Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 30

< 29 August	31 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Daly[edit]

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

Non-notable minor local writer with no citations and in an orphan article Ischium (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to worldcat, his book on Joyce is in a couple hundred libraries, but Google scholar turned up only three citations to it and I failed to find published reviews either in academic journals or in the mainstream press. His other two books are held only by a number of libraries in the low twenties. And, as far as claims of notability go, that appears to be all. It's not enough, either for WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Described in article as a local historian which can often be slightly above a hobby; also his works are with very small publishers. Seems non-notable as argued above. Medhbh (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though not totally un-notable. His book on Joyce is in 275 WorldCat libraries. But that's not enough, and his poetry seems to be unknown. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objections to a redirect, later, as an editorial decision. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark De Vattimo[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a guitarist for a non-notable band. Article has no sources (aside from two external links to myspace and the band homepage) and does not satisfy WP:V or WP:N. meshach (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Voyager (metal band) per WP:BAND. Non-notable members of a notable group are redirected to the article about the band, which i think is applicable to former members as well. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect if preferred. Clearly not notable, no significant coverage. As an aside, I doubt Voyager (metal band) would survive an AfD in its present form either. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 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.

Who or what gave you the right to delete the Mark De Vattimo wiki page? Are you the owner of the Internet??

Completely ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeoiler (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 September 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. Courcelles 04:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Spano[edit]

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

Non-notable author that has written only one book, author appears to have a WP:COI. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted on two occasions:

first as criteria A10 for duplicate of article Pichu (deleted by Materialscientist (talk)), then
another one as criteria G4 as recreation of article after A10 deletion (deleted by Academic Challenger (talk))

Non-admin closure. みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little pichu![edit]

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

The vast majority of the page contents appears to have been cut-and-pasted from the revision history of Pichu. (For comparison, here is the last revision of Pichu before it was converted into a redirect.) Furthermore, the article subject does not appear to have sufficient reception to justify the creation of a stand-alone article. (Note that this is why the Pichu page is now a redirect.) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A10. Duplicate of older revision of Pichu with nonsense title. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Article was previously speedy deleted. Creator appears to be Pichu-obsessed vandal. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not closed yet. It was first speedily deleted, but apparently it just came up again. みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, it's now speedily deleted. Closing this now. みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Andromeda characters. JForget 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle (Andromeda)[edit]

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

Fictional character, no real world notability DimaG (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Andromeda characters. Was this not tried before a nom? Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was only a redirect to Andromeda (TV series)#Cast then. I have created the list and merged all characters (all of their articles were in pretty bad shapes) to prevent more AfDs. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Andromeda characters. No established WP:NOTABILITY, and it is short enough to neatly fit in the LoC. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as compromise. Nothing to WP:verify notability but the list seems to be a good fit. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 2 September 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. Courcelles 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Horkan[edit]

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

Resume of a non-notable businessperson. SnottyWong ^express 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not passing WP:GNG. PamelaBMX 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He's a management figure in a notable company. But Google and Google News yield no significant sources about him at all, just blogs and social media sites. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 5 September 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) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Police[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILM JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced on a BLP. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's only one sentence long! 108.125.251.218 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Come on now. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (see below) While it is but one of many films from a rather prolific Nigerian director,[1] and while it might merit a metion in an article on the director had it existed, there is not enough available to source and expand the article to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this film may be notable, you wouldn't know from the article. Unfortunately, it cites no reliable sources. Until the article is properly sourced, policy is to delete. HeartSWild (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not "policy" to delete such difficult-to-source articles... though it is becoming a common practice. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3 itself counters this idea of immediate deletion when it is itself supported by "This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia." Lack of readily available sources is always of a concern, yes... but "guideline" itself acknowledges the difficulties inherent in seeking sources in problematic circumstances, and still encourages consideration of retention. Is their a reasonable expectation that a prolific Nigerian filmmaker might have received coverage in his native country? Yes. Are Nigerian libraries and newspapers easily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia? Nope. Guideline itself seems to encourage the keeping of stubs in such cases, specially as at the very least the director's work is indeed prolific, even if only in Nigeria, and it is a reasonable presumption that some sort of coverage for such a director and his films does indeed exist... even if only in the rather inaccessible Nigeria. Quite a Catch-22. While guideline grants that such acceptable cases or reasonable presumption exist, the common practice (even if contrary to guideline's encouragement toward consideration through common sense in such cases), is to toss such articles unless the difficult to access sources are immediately brought forward. What a shame. Is there an article on filmmaking in Nigeria to which this stub can be redirected or merged? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found my own answer. As the stub is currently unexpandable, but does represent the growing Cinema of Nigeria and a rather prolific director, I think it reasonable to yes, delete the current article, but to then redirect this unexpandable stub to List of Nigerian films#2003. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the director, even though it needs to be rewritten (the other way or wording it, is repurpose and retitle the article) can write one. Since he has multiple films, he;s more likely to be notable than any one of them. I think that's more likely to lead to furture improvments than redirecting to a very general list. I point out that "one sentence long" "Come on now", and BL--when it isn't a BLP, are none of them reasons based on any policy whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A challenge? Okay. Article on Amayo Uzo Philips is under work even now. Amazingly difficult to find stuff on a Nigerian director... but I'm making headway. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's amazing that the main actor of this movie has not been mentioned in this Afd. Osita Iheme is a well-known and hugely popular actor & celebrity in Nigeria and Africa. This actor is, so to say, the Nigerian Gary Coleman, as he has a growth deficiency which gives him the appearance of a child even though he was born in 1982. It is unfortunate that there aren't many reliable verifiable sources available for this film, however the suggestion to place an entry of this film into the List of Nigerian films is not the solution as WP:STAND and "Wikipedia:Write the Article First" stipulate. The article of the filmmaker as found in the sandbox posses another issue as some of the sources are not reliable sources. odili.net and nigeriafilms.com do not fulfill Wikipedia's guideline definition of a reliable source (e.g. fact checking, analyzing legal issues, scrutinizing the writing, accuracy, editorial oversight etc.) and any information taken from these sources, especially for a BLP article, should be avoided. Amsaim (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... that's why it's in a sandbox and under work. HOWEVER, much of the biographical information IS from what appears to be a decent set of sources... Thisday, The Sun, and Modern Ghana, with a special nod toward the full-length and in-depth article about the director I found in Thisday. As the director does have significant coverage, and his notability is not dependent upon the snippets from Nigeria Film, I think we can all agree that finding online Nigerian sources is problematic at best and Wikipedia understands and makes allowances for such. Nothing libelous will be in that article when/if it hits mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added three refs and expanded it. Another depressing AfD, with the occasional injection of asinine comments. Apart from spotting that the article at present was unsourced, did the nom do any work whatsoever to check if it could be sourceable, per WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT? Never been there, and no plans of going, but Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and the eighth most populous country in the world, with a huge entertainment industry. Nigeria is infamous for its Gini coefficient and not exactly famous for widespread Internet access. They don't speak English you know, so the odds of finding a sizeable Google footprint in English to satisfy WP:FILM are of course slim, and really, really ought to be considered in the deletion rationale, in particular when, as in this case, there is no problem with verifiability. This type of nom lends itself to WP:BIAS problems. The !votes above, that it should be deleted for BLP reasons, for being a one-sentence stub, and "come-on" are downright ludicrous. Laurels to Schmidt for defending the Wiki-spirit, where do you find the energy?. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:26, 6 September 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. Courcelles 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart (wrestler)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of an individual that might be notable, but we have no evidence here due to a lack of reliable sources used. Until further research is conducted and documented, policy is to delete. HeartSWild (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:39, 5 September 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 DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Connor (historian)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Per the article, this is an associate professor who has written three books. Can find no reviews or critical commentary of any of the books listed. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I typed "Kevin O'Connor" "baltic states" book review into Google scholar and it comes up straight away with book reviews in peer reviewed academic publications. One of which - arbitratily chosen - I have added this (and multiple other reviews) to the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, no references, no nothing. No reason to keep. --khfan93 (t) (c) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP, without prejudice against future recreation. The number of English-language historians of the Baltic republics is small and this may well be a significant figure in the field. Or not. No demonstration of notability as currently written. Carrite (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to me passes Wp:Author Creative Professionals No. 3 - The person has created.. a significant .. work ..that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical reviews. Book's reviewed in multiple respectable places -

* History of the Baltic States (Greenwood Press, 2003) - Book Review Kasekampa, Andres (2006) Book Review of Kevin O'Connor. The History of the Baltic States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003 (The Greenwood Histories of the Modem Nations), ISBN 0313323550. in Journal of Baltic Studies, Volume 37, Issue 3 Autumn 2006 , pages 336 - 338

* Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism and the Gorbachev Revolution (Lexington Books, 2006) - Book Review Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism and the Gorbachev Revolution by Kevin O'Connor book review by BO PETERSSON in Nations and Nationalism Volume 14, Issue 2, pages 412–414, April 2008 and Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism and the Gorbachev Revolution. Book Review by Robinson, Neil1 in The Slavonic and East European Review, Volume 86, Number 3, 1 July 2008 , pp. 586-587(2)

* Culture and Customs of the Baltic States (Greenwood Press, 2006). - Book Review of Culture and Customs of the Baltic States – By Kevin O’Conner - Reviewed by John Hiden in Historian Volume 69, Issue 4, page 835, Winter 2007

These books and refs to reviews have been added (Msrasnw (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the reviews found by Msrasnw, strong work. J04n(talk page) 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm somewhat surprised, but, the consensus is pretty clear. If anyone can think of a logical redirect, please create it. Courcelles 04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humane[edit]

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

This article as it stands is a dictionary entry. I see no prospect for it being anything else. Adjectives in general are bad titles for articles. Also I can't think of a canonical place to redirect. Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; this is a thesaurus entry. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
humanity is one redirection target that springs to mind. Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but it's not canonical. You could make equally good arguments for several other pages. That being the case, I don't see any real reason to have a redirect. People should not be wikilinking the word humane at all, and if it's deleted, the "Go" box will bring up search results, which is probably the most appropriate thing that can happen. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another, even more obvious one, is humaneness, the ethical concept of which we have at ren (Confucianism). Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not supposed to have redirects to redlinks. I do hope no one will start a humaneness article just to find a target for it; that's not a good reason for an article. And obviously it's fairly improbable that a link to the word humane would be intending a concept specific to Confucianism. I don't see why you're quibbling on this; it seems to me that the obvious and clean solution is delete and de-link. Links to an adjective that's a common English word are almost always out of place, unless some technical sense is intended. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this is a CONCEPT worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and not precisely defined by any other word or verb or abstract noun (humaneness is an abstract noun but I think a topic on 'humane' would suffice and be more likely to be searched if one was looking for information on the topic). A dictionary or thesaurus does not give the level of information that is required or desired for one searching for information for such a thing. We should have an article on what the definition of 'humane' is followed by different groups of people's understanding, ethics, practices, religious practices etc. are based on being humane. I move that this page should be resurrected. User:Kateaclysmic — Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entry is a glorified definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. HeartSWild (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (move to wiktionary) ℳono 15:36, 2 September 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) at 08:14, 1 September 2010 per G2. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zackles[edit]

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

PROD-contested. Per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:NOTMADEUP. elektrik SHOOS 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1 and A7. Article fails WP:MADEUP and sites no reliable/properly cited sources. --khfan93 (t) (c) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither A1 nor A7 apply here. A1 only applies to articles which don't give appropriate context, which this does, albeit barely, and A7 only applies to specific categories which this doesn't fit into. Trust me, if it was eligible for either I would have tagged it instead of PRODding it. elektrik SHOOS 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Maor[edit]

