNG and PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 12:53, 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) 00:07, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Pipe[edit]

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

Fails to meet the basic criteria at WP:ORG of being "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". None of the news articles linked seem to mention an organisation by this name. A search of the Google News archive didn't turn up any reference either. Opposition to the construction of the South Wales Gas Pipeline can be appropriately covered in that article. Adambro (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The protest may be notable, and is in fact covered in the South Wales Gas Pipeline article. However, this article is about a specific protest organisation rather than the protest action in general. The article provides no references, but includes a bunch of external links, but these are all about the opposition to the pipeline and not a single one mentions "Fight the Pipe". My own searches find no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources. As such this organisation fails to meet notability regardless of any coverage the opposition to the pipeline has generated. All this is just a long winded way of saying I fully agree with Malcolmxl5's well researched and thought out reasoning. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 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) 00:04, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Notch Domains[edit]

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

I haven't found significant coverage of this company in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. ThemFromSpace 03:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this domain squatting company is notable. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 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) 00:04, 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. — Scientizzle 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Ohlman[edit]

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

Non-notable performer, no reliable sources Woogee (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the last time I looked. Woogee (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the 2nd link you provide seems like anything more than a review or a notice of an upcoming event, hardly anything in 1 and 3 to write a BLP from with reliable sourcing. Woogee (talk) 20:32, 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, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so another view or 2 would be helpful before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize my !vote is incredibly unhelpful for that too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - Interesting case. Definitely needs cites. Doesn't matter if she's a musician or not--the only cite on there right now is to her own website (although the creator did a nice job of cleaning it up after you initially nominated) so I think your first BLP instinct is probably correct, although I'd like to see some good cites rather than the token-one-cite. I'd probably go with keep but most of those articles are behind a paywall so I can't really evaluate how much they reference her. If someone throws a good cite or two in there that discusses her, I'd quickly be a keep. Shadowjams (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added following (the result of my searching and reliable links provided by User:Emily Jensen):

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:11, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magor Communications[edit]

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

Non-notable company, and tagged as such for half a year without improvement. My searches have only come up with this, which is insufficient for inclusion. Haakon (talk) 15:28, 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, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, and more of that sort of thing: develops and markets ... solutions .... software solutions .... has bandwidth optimizations to allow it to operate over standard best effort networks... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 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. Given the suggestions below, I will boldly move the article to David Castillo Gallery as the content centers more around the Gallery's notability. — Scientizzle 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Castillo[edit]

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

Overly promotional, written partly in the first person (author most likely has a COI). I have concerns about his notability (WP:NOTABILITY), and I think the coverage in the sources the author has provided is borderline. Claritas (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. It is written terribly also. — Timneu22 · talk 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The David Castillo Gallery is well known, so the only question is whether that should be the article title (probably). There are quite ample sources in Google News, including the Miami Herald and The New York Times, and 18,500 Google hits. Galleries attract attention for their activities, which are usually the jury-selected art fairs where they are included (notable ones such as the Armory Show in this case) and the shows they stage, e.g. "Wynwood Wonder at the David Castillo Gallery".[69] I note the article creator has taken steps to improve the article since the nom. COI is of course not a reason to delete. The "promotional" material (various accolades) is cited to sources, so valid, and thereby testifying to notability. Ty 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 03:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Lewis (actor)[edit]

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

Deprodded without explanation by the article creator, this voice actor has not garnered any independent WP:RS to be notable under either WP:BASIC nor WP:ENT. Not to be confused with the notable Canadian artist Sharon Lewis Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with adding info on this actress/costume designer, Sharon Lewis? - (talk) 5:00 pm, 25 April 2010
I've tried to explained this to you on your talk page. Did you see my message? Have you read WP:BIO? Please do read it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no independent coverage given for this person. References are just IMDB and the like - websites where the information can be supplied by the subject and thus are not regarded as WP:Reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent coverage from reliable sources...somewhat limited voicework does not appear sufficient to justify an unreferenced BLP. — Scientizzle 14:03, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parker House and Theory[edit]

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

To me, this band looks like it falls just shy of meeting WP:MUSIC. Also unreferenced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrefernced by whoom? Other Wikipedia articles? or those elusive reliable sources? --Zarutian (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant reliable sources, but it is also an orphan now that you mention it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:00, 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) 00:00, 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn: found additinal sources and updated the article. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 12:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeArc[edit]

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

Another obscure compression software. Coverage is almost identical with NanoZip; see my comment there for which sources mention this in passing. The only additional source for FreeArc is this paper, which appears to be (graduate?) student paper for a class; it's not a published peer reviewed paper. It says:


Note that WinRK was deleted. And we don't have articles on SBC (software) or CCM (software).Pcap ping 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then restore those articles and stop tagging stuff you, apparently, know nothing about.--Zarutian (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, so I cannot restore anything. FWIW, I just wrote Lossless data compression#Lossless compression benchmarks. Pcap ping 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been unable to find a file archiver under a free software license that performs better than FreeArc. FreeArc's notability is being the best performing archiver under a free software license. The day that another archiver under a free license comes along and beats FreeArc, I will find FreeArc less notable. FreeARC currently takes the top 4 spots on [71]. If you find benchmarks that include FreeArc, but where FreeArc is not in the top 3 of archivers under a free software license, please enlighten me, as I may revise my vote to merge. --Tange (talk) 21:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tange - a program which has been shown to be the best in its class by objective benchmarks reported in a reliable source is notable by any reasonable standard. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That class is rather meaningless to most people (I've updated the article to explain what's about), but there's enough coverage of FreeArc to close this per WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:14, 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) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Youngman[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails GNG and BIO. EuroPride (talk) 12:49, 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) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced BLP, does not even assert notability, is this not an {{db-a7}} case? --Pgallert (talk) 08:44, 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.
  1. ^ Soldier's Iraq war stance backed: Watada has right to refuse to go, retired officer says, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 20, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_30&oldid=1142642659"