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

Not seeing how this can meet WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Only claims of notability in the article are teaching and editing an entry in Britannica. Bio on his employer's web site mentions an award but it doesn't meet the "prestigious" requirement of WP:PROF. Google scholar produces a number of citations but not to the point where I'd call it a 'significant impact' RadioFan (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for academics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has written a well cited history of e (mathematical constant) which is cited in that article. GS cites 123, 66, 75, 34, 17, 15....h index rather low at 7 but this will not be a well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think you are referring to the Google Scholar hits. Those are intersting but insufficient to meet WP:PROF.--RadioFan (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about cites, not hits. Discussion of these matters can be found in WP:Prof and h index. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Xxan. Ray^Talk 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is basically a historian, and GoogleScholar is notoriously bad in finding citations in humanities, so it is better to look for factors other than h-index in this case. His books are widely held in academic libraries, according to WorldCat: 1647[2], 1183[3], 927[4]. These are quite high numbers for academic library holdings, even for books with popular appeal. His books also have been extensively reviewed in a variety of publications, from specialized scholarly journals, to general science periodicals to ordinary newspapers. E.g. there were reviews of his books in Nature[5] (review on p. 562), and [6], Science[7][8], New Scientist[9], [10], American Mathematical Monthly[11], as well as in specialized scholarly journals[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19], [20] and also in some newspapers, e.g. Los Angeles Times [21], Times Higher Education [22], Washington Times [23], etc. I am fairly sure that there are more. A bio page about him at the Princeton University Press[24] mentions an award from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics for the best article on teaching the applications of mathematics. This[25] says that his book "The Pythagorean Theorem : A 4,000-Year History" received an Honorable Mention, 2007 award for best professional/scholary book in mathematics, Association of American Publishers. Overall, I think there is enough here to pass WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case made above is overwhelming. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as an author. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find several college syllabi that require or recommend his books: Agnes Scott, Amherst, CUNY, Evergreen, Toledo, Wittenberg. So, in addition to the other justifications for keeping this article, I think he passes WP:PROF#C4. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I made an earlier unsuccessful case to keep this article. However, I was not able to see the library counts that Nsk92 (talk · contribs) has found above --Senra (Talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I keep bumping into his book. Someone mentioned h-indices, etc., so see that argument above. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close Mr. Maor makes the cut. Qalana (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand what the nominator doesn't understand. <personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.131.190 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These kind of comments are entirely unacceptable, a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The nominator stated his arguments - you may not agree with them (and I don't, as my own "keep" comment above indicates) but these arguments are reasonable and policy-based. On the other hand, throwing in unfounded accusations of racism is highly disruptive and absolutely unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment (my keep vote is above) can we close this already then we can perma-link the above excellent research in the article talk page; improve the article and move on? --Senra (Talk) 20:13, 3 September 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. Courcelles 04:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Knotty Boys[edit]

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

Non-notable people. Local interest only. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even convinced they're of local interest. I looked up the Youtube videos and they have very low numbers of views, especially for something sex-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --khfan93 (t) (c) 20:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References suggest this is of no interest. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:29, 3 September 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) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halid Musić[edit]

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

Largely WP:V issues. The subject appears to be (if the article is accurate) a potentially notable figure in a type of Bosnian root music, but aside from a handful of videos on the web, there's no real independent coverage, and no WP:RS coverage, of the artist. Unsourced for about a year. Definitely a possibility I've missed sources because of the language barrier, but no hits in Gbooks or Gnews, and I've covered what I found in Gweb above. I also asked the original article author for help with sources a month ago, but they haven't replied (and perhaps haven't noticed the request.) Good sources are always welcome, otherwise.... j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I shall immediately relist, for a new discussion, but the present one should be closed and blanked as having gone way out of reasonable bounds. I apologize to those who made rational relevant comments, that they will need to make them again. I warn those who relied on personal attacks not to repeat them. Myself, I have no opinion on the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Édmée Schneerson[edit]

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

discussion blanked by closing administrator

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stratford, Connecticut#Public_education. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry B. Flood Middle School[edit]

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

My attempts at redirecting to a more appropriate article were reverted, and discussion with the original poster were not productive. I tried to explain that standards for schools below the high school level is that they must meet notability criteria, or they would be redirected. He refused to listen and made personal attacks against me. I told him I'd give him until today to find something notable about the school, and I see nothing there that indicates notability. I would prefer a redirect, but as that won't happen unless it's decided by an AfD, we have to go here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zealotry is also unproductive. I've worked to improve this (NEW) article, but it's not the only thing I'm working on. I'll also point out that while high schools are automatically notable, there is nothing anywhere to say that Junior Highs/Middle Schools are automatically UNnotable. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments bears this out particularly in Keep points 3c, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10.

Also, I made no personal attack. I only commented that there are too many "Deletion Nazis" on Wikipedia (in my talk, here): User talk:Markvs88. If User:Everard Proudfoot considers himself a "Deletion Nazi" it's not my problem. He also fails to note his riposte re: my editing skills. Had User:Everard Proudfoot been reasonable (as I asked him to be) and put a normal deletion tag so the thing could have been discussed, there would not have been any need for this AfD. Note that the article is cited, and a lot better than most other school articles on Wikipedia. Markvs88 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stratford, Connecticut#Public_education In the past middle schools have without exception been redirected to their parent school district/city article, and this is no exception. Same decision should be made for David Wooster Middle School, although also acceptable is a completely new article for the Stratford Public Schools which folds in content from both of these articles and other SPS articles I see in the Stratford category. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"without exception" is incorrect. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Munro Middle School. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I apologize; I meant to phrase it as 'a few select exceptions' rather than 'without exception'. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, protect if necessary. Longstanding precedent to redirect articles on schools under high school level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stratford, Connecticut#Public_education. Merge in some additional information if so desired. Schools below the level of High School need to have particular notability for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stratford, Connecticut#Public_education as a sensible and normal course of action. TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per school standards currently used on wikipedia. Unless this school has received significant media coverage, it is not notable. Elementary and middle schools are not inherently notable. HeartSWild (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idée fixe[edit]

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

Dictionary definition as is clear from the first sentence "The term..." and the multiple definitions, so not an appropriate article as per WP:NAD, WP:NOT#DICDEF. Seems to have been created so it can be used to describe other editors, not for any encyclopaedic reason. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article mainly describes a notable concept in psychology which is discussed in sources such as The history of mental symptoms. The closest English equivalent seems to be obsession but that article is a dab page which does not describe the symptom in detail. There is some scope to rearrange this material to assist our readers better but deletion would not be helpful in this and would be contrary to our editing policy. The musical concept should be split off from the article per WP:SPLIT as it seems to be a distinct tangent. It is also my impression that the nominator has some history of conflict with this article's author and so the discussion would be best closed speedily per WP:SK #2.2. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term expresses a psychological concept that merits inclusion. While this exposition isn't the best, Wikipedia is by its nature a work in progress and there is no reason to believe that this is the end of the line for this article in terms of content. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prior to the formation of this article, the psychiatric and the everyday uses of this term were sidelined entirely to Leitmotif, which certainly is undesirable. The page Idee fixe is now a disambiguation page, as it should be. This article can be developed further; it is not a dictionary article per se, but begins a discussion of the psychiatric implications and provides sources for further development. The article will expand eventually to a fuller discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable psych concept. Nice to see Brews diversifying the subjects of his articles. It is unfortunate however to see old conflicts continue in a new arena. Keep the article, keep the peace (hopefully). Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Colonel Warden, if by "some history of conflict" you mean I was one of the editors affected by Brews ohare's disruptive editing that is correct. Since the arbitration resolution of that I have put it behind me though I am still monitoring the discussions which is how I came across this. It still looks like a dictionary definition, with a part etymological definition followed by quotes, with as far as I can see no sources that "address the subject directly in detail", as per WP:GNG. If it is not used today it should be a redirect to the modern usage as for example Horseless carriage is. Otherwise it should start with a clear statement of the definition, something like " Idée Fixe is ...", as per WP:MOSBEGIN.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a minor rewording of the first line will make Blackburne happy? I have implemented this suggestion. As for the bearing of its no longer being a technical term in active use, it was a psychological aberration greatly discussed over decades at the turn of the last century, and it is still an aberration commonly noted in everyday English. The term monomania also is in disuse today, and has its own article, as do the topics phlogiston and luminiferous aether, despite having no everyday usage at all. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the various usages there are now three articles with different spellings and capitalisation of "Idee fixe" where there should be only one, as per WP:D. The page at "Idee fixe" should either be the primary topic, as per WP:PT, or as I suspect is needed here a disambiguation page with Idee Fixe moved to Idee Fixe (album), this moved to Idee Fixe (psychology) if it is to be kept, Leitmotif added to the DAB page and DAB lines added to all articles. This can be done at any time though.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of disambiguation

There are various ways to handle the four extant versions of idee fixe: (i) the album Idee Fixe, (ii) the common spelling in English Idee fixe, (iii) the French spelling very often used in English too, Idée fixe, and the musical theme Idée fixe. The present implementation uses Idee fixe as a disambiguation page.

I believe a sanitized version of Blackburne's suggestion would be to retain Idee fixe as a disambiguation page and use a redirect of Idée fixe to Idee fixe. On the disambiguation page Idee Fixe would become Idee Fixe (album) and the present page Idée fixe would become Idée fixe (psychology). The musical usage would remain Leitmotif.

Blackburne feels that some such arrangement is more in keeping with WP policy. I'd say that the present arrangement is less cumbersome because the psychological usage (which also corresponds well with the common meaning) then can reached with the link Idée fixe, which will be by far the most common linkage to this term on WP. Also, Blackburne's organization means that the huge majority of those looking for the article on Idée fixe will end up going through the disambiguation page instead of getting there directly. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:D says "There are three important aspects to disambiguation [(i):] Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title." So we can't have two distinct articles "Idee fixe" "Idée fixe" with names which are minor respellings of each other. I've already fixed the album as I don't think anyone would argue that an obscure Polish 70s concept album is the primary topic. But the others still need to be dealt with, after which it will be clearer what to do with redirects, DAB lines, etc.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment looking at the article now it still looks like a dictionary definition. It uses far too many quotes: as per WP:QUOTEFARM "overuse happens when a quotation used without pertinence", that is it is not explained. The quotes are presented with little or no explanation, so the reader has to deduce their significance themselves, while "Using too many quotes may detract from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia" – it makes it more like the dictionary definition at wikt:idée fixe. I don't see where it gives the definition of it as "notable concept in psychology" as it was described above: all the sources seem to be on other things where "idée fixe" is only mentioned in passing, except for a rather fanciful 19th century French paper (available here) which, being in French, tells us little about the use of idée fixe in English.

On the comparison with phlogiston that is a notable historic theory proved wrong by modern science, i.e. quite different from modern theory. If idée fixe is in psychology just another name for monomania then readers looking for Idée fixe (psychology) should be directed to that page, as readers looking for horseless carriage end up at Brass Era car. Otherwise, if idée fixe is something different from monomania it should be clear from the article how it is different and notable enough for its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized the article to better present the distinction between monomania and idée fixe. Monomania is the more inclusive term. However, the more specific idée fixe is a very much more widely used expression. The quotations are, IMO, helpful in bringing out the meaning of the term in a variety of contexts. I've made every effort to meet Blackburne's objections, and suggest that he adopt a more collaborative stance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section of WP:Quotation on overusing quotations again, as the changes have done nothing to fix the problems, and have if anything made it worse by introducing yet more non-pertinent quotations, including in the references. The section breaks just make it clearer, with a section which doesn't mention the topic at all, another that consists largely of random unexplained quotes, and one which only has a quote with no explanation at all. Other than that there is nothing explaining what idée fixe is. It is compared to monomania and OCD in the first and third sections, but the only definition is a dictionary one (it is pretty close to the Wiktionary one) in the lede. And I don't know what you mean that I should 'adopt a more collaborative stance'. I have given plenty of indications what I think needs to be done to fix the article, though I can't do anything myself as I don't know what the psychological definition of idée fixe is, and the article in its current state doesn't tell me, or give references to e.g. a book or article on the topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, John, I don't understand the article as you do, and am at a loss as to your objections. Perhaps a bit of a holiday from this article would provide a clearer perspective for all of us? Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discusses the concept sufficiently to warrant an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 September 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 prejudice against discussing a possible merge with List of popes, but there is no policy or guideline precluding both list-format and timeline-format versions of this type of material. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of popes (graphical)[edit]

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

Graphical duplicate of List_of_popes. Sandman888 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of popes. Good info, but better as one article than two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those timelines are kinda cute, but it's the same as the list of popes article and does not provide any clarity whatsoever. Bds69 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain all content either by keeping it or merging it without losing either the graphical representations in this list, nor the likenesses depicted in the other list. This is a great display of information, and I see no compelling reason to lose any of it, whether it stays in two articles or is merged into one. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is good content, and it is useful, as it displays at a glance the length of papal term, which could be anywhere from less than one year all the way to several decades. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain all content as per Jclemens and Andrew Lenahan above. Timelines can be useful in ways other content isn't. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain all content by keep or merge, per above. The graphical representation is especially useful in following the overlaps between popes and antipopes, but it's useful throughout. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly notable, and a really useful way to present this information. Don't merge anywhere until someone comes along who actually wants to do it and won't just move it wholesale to a new section in List of Popes. Bigger digger (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's basically equivalent to a timeline, a well-established type of article. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 5 September 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) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skimpies and Aviators Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG Nouse4aname (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding

Delete no content, just a setlist and tour dates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubey Uma Dutt Anjan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP; person does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent sources. Google comes up with less than 500 hits for me. —fetch ·comms 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—like the nominator, I failed to find significant coverage for this unsourced BLP. Airplaneman ✈ 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Airplaneman. I did not find any significant coverage. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as advertising, written in the first person, and exhorting the reader in the second person to try the soufflé, amongst other things. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osteria Pecora Nera[edit]

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

It's not even in english! JeremyMcClean (Talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Mishra[edit]

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

BLP Prod was taken down for no reason. Found no sources to establish notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 No assertion of importance. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability; likely a speedy A7. Being a member of a political party does not establish notability. No WP:RS. Article created by User:Sid1508, so this is also likely WP:COI and self-promotion; the user seems to be inserting information about the subject (ostensibly himself) into other articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non admin closure. Superchrome (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iko Ouro Preto[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer. References provided either

are about the subject's brother, not the subject himself or
only verify that the subject has, in fact, had photographs published. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after having another look at the article, it seems this is an unnotable person and the username of the creator looks promotional. Superchrome (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanity autobiography of non-notable person. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references provided do not show coverage in WP:RS sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE does not appear to have been met. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author has blanked the page and I have tagged it for deletion. Superchrome (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep now that sources have been added. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Maynard[edit]

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

Biographical article on an entertainer who does not meet notabiliy because he has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, nor has he made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to any field of entertainment, and finally he does not seem to have a large fan base or significant cult following.WaxonWaxov (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people).WaxonWaxov (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the Altar Boyz and Little Mermaid roles both qualify as significant (although certainly not earth-shattering) Vartanza (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations This article has almost none.WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed my edit summary when I declined the prod you placed? I'll add some more citations when I get a chance (or anyone else is of course welcome to go ahead). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey brother, if you have citations, cite away. This article is still not notable IMO. WaxonWaxov (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added citations. This actor has won a Theatre World Award and was nominated for a Drama Desk Award, and has had substantial coverage in The New York Times and the Dayton Daily News, enough to meet the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start, but all the citations for both the NY Times and Dayton Daily News are just links to the papers' homepages, not to specific articles. So how does one fix that? I figure you have copies of the papers in your hand, or have seen microfilm versions? Or have you in fact found online articles that you could link directly to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaxonWaxov (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. My Bad.WaxonWaxov (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul Erik, this is good enough now. I would normally be suspicious of articles cited entirely to offline sources (post-Mike Handel paranoia perhaps!), but the ELs show that the guy obviously exists so there's no reason to doubt the depth of coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete. I still contend that while yes, this guy exists, he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) because he has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, nor has he made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to any field of entertainment, and finally he does not seem to have a large fan base or significant cult following.WaxonWaxov (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But he meets WP:BASIC (part of the page you linked to) thanks to the level of coverage, and WP:ANYBIO (another part of the same page) thanks to the award win. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really care anymore. I will however, keep links to the sections you reference and a link to this discussion. There's a lot of double-standards wikipedia.WaxonWaxov (talk) 13:08, 6 September 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. Initial objections over the lack of independent sources and questionable notability were responded to; school serves up through 12th grade, consensus is to follow common outcome. Mandsford 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Karwar[edit]

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

Very little information and the only reference is the school's website. Superchrome (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG with little sources for notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability demonstrated in article. Carrite (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS as a Secondary School mentioned in at least two national newspapers.[26][27] First Light (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that a Kendriya Vidyalaya is part of the public school system run by the national government for children of military personnel, comparable to a U.S. Public School from grade school through high school. First Light (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. We keep all articles on secondary schools by well-established custom. The effort spent on nominating this could have been much better spent on expanding the article based on such easily available material as the school website. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our standard practice on verifiable high schools. —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if we ignore the general convention of keeping high schools, First Light's sources do enough here. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has proper references and per DGG. Fleshing out the notability of the thousands of secondary schools is a colossal diversion of editors' time.--Oakshade (talk) 21:44, 6 September 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) 00:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abundant Life Christian School[edit]

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

Nomination of non-notable topic on behalf of Ssilvers: "It doesn't seem like any of the refs are independent, and google doesn't bring up much of interest." Xenon54 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accredited independent school that includes a high school. The reasons for keeping high schools are given in WP:NHS. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Madison, Wisconsin#Education per WP:ORG (i.e., the community's actual standard, as opposed to NHS, which is a minority view). A merge would let us WP:PRESERVE all of the information that can be verified independently. There are lots of routine reports in the local newspaper about sporting event results, but I haven't found anything more substantial than a passing mention of the school outside of its hometown. The previous principal is quoted (disparagingly) in a letter in a scholarly journal[28], but that argues for the principal's notability, not the school's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per TerriersFan - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accredited secondary school is a keep, as TerriersFan points out. First Light (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established practice for schools that include a high school. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 5 September 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) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Scorpion Island (Series 5)[edit]

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

Short article, no references, fails WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't even appear to be a TV show named Escape from Scorpion Island. Superchrome (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails CRYSTAL and no sources. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there is evidently an Escape from Scorpion Island. But its article already contains every single piece of information that's in this one, and we certainly don't need this article until we can properly reference far more about it than this. (As if we ever really needed separate articles about every individual season of every reality TV show on the planet in the first place, but then again I'm one of those old-skool curmudgeons who still thinks encyclopedias should be about stuff that actually, you know, matters.) Redirect to the show, at least until such time as a separate article (sigh) is referenceable and non-WP:CRYSTALline. Note also that due to repeated removal of the AFD template, I've had to protect the page. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 5 September 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 one aside the nom support deletion - no discussion on the article talk page, so close this one as keep JForget 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election records[edit]

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

This article is essentially a very large collection of trivial election records in violation of WP:IINFO. There are serious difficulties in maintaining it, which result in inaccuracies. If a particular result is notable, it should be noted on the constituency page with the result, and not independently. I am also nominating United Kingdom by-election records as it suffers from similar problems. Claritas § 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Clearly people are keeping up with maintaining this list. It's open for debate as to how useful this list is, but I certainly recall a lot of the events listed here in 2005 and 2010 were highly significant political developments. Putting the information on the corresponding constituency pages isn't nearly as useful because that requires knowing which constituency holds the record before you can find the information. I don't often use this argument, but these two pages are ones where I would say: if you don't like this page, don't use it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that this is hard to maintain but there seems to be no evidence provided to support this and the nominator does not seem to have been active at the article or its talk page. The main difficulty I see is that there are too many statistics and records being tracked together and it might be better to split the article into smaller pieces, each with a tighter focus. Work of this sort is best best achieved by normal editing in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would be disruptive to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded rationale - There are several serious issues with the list. The first is that it claims to take into account only results from after 1945 (which is a fairly arbitrary point), and secondly that it actually doesn't follow that claim. The choice of which records should be hosted on the page is entirely arbitrary - I can think of plenty of possible records which do not appear on the page ("Highest percentage of vote"). The choice of records and the choice of which results can be counted towards the records seems fairly arbitrary to me. The article is in need of being split due to its excessive length, but there's no logical way of doing it. I believe these problems are insurmountable, but if anyone wants to show me to be wrong, please do. Claritas § 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer for all of those points: raise it on the talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest ways of sorting them out, though ? Claritas § 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is not the forum for doing do. The correct forum is the talk page. It's sometimes acceptable to go straight to AfD when there's no realistic prospect of ever fixing the article, but when issues have previously been raised and answered on the page, there's no excuse not to go down that route first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that there is no "realistic prospect of ever fixing the article". Nothing I've read on the talk page adequately defends the arbitrary nature of the article. We disagree here. Claritas § 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then raise them on the talk page. The contributors to the article cannot reasonably be expected to defend criticisms that haven't been made yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's now clearly designated as a hamlet, which exists, and is notable as such. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taberg, New York[edit]

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

Simply put, this place doesn't exist. According to the article, it's a town in Oneida County, New York. First off, please read Town (New York), where you'll see that a New York town is a kind of municipality, not just any clump of houses and businesses. Next, look at U.S. Census Bureau data: the article claims that Taberg had a certain population in the 2000 census. Data for all New York towns are available at http://factfinder.census.gov; go there and put "Taberg" in the "city/ town, county, or zip" line and select New York for the state; you'll be told that there was no such place at the 2000 census. Next, go to http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/general_ref/cousub_outline/cen2k_pgsz/ny_cosub.pdf, a map of the state as of the 2000 census that shows all municipalities. Oneida County is on page 8; look through it and you'll see that there is no town of Taberg. What's more, the "Goverment" section of this article says that Taberg is within the city of Annsville, and yet the intro says that it's southeast of Annsville. For one thing, note that Annsville, New York is a town, not a city; as well, you'll notice that the map of the state shows only Vienna, Rome, Lee, and Ava being either east or south of Annsville. As well, please understand that municipalities can't be within each other in New York, so there's nowhere for a supposed town of Taberg to exist. Finally, please note that everything in the article relies on 2000-era data, at which point I've proven that this town didn't exist; if it's since been created, it would appear (but it doesn't) in http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/files/SUB-EST2008-36.csv, a chart listing populations for all municipalities in New York that existed at any point between 2000 and 2008. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annsville, New York, where it is already mentioned as a hamlet. Taberg was a mining settlement and post office station and could probably be made into a valid article if one wanted to. --Polaron | Talk 13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found Taberg on the map for you: 43°18′15″N 75°37′00″W / 43.304192°N 75.616721°W / 43.304192; -75.616721. Note the existence of Blossvale to the south of Taberg down County Road 66 and Blennes Corner and Pine Hill to the west, along New York State Route 69, exactly as implied by Annsville, New York#Communities and locations in Annsville.
I think that the nub of the problem here is that the geographic coördinates of Annsville, New York take one to a completely different part of the state, and information has been added to that article that isn't about the Annsville that is to the north of Peekskill in Westchester County. Taberg, you'll note, is in Oneida County, just as our Annsville, New York article claims Annsville to be. Two quite different parts of New York appear to have been conflated in our Annsville article, all the way back in 2005. There's no Annsville on the map near Taberg in Oneida County, and there's no Taberg near the Annsville on the map in Westchester County. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean here. Where did Peekskill and Westchester County come in to the picture? --Polaron | Talk 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you haven't followed the geographic coördinates maplink in our Annsville, New York article. It's right at the top of the page and easy to find. Follow it, and be enlightened. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - [edit conflict] Are you saying that Annsville isn't in Oneida County? The 2000 census map shows that it's in northwestern Oneida County, northwest of Rome and west of Lee, among other places. Moreover, see its GNIS feature record. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now follow the maplink that I gave to you, and look at several other maps. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was this edit by TheAnomebot2 that was confused. Otherwise the article from its very beginning has been about the Oneida town. --Polaron | Talk 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is an Annsville hamlet in Cortlandt town in Westchester County. However, our Annsville article has always been about the town in Oneida County so there is no mix up in the articles in question. Wikipedia has never had an article about the Annsville hamlet in Cortlandt town. --Polaron | Talk 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see what you mean. Uncle G or anyone else — if you're unfamiliar with this New York usage of "hamlet", please read Hamlet (New York). Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's nothing to do with that, kiddo. Look at the coördinates given, in the article and here, and where on the maps they are. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Taberg is what one would call the town center of the New York municipality known as Annsville. One complication is that the U.S. Postal Service uses "Taberg, NY" as the address for the whole town even though the town is legally known as Annsville. Hence, the two names are used interchangeably. The demographic statistics in the Taberg article are for the entire town of Annsville. The history in the Taberg article appears to be correct and appropriate to the locality of Taberg. I think a merge is probably more appropriate in this case. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Annsville, New York. There is information in the Taberg article that needs to be ported over. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taberg certainly exists; it has an entry in the GNIS, which I'm rather surprised hasn't been mentioned yet. Moreover, it has its own ZIP code, and precedent suggests that hamlets/unincorporated communities (especially those with ZIP codes) should be kept. (Since towns are MCDs rather than communities in New York, Taberg and Annsville aren't the same place and shouldn't be considered as such.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered though that Taberg is the orignal name of Annsville and that the ZIP code you refer to encompasses the whole town of Annsville. Being the original settlement of the town, the histories certainly are identical. It's not clear why we need another perma-stub. --Polaron | Talk 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "MCD", TheCatalyst31 refers to Minor civil division. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per my standards and the usual outcomes here. It is a real place in Upstate New York. Hamlets are notable, but may be part of another article. Before post offices and that Internet, people often named two hamlets identically or similarly in different parts of New York. For examples, the city of Oswego, New York and the hamlet of Oswego east of Poughkeepsie, New York in the town of Union Vale, New York, or Highland, New York and Highland Falls, New York. So merge or redirect, if need be, but do not delete. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, folks, I did a lot of the early work in sorting out NY, and I just received a note that Taberg is a town in Oneida County, New York, which is UNTRUE. Taberg is a Hamlet in Annsville, New York in Oneida County. I just removed the 'town' references in the article and linked it into the Annsville article. My feeling about deletion or merge is that I felt that the trend to make every little hamlet its own article was quite unfortunate, since my original intention was, in fact, to put any extra information into the town articles. However, now every piddling hamlet seems to be destined for 'articlehood.' In the Taberg case however, this is a substantial article and Tabert is the seat of town government, and in accordance with my original intent to make article out of IMPORTANT hamlets, perhaps it should remain discrete. As noted, there is another Annsville, a hamlet located elsewhere. Thanks, everyone,Stepp-Wulf (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep == a very strong keep, actually, We have articles about all well-defined hamlets at least in New York State and I think elsewhere--our level of inclusion is deliberated very broad: populated place. Look for example at the article for Islip (town), New York and the navigation box listing separately all its hamlets. If it has a post office zip code it's sufficiently distinct, for they have defined boundaries. It's not a trend to make every little hamlet its own article, it's the guideline. An encyclopedia contains a gazetteer, and hamlet are--as shown above--listed in gazetteers. There are plenty of references: see Google Books. DGG ( talk ) 12:40, 5 September 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) 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energon (power source)[edit]

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

Fictional substance that fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Unlikely in the extreme that independent reliable sources have covered this. As an aside, what's with all the terrible Transformers articles lately, did somebody copy-paste a fan wiki into Wikipedia or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated another Transformer article today (Alice (Transformers)), but I just found this one while looking through a list of fictional elements. They're all from around 2006. Claritas § 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major fictional element throughout the various franchises. Current article is lousy, but there's no reason this can't be improved and sourced. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slight difficulty with sourcing this article is that there's a complete absence of independent coverage in reliable sources....Claritas § 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? Where are they? There are no sources WHATSOEVER in the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no actual evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to main Transformers article, there's no reliable sources here. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete absence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, certainly none that would elevate this fictional MacGuffin to independent, out-of-universe notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a number of references to the article. Please look over them and refactor your votes or (if you are keeping your vote the same), perhaps, your arguments. Silver seren^C 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've added junk. After review I reiterate delete. Let me explain. As of this version of the article [29] "citations" 1, 7 and 8 are non-independent and in-universe. Citation 2 (the "anime encyclopedia") apparently mentions the word "energon" on two of its 860 pages as a plot element of the Transformers universe. No in depth consideration of the thing in itself in a real world context. Number 3, Gelman's 400 page book "The Essential Child" has a one sentence mention of "energon" as a type of "life force" or essence in the context of -- the mythology and plotting of the Transformers universe. Number 4 is so bad it makes me want to laugh, or cry. The book "Universalities: Webster's quotations, facts and phrases" is a completely indiscriminate compendium of every published scrap that touches on either the word "universalities" or related words or concepts. As Icon Group, the marketting firm responsible, explains about the book -- "The entries cover all parts of speech (noun, verb, adverb or adjective usage) as well as use in modern slang, pop culture, social sciences (linguistics, history, geography, economics, sociology, political science), business, computer science, literature, law, medicine, psychology, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology and other physical sciences. This "data dump" results in many unexpected examples for universalities, since the editorial decision to include or exclude terms is purely a linguistic process." This text (and there's a whole series touching on other words and concepts in identical format} is created to be used as a primary research tool for the writing of the actual "Webster's Quotations" according to Icon. In this instance, the book deems that something in the Transformers books called "Angolmois energy" touches on the issue of "Universality." The three sentence entry briefly mentions this MacGuffin "is even more powerful than Energon" and that's it. So number 4 is an epic fail. Number 5 is a brief article about Transformer fans and toy collectors in Malaysia that notes that an "energon" toy line is available for purchase. Number 6 is a negative review of a DVD called "Transformer Energon: The Ultimate Collection" hosted at the DVD Verdict, an unpaid and almost anyone can edit DVD sales and review website (not quite as open as Wikipedia, you have to email them and ask to become a "judge" in their parlance. But just like Wikipedia, they let you write about new DVD releases for free). I understand you'll never understand why none of these "sources" are suitable. I just want the 15 minutes of my life i just wasted on this nonesense back. (Adding: I now understand Deor's point below about it being a mirror. The entry in the icon book is tagged "WP" which means a Wikipedia article was the source. The "books" are also generated by an automated web-crawler, as this makes clear Philip M. Parker. I hope silver now understands why he should never offer up any of those Icon books as a source again. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Silver seren's sources all appear to be either non-independent (licensed products), passing mentions, or inexplicable (how can the cited page of Gelman's "The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought" be construed as supporting anything in the paragraph to which it's attached?). One was a citation of a printed WP mirror, which I've deleted per WP:CIRCULAR. There's not nearly enough to satisfy WP:N here. Deor (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Licensed products" are, by definition, independent: They're not made by the same company, but another one who's seen fit to put out products relevant to the original creation. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not independent as sources because they're marketting something to sell it under license -- a license they pay for, either for up front cash or profit sharing. That makes them business partners of the license holder, not dispassionate independent third parties. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Licensed products are the diametric opposite of independent. And they aren't sources of information either, they are promotional material or merchandising. Even if we assume that a licensed book is an appropriate source of information, the act of licensing can vary between relatively hands off to near direct control. But either way we are talking about a means to divy up a revenue stream, not a serious attempt to review or investigate a subject. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bali Ultimate's rationale. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali Utimate's moment of epic win. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali ultimate. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali Ultimate. Total lack of third party sources that can WP:verify notability of this empty noun beyond the notability of Transformers overall. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although destructive and unstable, and taking the form of dark purple crystals that can visibly grow several feet in a few seconds and which can be used to corrupt Cybertron machines, this is not notable. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no reason logic in keeping this article up after looking at this discussion. NotARealWord (talk) 19:31, 6 September 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 List of Quantum Leap episodes. JForget 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Faith (Quantum Leap)[edit]

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

Delete - no reliable sources indicate that this individual episode is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG. PROD removed without comment but with citation to a book that apparently mentions the episode's existence while not providing any significant coverage as required by our notability guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVEP, as it does not meet the general notability guideline. Claritas § 11:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and redirect it to List of Quantum Leap episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Quantum Leap episodes--really, that's a no-brainer. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's a no-brainer that information that isn't sourced should not be merged into another article that already covers the episode in sufficient detail. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think "merge" actually means, Cow? Seriously, what do you think would happen during a merge that's so bad that deletion is preferable? Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means turning the article's name into a redirect to the list article while encouraging editors to take material from the original article's history and placing it in the target. Something that we should not be encouraging when the information from the original is without sourcing or otherwise unsuitable (like trivia). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, but those are two of the exact things we should be doing!
  1. Redirects are cheap, allow people to find what they are looking for. Even when the names with X (Quantum Leap) aren't themselves likely search terms, they're useful in disambiguation pages.
  2. NN content may indeed be sourced and either readded to the merge target or as the basis of a future breakout article, and leaving it accessible in history to non-administrators is the best way to do this. Hiding inadequate work in histories is the best compromise--such that work is neither put on display, nor erased from the user-accessible wikispace. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't useful in DAB pages, because the DAB page should point directly to the episode list without an Easter egg link, and no, we shouldn't encourage the inclusion of unsourced and likely unsourcable material by leaving it in an edit history. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:05, 1 September 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, blanked by page creator. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NH65[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced future event that borders on advertising. Nothing to say why it is notable. role^player 11:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Katano[edit]

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

M. Katano has programmed 3 video games. I don't think these few credits are quite notable enough for an article; I can't find any information about the person himself. It does not seem to be possible to expand the article beyond a short credits list, with actual biographical information. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources to assert notability of a living person. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much more than a name among the credits, of which there are dozens or even hundreds for a major game. I'm not sure that the IMDB link is actually for the same person, as the names are spelled differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few credits, nothing else notable about the individual. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been a blpprod since no references are given. Besides that, no notability except being credited 3 times is given. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have a book about him and other key people in the massively notable Final Fantasy series, called Final Fantasy Designers. [30] And he played a significant role in the development of three different notable projects. Did he have any character based on him in the game? Some games do that. Dream Focus 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That book is a printed mirror version of Wikipedia. It was automatically mirrored and wasn't even proofread (note how "Itō" because "It?"). Wikipedia content cannot establish notability for... itself. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland[edit]

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

I kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of a rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. But I'm not a geologist, so I thought it might be useful to ask at WP:Geology, before taking to WP:AFD. I've had no response there. So now we are here.

The images on the BP:BISE talkpage seem to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of theContinental Shelf. I think this article actually provides a template for what the article could/should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

So for now I am proposing in the first instance, is that the article should be deleted. Failing that, if the community feels that it is worthwhile, it could be moved to List of gravity anomalies, and refactored. Or it might just be a merge into Gravity anomaly. But I will start with a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs)

Delete - as per nom Fmph (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough although the article needs improving. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm unconvinced on the notability of those particular gravity anomolies, but the article should not be deleted just because it is not part of a larger series. If there's no interest by others to create the larger series, it doesn't meet that the article is not noteworthy. Unless an editor steps forward to create the more general article suggested above, lets keep this article. If someone does decide to create List of gravity anomalies with this article and expands it appropriately, then that's a simple move, not a delete. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how this is anything wikipedia is not, although I could be wrong. I'm hesitant to simply delete an article simply because of its quality, as it does have information not currently on other articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information here is coherent, interesting, and sourced. The absence of similar articles for other parts of the globe is no reason to delete it. And why should the fact that people often find it convenient to publish this information in map form mean that the topic is any less notable? Anyway, there are non-map publications on these anomalies too: e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Avenue (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only reason this article is being flagged for deletion is becuase it contains the words "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I could spend some time explaining the origin of the various anomalies, most of which are unrelated to the position of the continental shelf, but that should be in the article, which I will take a look at (although probably not for a few weeks). Given the size of most geologically important anomalies, they should not be handled at a larger scale than this. Mikenorton (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since I created the article in the first instance you'd expect me to vote to keep it! I certainly agree that it could be improved (and there must be plenty of Wikipedians out there with the relevant expertise to do that!) and I've taken some steps to do that today with additional references relating to geological discoveries resulting from mapping of certain of the anomalies. I'd be interested to see material on GA's in other parts of Europe and the wider world - not least to display their relationships with geological structures and indeed physiographical features. cheers Geopersona (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting, well-referenced, it would make a good model for other similar articles. First Light (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - It is clear there is not support for deletion, perhaps we should consider having a debate on the name of the article, and if British Isles would be more appropriate than Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are not regional geological journals, it is the journal of the British Geological Survey, which is a highly notable academic body. Happy for a discussion on whether the term "British Isles" should be used and whether "Britain and Ireland" should be used as the basis for one article, but quite frankly, I don't think think we should make a special effort to appease people who take offence on minor issues. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to be useful. Reasons for deletion are trivial. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Article is worthwhile, interesting, informative and seems to be of reasonable quality. Can't see any reason to destroy it. --Ischium (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is interesting, worthwhile and useful. Perhaps we should consider having a debate on the name of the article but nothing is gained by deleting it. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am slightly curious why this has come here, given that the question regarding notability was asked on the talkpage and pretty much everyone said it was notable. The nominator makes no reference to the sources provided, and neither do they appear to have looked for sources themselves. If they had done they could see that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about this very topic. Quantpole (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing. Probably not tagged for deletion for knowledge-based reasons to put it kindly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:52, 3 September 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) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codewit Global network[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability - subject of this article fails WP:GNG - sources in the article lead to the company's website - other sources / external links consist of links to unreliable & questionable sources and dead links. The contributions of the article creator suggest that he created the article for promotional purposes. Amsaim (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organisation with sources mainly from self-published materials plus one or two minor newspaper mentions. Hardly encyclopaedic. Two associated articles Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret and African Students Convention 2005 have been PRODed on similar basis also I am pleased to see. Note that a number of sockpuppets of O.A-C regularly prop this up also that English Wikisource deleted material associated with this walled garden in March.[35] –Moondyne 13:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails to establish notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the organization should be deleted. The organization has created impart in the society and are famous more than the following organization listed below. This listed organization have permanence in Wikipedia and are poorly written why are we fighting hard to remove this particular one. The idea to remove this project stem from Martin H who has been working hard to get it removed. maybe we need to know what forms his bias. check all related project below and tell me why this particular debated project need to be removed. I think it is prejudice. This organisation events have appeared in different newspapers and asuch it is credible. remember the sources must not neccesary be online for credibility. I have seen that printed version of the events has been include on wiki common for references. Please check the following similar organizations below and judge for yourself if this project should be deleted and why? since this sample project are far less credible than this. Montana_High_School_Association Zonta_International Association_of_Marist_Schools_of_Australia National_Students_Federation Dreams_for_Kids BBNM International_Students_Day International_Students_of_History_Association Idealist_on_Campus 128.214.11.163 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation should not be deleted. I attended their workshop last week. They are credible. You can check with the patent Registry and some Finnish media. Xuci-p (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@128.214.11.163: Its not my "idea" to remove it but to disburden the whole group of related articles (founder, organization, magazine, event) from spam and self-manifestation. The most immodest edits are already removed: wikisources and this edit, also in the past it was removed (Note the capital letter "N"). Its however correct that in my opinion there is nothing to rewrite here but the only possible way to remove all spam is to delete it. One point I mentioned already is that it is not even clear nor backed up by sources how many members etc Codewit Global network has. Organizing one or two student events with a bunch of students isnt notable, many people did something like this including myself. The work of the organization shows some dependency on the place of residence of the founder, Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret, in Malaysia in the past and in Finland today. The conclusion is simple: This is a non-notable one man show trying to gather notability and recognition with a Wikipedia article. The founder appears to be an ambitious young man but Wikipedia is not the platform to make him famous or to spread his thoughts and ideas. Also Wikimedia projects are not a place to make someone a writer/novelist in public perception that he not was before he self-published some texts in wiki sources. I see much abuse of our projects here. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Primary editor has claimed on the article's talk page that reliable sources exist in offline newspapers. While it will be hard for us to evaluate, I think we should at least give the author a few more days to try and get that information added. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 1 September 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 Northbrook School District 27. per common outcomes JForget 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Oaks Junior High School[edit]

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

Junior high school which fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources, simply the routine coverage expected of a school of this size. Most of the article's content is likely unverifiable. Claritas § 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Northbrook School District 27; I had created redirect to the district, but with changes applied after, feel that WP:ORG applies; no visible coverage exists outside of local/state importance, where WP:ORG tends to regional coverage or better. Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the high school/school district per common practice. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article fails WP:ORG. (sorry)WaxonWaxov (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - meeting WP:ORG is not a requirement for a merge or redirect; indeed if WP:ORG was met then that would be grounds for a standalone article. TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northbrook School District 27 per usual practice. It isn't individually notable hence the merge/redirect action. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northbrook School District 27 per common outcomes. I can't see much that warrants merger. Seems like a lot of OR. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:25, 2 September 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) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Salim[edit]

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

Says he has stared alongside many major stars. Maybe he has, but you need to star to get an article.... Chris (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found = subject fails WP:ENT. I can't find his name on IMDB. All I found is this personal profile. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supposedly a film actor, but doesn't appear on IMDB. Article also written in an incredibly goofy style: "...with such talent, drive, and dedication, Laith may be on his way to Hollywood!" I bet Hollywood can't wait. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ENT. There's no independent coverage of him at all and I can't find any evidence that he's had any major roles. Claritas § 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. No major role and no awards. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Armbrust. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rodney Chandler[edit]

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

No claim to or evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An interesting story and a borderline case. Contrary to the article's claim that he was a CIA spy the sources claim that the terrorists considered him a Viet Nam "war criminal." He is known only for his unfortunate death, but his story was covered by reliable media in English and Spanish/Portuguese. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEVENT. If his murder is notable, an article on it might be warranted. Claritas § 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Claritas. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A shame, but he doesn't pass any part of WP:BIO. His murder has plenty of coverage but doesn't seem to have had any meaningful repercussion beyond his family. At some point in time he might get his name mentioned in History_of_Brazil#Military_response. Bigger digger (talk) 01:35, 5 September 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. Mandsford 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Palestinian terror attacks[edit]

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

Hopelessly POV. The list doesn't have a purpose; the lists about suicide attacks are redirects to the same article, and the lists of rocket attacks by years are found within the body of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Jmundo (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Hopelessly POV" appears to be an apt description of this effort. __meco (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A potentially useful list, but POV and already adequately summarized at Palestinian political violence. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of lists which should not be allowed to stand given the current organized POV campaign to alter Wikipedia content. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Palestinian terror attacks to create a proper disambiguation page.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already adequately summarized at Palestinian political violence. POV issues abound here. nableezy - 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand, per Brewcrewer. Having a list specifically of lists is inane, but this article is a good core for indexing the broad and complex set of topics that Palestinian terrorism constitutes. I think Index of Palestinian terrorism-related articles would be best, but Brewcrewer's suggestion works, too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand as per User:Brewcrewer, , User:Jalapenos do exist.AMuseo (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered at Palestinian political violence. We should also avoid phrases such as "terror attack". ~Asarlaí 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't "terror*" a bad word round these parts? Meta-lists are surely not the way forward, and all this info should be in the aforementioned article, which looks very comprehensive. Bigger digger (talk) 00:59, 5 September 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) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative wind orchestra with majorettes "Dimitar Mechev"[edit]

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

Youth orchestra of unknown notability. Unsourced except for a link to a local news website and the band's own websites; no indication of outside coverage; no independent reliable documentation of the prizes claimed and the nature and notability of the competitions in which they were won. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Does not cite any reference and looks like and advertisement.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation (Author): I appreciate your will to keep Wikipedia clean. As a matter of fact, I always insist that there is mush spam and advertisement over the World Wide Web and I respect Wikipedia for the order the administrators and experienced users keep here. But what I am trying to explain is that this article is the largest single information source for the band (just tired of calling it "orchestra"), as it is composed of the information on several old papers. I can sware before you that this article is not an advertisement, nor just an additional number of edits to my profile statistics. The page you want to delete is just a collaboration of all avaliable to me sources and it's goal is to help whoever wants to know something about the orchestra to read it, instead of making him serach old brochures. I understand that there are no references and citations, but I coundn't find any over the internet except for the ones I posted. If you think that this arcticle is not approptiate for Wikipedia, I give you the full right to delete it. On the other hand you can see that this is not the most useless and uncited arcticle in Wikipedia and (I don't want to argue, I just want to leave this article in Wikipedia), as you can see, the Nottingham Youth Orchestra article is permitted just because of the web site posted. I took a look and found it outdated and with the relatively same contents, as the references I posted for my article. So, if you refuse leaving the article I could create a web site with the same contents as the article and all the article could be cited. I will not do that, but think for yourself, is refering to material of unknown source better than not refering to anything?

Sincirely yours, Ianis G. Vasilev. As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 12:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC). —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Author: Nevermind, is the article better now? As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 06:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianis G. Vasilev (talk • contribs)

Keep: Seems to be notable under the criteria established at WP:MUSN. From the links given, the orchestra appears to be very significant in its home city and this is verifiable. Also, it has participated in major national and international events: see for example here: a government source which mentions its participation in a wind orcestra festival in Greece. Also, this major wind orchestra festival (it has participants from outside the country, so it can be considered significant) describes the orchestra at length, also confirming its participation in multiple festivals.
The problem is that practically all of these sources are in Bulgarian, but it's never been Wikipedia policy to deny notability just because there are no English sources. Kostja (talk) 20:08, 12 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Kostja. scope_creep (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article documents the group's history well, albeit using poor English, but this does not change the fact that it still does meet the criteria for WP:BAND or WP:MUSICBIO. It still appears to be a youth musical ensemble that plays local festivals. This is not sufficient. --Crunch (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Delete Deeply unsourced, no evidfacen n=of notability (I have found no news hits on them).Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author: First - Sorry about my English. Second - According to the last criteria for WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO this article is valid as the orchestra had a few national broadcasts, including a recent one on radio Horizon (part of the Bulgarian National Radio network) on the 5th of June, 2010. The broadcast was about one hour, so according to this criteria, the orchestra is concidered notable (I will soon post a source). Still, it is not as notable as others, but I preserve my argument with the Nottingham Youth Orchestra (Which has approximately the same search results on Google Search and Bing) As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted pending source hinted at above, although right now I would close as delete

Delete. Probably should be merged to its parent chitalishte (except there is no such article). If I read this right, this is like a school orchestra. What's going to be difficult is that sources will likely come from the Bulgarian press. Note that there is apparently no equivalent Bulgarian wikipedia entry for this orchestra. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and everyone above. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author: As I already mentioned, the orchestra had a few national broadcasts, including a recent one on the 5th on June this year (See article's sources). It has also multiple recordings, but most of them amateur, so I will post the records made by the Bulgarian National Radio as soon as I find them. Also, the orchestra has many articles in the "Tempo" newspaper, Velingrad's weekly newspaper (Some of them included in the External links section). We can argue about the triviality of the newspaper, but it is neither owned by the orchestra, neither depends on it. So I think bots the first and last criteria of WP:BAND are satisfied. The problem is probably the lack of english sources (The orchestra has no tours to the UK, US or other english-speaking countries) and no bulgarian article, but I promise to translate this article to Bulgarian as soon as this dispute is over, no matter what will be the result. As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 10:49, 31 August 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis[edit]

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

Most newsworthy events are not encyclopedic material. Hopelessly POV. Jmundo (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. The list gives the impression that "Palestinian axe attacks on Israelis" is a noteworthy phenomena, but there's no indication that this is a list of anything other than isolated incidents, which all fail WP:EVENT. Claritas § 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't seem to happen often enough or have enough regular coverage to warrant an article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my argument, this is not a list of wiki-linked articles each with there own notability and reliable sources. The incidents listed are not on their own worthy of articles for any definite reason (at least they have not been shown to be at this time). A list of red-linked articles is not within the scope of WP:Lists and WP:CLN as a list is by its nature on the project, an organization and navigation tool. This list does not help us "navigate" to anything. Although policy says lists may contain red-linked items, it does not say that it is good practice to include ALL red-linked items. An embedded list is allowed to include not otherwise notable topics within the scope of an article, but this makes zero effort to be an article. Where does this article assert the historical significance of the incidents listed? Where does this become POV? The opening sentence itself seems inflammatory, "include 13-year-old boy Shlomo Nativ and 19-year-old female soldier Liat Gabai." This is, of course, a content issue, but it's one that is central to the article. The "See Also" section of the article points to Palestinian political violence, yet we have no way of knowing for certain that all incidents listed are of a political nature. We can make the assumption that any and all interaction between Israelis and Palestinians is political by its nature, but that is the heart of a biased POV. In one incident, sourced here [36] and here [37] (two of the only sources verifiable online and centered around a single incident) the article clearly states that the attack was NOT linked a political group. Beyond that, and this is splitting hairs, but we strive to be accurate here, the attacker uses a knife and a pickax to conduct the crime. These are distinct and different from an ax. The heading "Attacks on Civilians" seems POV as it frames the attackers as all of a military or organized nature. For example, the March 2004 incident says, "An ax-wielding Palestinian wounded three Israeli civilians near Tel Aviv". This framing makes it appear as though the attacker is not a civilian. Taking this to a neutral place what if we created an article of this nature called "list of Tucson gun attacks on Sedona residents" When taken outside the context of a known conflict the basis for the list seems to fade into the ridiculous. That's why this article is inherently POV, without the POV the article loses its mis-applied feeling of importance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the distinction between list articles, whose function is to organize Wikipedia articles on individually notable topics, and articles with embedded lists, which must themselves be on notable topics, is well taken. I also agree that this article at present makes no attempt to belong to the second type. However, most of the items on the list should have their own articles (one already does), hence this is essentially a list of the first type. It is of course useful for development purposes, but more importantly it (as opposed to a simple list of red links) provides summary information about each item, so it is useful for the reader. This is a natural and efficient way for Wikipedia to develop: first provide the reader with summarized information, then expand on that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Gruesome, but still delete. No real need to cross-categorize crimes by ethnicity of attacker and victim and by weapon. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, no page then for List of Israeli firearms attacks on Palestinians??? Carrite (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a documented campaign ongoing to "train" Wikipedia editors to consciously distort coverage of Israeli-Palestinian affairs; we should subject all new pages dealing with Israeli-Palestinian relations to a heightened level of scrutiny. This is clearly a trojan horse POV push and should be out of here as fast as our little legs can carry it. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a well documented phenomenon occuring from time to time, based on RS. - BorisG (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be well-sourced collection of individual acts of violence. It's unfortunate that there ARE enough such attacks to support such a list, but neutrally applying our notability guidelines leads me to conclude that the list meets our inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Claritas. No evidence that ax-based attacks are a notably distinct class of violence. Any notable individual incidents can be documented in other articles like Palestinian political violence. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. What's next? "List of Palestinian knive attacks on Israelis"? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lists of Palestinian terror attacks. --Shuki (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this would mean. Lists of Palestinian terror attacks is a list of Wikipedia articles, not a list of terrorist incidents. (Note the plural in "lists".) Also, Lists of Palestinian terror attacks is undergoing an AfD and will probably be deleted soon.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significance to the type of weapon used asserted by sources. Stitching together different events like this suggest that there is, which raises WP:SYNTH concerns. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Claritas, Armbrust, and Tarc. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand An interesting form of murder, and apparently a pattern in terrorism against Israelis. There are a number of Ax murder articles. Axe murder incident, Bat Ayin ax attack, so the phenomenon is notable, and there are other articles on specific kinds of terrorism Animal-borne bomb attacks.AMuseo (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All lists are, by definition, a collection of items, and thus any "List of.." article involves some editorial synthesis, which is allowable. The "delete" arguments above could be equally applied to just about any "list" article on wikipedia. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to more general article as WP:Listcruft. Strongly disagree with HupHollandHup: lists need to be on a notable topic no less than other articles. If the topic itself is not notable, then uniting a bunch of items together that are not really related except under that non-notable banner is synthesizing a connection rather than reporting on an already-reported connection. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HupHollandHup. Lists are especially important whenever we have a broad and complex set of topics. Violence in the Middle East is precisely a broad and complex set of topics. Invoking WP:SYNTH is meaningless without saying what statement or implication is made in the article that is not in the sources. WP:NOTDIR clearly does not apply here. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay which is considerably more anti-list than the norm on Wikipedia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why this particular combination of attacker/victim/weapon is worth collecting into a list. It seems to imply this is some sort of trend or noteworthy occurrence when we only have 11 of them from the past 30 years, even after including attacks with a pickaxe rather than an axe. The references treat these as isolated incidents. We could just as easily comb 30 years of news reports to create List of rolling pin attacks by Japanese people on Australians or some such. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by default because the nominator has failed to state any policy based reason for deletion. Wikipedia's notability policy apply to the creation of separate articles on a given topic, not really content within articles. The fact that ax attacks are not notable (assuming they aren't) does not mean we cant have an article or list about ax attacks. Nominator's second basis for deletion "hopelessly POV" is on weaker ground. POV is never a basis for deletion. Nor does nominator explain what wording in the list does not comply with WP:NPOV policy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the burden of proof is with the one who wants to keep the material. Per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." Are the victims notable? Any historical significance of the weapons? Then we have the problem of the scope of the list. The list is not about notable individuals but Ax Attacks of one group against another. That bring us to the dark side of POV, synthesis and original research. Why keep a non-notable/too specific list that is a fertile ground for someone to advance a narrow minded view of the world? --Jmundo (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Palestinians attack Israelis, fine, but this seems more like a collection of individually news-based items than anything else. Furthermore, as per Claritas, there is not significant coverage of axe attacks as a phenomenon to suggest notability for collating them all, which is the opposite case for the rocket attack articles, which generally have historical context and political impact to support their inclusion. That is what is missing for this article/list. WP:NOTDIR is also applicable here. Bigger digger (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Well sourced, encyclopedic, no reason to delete.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is getting filled with this kind of "encyclopedic" material. ArrowPointingUp (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)— ArrowPointingUp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Arrow, you've made no other edits outside of this comment. Did you edit under a previous account or ip address? Although any user is free to participate at AfD it usually helps bolster your argument if you have some kind of an edit history outside of the AfD discussion you are engaged in. I'm asking this only to help your comments maintain the weight they deserve in the debate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 7 September 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. Courcelles 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kistler Valley Road[edit]

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

Non-notable secondary road Dough 48 72 04:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Road shows no indication of notability. (Incidentally, how is the hotel thing ironic at all?) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unexceptional road. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:06, 4 September 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 DB-A7 (No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). elektrik SHOOS 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vio7[edit]

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

Was deleted minutes earlier via a speedy deletion, though admittedly the earlier version was just an external link. Has been created and extensively edited by ArmandVio7 who I'm assuming is the lead of the band. Written like an advertisement. Completely unreferenced. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION. elektrik SHOOS 02:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - May meet #11 of WP:BAND. Article seems to be promotional and a conflict of interest. M J ₉ ₄ 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously an advertisement. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be notable, but no evidence of that, and appears to be blatant WP:COI/WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cell[edit]

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

Not notable. Only refs are to sponsors or self-published. No GHits of significance. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability as yet. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michig (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, written like an advertisement. Yousou (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for djs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are self-published twitter and myspace accounts. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 22:15, 3 September 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 deleted A7 G11 -- Y not? 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of fate[edit]

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

Possible advertising, fails WP:BAND and is unreferenced. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no one aside the nom seems to support deletion JForget 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations[edit]

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

Based on primary sources. For information that can be sourced from third-party reliable sources the main article can be used. I understand that this is a summary style "child" article, but given the recent talk page request from an employee this page is being treated like a directory (WP:NOT, #7) --Commander Keane (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, first off, we're all agreed that the Council on Foreign Relations is six miles (about 10 kilometers) over the notability bar, correct? There is already a vast membership list at Council on Foreign Relations and has been for years, also correct? Why would there be the slightest objection to breaking out the membership roster as a stand-alone list? I suppose one could make the argument that it is a potential content fork, but that seems a weak complaint, since the latter is explicitly a list and there is no "content," per se... I'm just really not following the basis for the complaint here. There is no prohibition against using primary sources at Wikipedia, only a requirement that they must be "used carefully". So this leaves us with, what exactly? A keep or a speedy keep... Carrite (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - In anticipation that there will be complaint made over my statement about primary sources, here is the latest ruling on the matter by ArbCom in their recent Race & Intelligence decision: "3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. List of notable members of a notable organization. The list itself is a bit too long for the main article, so it makes sense to keep this list as a separate article and just leave the current Board Members listed at the CoFR article. Otherwise, the main article just becomes too unwieldy. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Clearly worthy of an article. Probably even more so than List of Batman supporting characters. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how is the "some" in "Some corporate members" defined?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Tyab[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 August 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, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jouranlist failing WP:BIO. Unlike the nominator, I see 47 Gnews hits (archive); however, almost all of these are reports by Tyab rather than reports about him. The one exception is the coverage of Al Jazeera opening an office in Canada; however, this is not in-depth coverage of Tyab himself, but incidental name-checking of him in the context of coverage about another event. cab (call) 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. Redirecting on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Vidal[edit]

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

Non-notable person, the article is more about the student organization than the individual. No significant coverage found Jmundo (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to organization Vartanza (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. —fetch ·comms 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism[edit]

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

Non-notable manifesto. This has failed an AFD once before, and I don't think anything has really changed since this article's previous deletion. Thus, I am nominating it for deletion again. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on issue. The manifesto was reported on in the news media but it is really an aspect of the larger story.Borock (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, I am totaly opposed against merging this article. The manifest Together_facing_the_new_totalitarianism is definitely a profound self-contained contribution about secular reasoning from leading secular intellectual. Since years me and a lot of my colleagues at university Vienna use this manifest for teaching, discussions et cetera. Therefore me and my colleaguesare are totally opposed against merging this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin.lengauer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge. Even if it is merged the option should be open to make this an independent article in the future. It is just about notable enough to justify this, especially given some of the signatories.Dejvid (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with a recommendation agains making it an independent article. Notable signers do not make a notable letter. I note that while Ref 1 is a good reference, the current version of ref 2, at [38]m is a single sentence, Ref . 3 is just a reprint of the statement , and Ref. 4 & the sentence it references do not discuss the subject of this article, but the underlying cartoons. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 5 September 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. leaning towards Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bird in a Cage[edit]

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

This is a 1986 student film that received a 1987 Student Academy Award (originally the text simply stated "Academy Award winning"). Note on the page for the award, very few are wikilinked as very few are notable. It did receive a short review in the All Movie Guide (originally the text stated The New York Times). This film lacks sufficient notability (beyond a rightful mention on the award page) to deserve a separate article. This page was created simultaneously with the director Antonio Zarro whose page I will be AFDing next. His page purported (before my editing) [39] that he is an Academy Award winning producer of 300 films that have played in Hollywood, Cannes, Showtime, HBO, etc. His short IMDB page supports none of this besides some bit parts and this film. Apparently he is producing a short in the future. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is about the film. The director's article is a different discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. When a film wins an Academy Award,page 24 it's notable per "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... even if the event happened 25 years ago. That Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chooses to recognize the work of young filmmakers does not make that recognition somehow dismissable because the filmmaker is 25 years older. As far better sources exist beyond the one impuned by the nominator,[40] we have a guideline encouraged reason to expand the article and add them, not delete it because it has not been done yet... nor is it a reason to argue that because a different film does not (yet) have an article, this film should not either. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure that a Student Academy Award is considered a "major award" - if it is, the article obviously should be kept. Even if not, it seems to have reviews and articles from several major newspapers (per the link provided by MichaelQSchmidt, which may adequately indicate notability regardless. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought toward the award is that since is is given by one of the more notable of the award-giving organizations to recognize excellence in filmmaking, it should not matter that the award is to a film student, as opposed to a non-student. No matter what this organization chooses to call the award itself, the notability is found in who gave it and why. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm inclined to agree that any award bestowed by the Academy confers at least the marginal amount of notability sufficient to merit a standalone article, even if it doesn't have much hope of expanding beyond stub status. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sungho kang[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography, couldn't find reliable sources either. Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it appears there's an article in the Korean Wikipedia for Dr Kang as "Kang Sungho (Historian)". (Having no Korean, I can't comment any further.) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is written by the same single purpose account, Jgkim408 (talk · contribs), who commented below. cab (call) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are some reliable sources about Professor Kang such as Historical World of Prof. Dr. Sungho Kang,Devision of Humanities at Sunchon National University, Ramon Grosfoguel's webpage of Department of Ethnic Studies, UC Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgkim408 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is another reliable sources about Sungho Kang's book: Geopolitics and Trajectories of Development: The Cases of Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, and Puerto Rico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgkim408 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is his own website, the website of his co-editor on one of his books, and the website of the publisher. These are not independent sources. cab (call) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Korean, the name alone is too common to serve as a useful search term, but I can find absolutely no independent reliable sources whatsoever about any of his books:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 9 ghits. Booksellers and the CVs of the people who wrote it or contributed chapters.
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Marx' theory of historical materialism and historical development) --- 28 ghits, just booksellers and libraries
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Research into Marxism in South Korea after the 1980s) --- 19 ghits, just booksellers and libraries
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Postmodernism and History) --- 115 non-duplicate ghits, just booksellers, libraries, and essay mill papers
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Towards a new Marxist study of history) --- 54 non-duplicate Ghits, just booksellers, libraries, and more essay mills
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Guide to 21st century history) --- 48 Ghits, just booksellers, libraries, and blogs
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Marxism and Politics) --- 78 non-duplicate ghits, just booksellers and libraries
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Ethnic Problems in Central Europe; not 중유럽문제와 민족문제 as misquoted on Korean wikipedia) --- 60 non-duplicate ghits, just booksellers and blogs
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Historical comprehension of contemporary world systems theory) --- 65 non-duplicate ghits. Booksellers, libraries, essay mills, blogs.

Don't see any evidence of passing WP:PROF. cab (call) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. this is AFD not RFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InSound Medical[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like a dismal attempt at product promotion. Laval (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also nominated: Lyric Hearing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Currently InSound Medical is a redirect to Lyric Hearing, which would appear to share all of the advertising problems of the initially nominated page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lyric hearing and keep this InSound Medical article as a redirect. The NYT source convinces me of the notability of the Lyric Hearing aid. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a justification for keeping them? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the product is notable and redirecting the company to its claim to fame seems a reasonable approach to a possible search term. I wouldn't object to deleting the company page, but if the NYT reviews a single product in depth as the sole topic of an article that crosses the notability threshold for the product quite easily. Additional sources are this article that devotes a paragraph in the discussion to discussing the Lyric hearing aid and this newspaper article that discusses the aid in detail. Tim Vickers (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Lyric Hearing article and the InSound Medical redirect. Sources on the article seem sufficient for notability regarding the product, and the company name is a reasonable search term for the redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 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, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Newsham[edit]

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

Stub article about a relatively obscure intelligence operator about which barely any information can be found. The single sentence in the article has been lifted directly from Echelon (signals intelligence). Laval (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole claim is not referenced, and wouldn't be notable if true anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stub article making an unreferenced claim by an individual about themselves. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Long[edit]

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

Has some claims of notability, primarily 3 million copies of his debut album, secondarily awards of unknown importance, recording contracts and cd releases, touring. None are sourced. External links show some cds but they are with Pickwick Music, not with BMG - RCA, and Starway Records that he was listed as being signed to. Touring does not say in what capacity, solo or part of an orchestra or other, and lakcs coverage. I didn't find any reliable sources supporting claims or supporting notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For somebody who sold 3 million albums, he's mighty obscure. Chris (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Marwick[edit]

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

De-prodded. Notability rests on this gold medal that he won at a student Biology Olympiad, because he certainly doesn't have any other claim. Even if this is marginally notable, it looks like a textbook WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Winning a Gold Medal at the International Biology Olympiad is enough in itself to satisfy notability requirements. It is analogous to WP:ATHLETE where sports figures are presumed notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. And Marwick did more than just participate - he won Gold. Inniverse (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marwick lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The comparison to WP:ATHLETE stated above does not make him notable. Student sports are not the top level. International Biology Olympiad is a student comp. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 24 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^babble 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The gold medal in the biology olympiad thing is questionable. I don't think it asserts notability, but it's arguable (although it doesn't look like any other past winners have articles). The fault in the WP:ATHLETE analogy is that I don't think that this contest represents a "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", seeing as how it's only open to high school students. However, even if you can prove that winning the olympiad is notable, then you're still going to get held up by WP:BLP1E. I'm amazed that the prod was removed on this one. SnottyWong ^babble 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comparing an academic contest for kids with the Olympics is just silly, and trying to shoehorn this in under sports guidelines is simply absurd. Bottom line: fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning a gold medal in a notable contest, makes someone notable. 70 countries are involved in this thing, they flying around the best high school students from them, to different areas to compete. Dream Focus 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said this may not represent a majot internationla event.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhydra Server[edit]

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

No substantial independent coverage and no other evidence of notability to support keeping this article. Inniverse (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. This is a Java application server which incorporates a standard Apache Tomcat (or alternatively Jetty) servlet container. If you're not in the IT department you can be excused for not understanding that. References are to an announcement of the product, and to a press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a Linux Journal print article (which was already on the talk page). The topic is also included in two books using the search above. Regarding the comment of Smerdis of Tlön immediately above ("If you're not in the IT department you can be excused for not understanding that."), this is only a justification for rewriting the article, not deleting it (IMO). I've read (or attempted to read!) many mathematics articles that would only be understood by readers with significant mathematics understanding. Does this justify deleting them? — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least two books and seven scholarly references to this topic found using the search above. Inniverse's (talk) assertion ("No substantial independent coverage and no other evidence of notability to support keeping this article.") is factually incorrect. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:27, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Offhand references in publications do not substantial independent coverage make. News coverage is limited to the press release. If this becomes a serious technology in the future then there will be plenty of reliable sources to build on; in the meantime this article should go. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as CSD G11 by an admin (non-admin closure).Ryan Norton 19:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcart[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. VQuakr (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:32, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or even Speedy Delete - article is definitely written like an advertisement, so I call G11, and although sole author of the article has promised to improve it, nothing has happened in the past 4 days. Ezhuks (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: an ecommerce shopping cart store front with a powerful backend application. It is not only easy to manage but it also offers a variety of marketing tools as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 for unambiguous advertising; tagged as such. Ryan Norton 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Strategy and Reconciliation[edit]

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

blatant spam, speedy removed by an SPA WuhWuzDat 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- weak Keep probably notable, though the present article needs drastic trimming. Even as it is , though, its descriptive not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt a praiseworthy organization, but not notable. Google News Archive turns up a single article, in AsiaPulse, involving a quote from a person affiliated with the institute. That's all. No Reliable Sources are provided in the article. This discussion should not be about the style or the length of the article; those are fixable. It should be about the need to demonstrate notability - and I didn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources to show notability. "Probably notable" without evidence isn't sufficient to justify an article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No significant coverage in reliable sources is a lack of notability, but the tone issues and sentences like "As a think tank and international relief and development organization headquartered in Washington DC, ISR takes great interest in young and innovative minds." are purely promotional and this should be G11'd. —fetch ·comms 01:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion after two weeks. Note though that references would be welcomed greatly here, so the closure will give the chance for improvements and expansion to help further its notability in order to avoid future AFDs. JForget 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taringa![edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement. Article is purely promotional. Macpl (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not really that promotional. Alexa rank of 125, is that notable? I dunno, I'll leave that to others. But this is not a blatant ad, that much seems sure. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Carrite. It's not that promotional. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has made no attempt to address the argument for keeping presented in the previous AfD. The tone of the article can be fixed by simple editing, which doesn't require an admin to delete the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 5 September 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) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marty McLoughlin[edit]

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

Club runner does not meet WP:ATHLETE and seems marginal at least. Did not compete in Olympics. In other competition:

Fourth place in Great North Run. Granted, this is an important race. But, fourth place.
Silver at World Cross Country games. But the British team finished second overall, so he got the silver as part of the team.
Fourth at the Commonwealth Games 10,000 meters. Obviously the Commonwealth Games are notable. But, fourth.
Second-fastest 10 world ten miles in 1987. But the ten miles is non-standard and not very notable.
British champion in 10,000 meters in 1994. While admirable, this is a purely national achievement. But if he is notable, this would seem to be the one thing that he could hang his notability on.

Nothing outside of his athletic career. Only one reference, at a a non-journalistic site (the site of the Liverpool Pembroke & Sefton Athletic Club, of which he was a member), and Google doesn't indicate that any more could be easily found, so doesn't meet WP:GNG and is poorly reference for a WP:BLP as well. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we're to go by the ridiculously over-precise criteria of WP:ATHLETE#Athletics/Track & Field and long-distance running then McLoughlin meets criterion 2 by coming fourth in the Commonwealth Games and criterion 5 by winning a British championship. If we're to take the more common-sense route of comparing his achievements with competitors in other sports, then he clearly, by far, surpasses a footballer who has turned out for a match or two in League 2, who would be accepted as notable without question. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC). (struck per Clarityfriend's findings below Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, football is much more popular than track. So we naturally drill down deeper into its population. Herostratus (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. He definitely satisfies #2 and maybe #5, and one's all that's necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from noninator: Oh, OK, I entirely missed WP:ATHLETE#Athletics/Track & Field and long-distance running. For some reason it is listed under "Professional sports persons" and I only looked under "Amateur sports persons" (I always thought track-and-field was not popular enough to support professionals, and McLoughlin was certainly and amateur I assume). So the Keep points above are well taken. BUT. The second point remains, there are no references and apparently none easily findable. WP:GNG, which requires some articles or press notices or something about the person, trumps the athlete standards. The WP:ATHLETE page states (in boldface) "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria" and also "[S]tandalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". So, no, I would still maintain that the person is not notable. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to this, he wasn't fourth (or even competed) in the 10,000m at the 1986 Commonwealth Games (or 1982 or 1990, just in case), so I am withdrawing my vote for now. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, good catch Clarityfiend. See what I mean? Article has no reliable references. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only think I can verify is that he was on the silver medal British cross country team,[41] but he finished last on his team and his result wasn't counted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 2 September 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) 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcorconazo (2009–10 Copa del Rey Round of 32)[edit]

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

Procedurally completing an AfD nomination for an IP that completed steps 1 and 3. I'm guessing that the nomination rationale is that this is a non-notable individual football game. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep About 58,100 results for Alcorconazo on google, 310 on news.google.com - 48,000 for alcorcon, images of t-shirts etc. A move, and cleanup, to Alcorconazo would be better, but this is notable. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Giant-killings like this happen all the time in the Copa del Rey. – Pee Jay 09:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Copa del Rey isn't short of results like this, like all cup competitions - so the result itself is not notable. It needs a major clean-up at the very least. This is another example of the common problem of what makes a single football match notable. Proper guidelines are needed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, this got 13 mentions in the last month in reliable sources, by using Alcorconazo as search word which is not adopted by the whole Spanish media. How many mentions did Manchester 9-0 Ipswich Town get last month? One. That's it. One mention on Goal.com. What's the difference? This match gets news coverage in the Spanish and not the English press. The GNG does not differentiate between Premier League and Copa del Rey, although some editors might do. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When a subject is known by a specific, one-word name, it's not surprising that you will get more search results than for "Manchester United 9-0 Ipswich Town". The English media do not have the same habit of nicknaming individual matches like the Spanish and Latin American media do. Furthermore, the "Alcorconazo" only happened a few months ago, whereas this match took place more than 15 years ago, which makes it unsurprising that it gets fewer Google hits. – PeeJay 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Manchester 9-0 Ipswich were without quotes. You have to sort through the false positives. And it's 8 months ago the second leg was played. Receiving 13 mentions in reliable sources in the past months is a sign of enduring notability. Reg. naming, Battle of Old Trafford? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:GNG Eldumpo (talk) 10:46, 29 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received enough media attention to be notable; if kept, the article definitely needs renaming to match current conventions. Giant Snowman 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need relisting, the GNG is quite clear, WP:PERSISTENCE: "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.", I have established that above, the deletion votes offer no counter-argument but merely say that this is non-notable because it was in a Cup tournament, well that is not how the GNG works. Sandman888 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Persistent coverage means that the match appears to meet the general notability guidelines. Big Dom 07:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Segalgate[edit]

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

Non-notable local political dust-up. Article created by WP:SPA user who appears to be on a one-man campaign against Bill Segal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm loath to delete political biographies, but this feels more like an ephemeral campaign attack-piece. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this topic is handled in a much more encyclopedic manner at Bill Segal. This appears to be an unnecessary WP:FORK, and the term itself appears to be a neologism with little encyclopedic value. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Coalition for Regional Excellence in Leadership[edit]

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

Local PAC formed to support a local candidate in a local election. Not really notable on a national or international scale. Article written in a highly non-neutral manner by an SPA editor who seems intent on sullying a political reputation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:ORG. No significant coverage in non-local reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Does not appear relevant outside of the campaign mentioned in the article, and is a possible coatrack for the other non-neutral articles/edits about the campaign by the author. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion after two weeks JForget 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vojvodina's Party[edit]

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

Notability, artcle provides no secondary sources, hardly any information in the article... nothing encyclopedic here. Buttons (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Again, this is a stub, so the lack of information is to be expected. This is a less certain keep than the Young Communists of Yugoslavia article challenged above. I would argue in favor of keeping under inherent notability of political parties. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching is rather hampered by the fact that the party name, which would be better translated as "Vojvodina Party" or "Party of Vojvodina", appears in Serbian language sources as a generic term for any Vojvodinan (is that the correct adjective?) political party. To get the idea just imagine that a party called the "English Party" was created - you'd get many false positives when searching for the name. Searching the Google News archive in both relevant alphabets for the party name along with the leader's name finds these sources, none of which seems to give the party more than a passing mention in lists of parties contesting elections, or gives any more indication of importance than that the party received 4,208 votes in a general election. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 29 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by a native speaker): Phil pretty much said it all: a minor party established 2007 or 2008 by a moderately well known politician, taking 4,000 votes in the general election. The latest news [42] suggest that they managed to pass the re-registration process (among with some 50 parties), collecting 10,000 signed voter certificates. Thus, weak keep, although such parties are IMO better covered by something like a brief entry on List of political parties in Serbia than in a separate article. And we have Pirate Party of Serbia, too... OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No such user (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and restore redirect. —fetch ·comms 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I procedurally removed the prod due to a past AfD and brought it here. The previous AfD resulted in the article being redirected to Will Smith#Personal life; this article is about a different person named Trey Smith. Article was prodded with the rationale "not notable - many links due to being same name as previous deletion/redirect. All substantive edits made by same 2 IP addresses which have no other edits; Google search shows no other references to this person. All links that link to this page are for another 'Trey Smith' (most being the son of the actor, one being a politician). Should revert back to redirect."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the redirect -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 25 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article/redirect was "hijacked" with this edit on 24 November 2009. This article either needs to be about "Trey Smith the actor" or a redirect to Will Smith. I'm boldly reverting this article back to the version before the first AFD was closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then restore redirect: as far as I can tell, the "author"s books are both self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect but I'm not sure on whether or not the article history should go. The article started its life being about the actor and might be useful if he ever warrants a standalone article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD and allow renomination. Unfortunately, this AfD was reverted back to being about Will Smith's son Trey, who was previously deemed not notable enough for an article of his own. Writing a new article about a different person with the same name, the author Trey Smith, was not "hijacking" the article. It was appropriate if the other Trey Smith is notable. (The redirect to Will Smith#Personal life should have been replaced by a hatnote, though.) Unfortunately, due to the changes to the article during this AfD, I don't think we can be sure that everyone is talking about the same content here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know where we are procedurally, but I am chiming in with a delete for Trey Smith the author. I guess that's the same thing as saying, clean out the info about the author, and let this title go back to being a redirect to Will Smith - and if an article called Trey Smith (author) gets written, I !vote to delete it. Author Trey Smith and his books appear to be completely non-notable; I can't tell who the publisher is, and they don't even seem to be available on Amazon, so I suspect they are self-published and self-marketed. Nothing turns up about him or his books at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about the author. This is an unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. Once deleted, I have no objection if someone wants to restore the redirect to Will Smith#Personal life, as per the previous AFD (which I initiated). --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Communist League of Yugoslavia (1992)[edit]

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

Notability, article provides no sources and offers miniscule information. Buttons (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - This is just a stub, ergo no sources. A youth section of a Communist Party in a former Communist country is gonna get over the notability bar; not sure why this was challenged. Carrite (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? - A stub? Then I don't see the justification in having a seperate page for the youth section of an already miniscule party, I stand by my proposal for deletion, at the very least this page should be merged. Buttons (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

! - A stub is a placeholder for a potential future full length article. Although merger without prejudice against recreation would probably be effectively the same thing and I have no problem with that... Carrite (talk) 03:26, 30 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with New Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Neither article is long enough to require splitting, and there is no indication that the youth section is especially notable independent of its parent party. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 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) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor Mach II[edit]

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

This is essentially a fan article of a fictional prop used one time on the Bewitched television show. The TV series is extremely notable, but a prop used in one run of the mill episode that happened to be reused by the TV production company does not make it the least bit notable. Someone obviously thought the subject was interesting enough to write as much as they could about it, but it is almost all about a fictional subject, and is just not the least bit notable. In addition, the only information about the car is from the script of Bewitched episode. Other sources are just Bewitched fan websites.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deleted totally fictional "information" about the car, filler, and redundancies. There's practically nothing left except information from a quasi-reliable Bewitched fan page whose expertise is the TV show, not cars. There's really nothing there that warrants an encyclopedic article. This was a TV prop of little notoriety, however "cool" some fan thought it may have been, and does not warrant an encyclopedic article. Perhaps a footnote on the Bewitched episode page about where the prop currently resides may be appropriate, but nothing more. Njsustain (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added what little notable information there is to the "Super car" episode entry in season 3 of List of Bewitched episodes. I suggest that the article be redirected there if there is no consensus to delete the entry altogether. (I still say that this pointless entry should be deleted completely, but if there is not even enough interest for a single comment on this prop, it should at least be redirected). Njsustain (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near meeting any part of WP:N. Redirect isn't an especially good idea as it was used in other shows too. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 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. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. Silem Mohammad[edit]

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

Stub article with no reliable sources or indications of notability per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or even Speedy Delete - article is written like an advertisement or bio, no reliable sources.Rirunmot 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep - Sufficient career publications to merit inclusion. As stub articles go, this one is informative and a good basis for a future full article, not to mention a solid in-link for flarf poetry. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, couldn't locate anything specific to this person; looks like a small-press no-name with big-city dreams. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:08, 5 September 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. There were no arguments for deletion other than those made by the nominator; the article Stayman Winesap has been merged redirected to this one, with a redirect. Mandsford 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stayman apple[edit]

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

The article doesn't assert its subject's notability nor does it provide much information on the topic (a variety of apple). In fact, the last paragraph of the article is simply suggestions on what to do with apples (cider, healthy snack, apple juice, caramel) that has nothing to do with the specific apple the article is about cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to exist; see [43] and [44]. Not sure if that's enough for it to be notable; the hits are very scarce. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stayman Winesap, apparently the same. JNW (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the descriptions, this appears to be a different variety than the Stayman Winesap (yellow or green vs. red or red/green). From the article on [[45]], there are about 7500 varieties. Do we want an article on each one? From the link on Stayman Winesap, there are quite a few varieties of apples sold by Trees of Antiquity that are not included in Wikipedia. Tangurena (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stayman Winesap. I'm fairly certain they are the same, having done a bit of internet research - see [46] for example. Chris (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was trying to find something of the sort through Googling but I came up short. Thanks for finding that! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preexisting article Stayman Winesap. Deor (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Has sources that're beyond passing mentions and there are a lot of them.
- Variety is primary subject of many academic papers--no quotemarks is appropriate in this case, on breeding, diseases etc, e.g this Amer. J. Bot. article [47] has in depth Stayman apple focus. Several industry [48] as well as early sources [49] and [50], turn up, too.
  I expect the pre-1900s origin makes it less likely we'll find sources like agricultural newspapers (e.g Farmer) online. Complex sciencey genetics stuff probably needs NAL or similar research library access.
- On significance, out of almost 100 varieties grown commercially in the US, Stayman's among 15 that account for more than 90 percent of commercial production. [51]. Chris's link (plus [52]) show it's parent from which several common strains sprang.
- It did assert its subject's notability with "Stayman's are a very popular cultivar of apple". At first, that looks POV, but various sources back up the underlying point. Building any fruit article inevitably means sourcing material from country/state fruit-type marketing boards and larger nurseries involved in rare variety preservation or research. It's easy for their language style to affect writing. Part of its last paragraph was non specific, though varieties' characteristics can make them the objective option for specific drinks/dishes; same for potatoes. --92.30.85.175 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Stayman" is the correct name, while "Stayman Winesap" is incorrect, per Penn StateU Fruit Research Center [53], along with the definitive USDA 'GRIN' program [54] and USDA–CornellU Genetic Resources Unit Malus Catalog [55] which are authoritative on classification/names. Because those establish the correct name, I'll merge "Stayman Winesap" into "Stayman apple". As few differences are visible, apart from errors in the older one, straightforward smerging rather than making this a redirect then moving the other over it is logical. --92.30.85.175 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that the name Stayman Winesap "is incorrect" is not borne out by the usage of that name in scholarly articles. I think that your redirection of that article to the one being considered here was premature (as I indicated in my reversion of that edit, which was in turn reverted by you). When we have duplicate articles on a topic, we normally keep the older one; if you think its title is incorrect, WP:RM is the place to suggest a change. Deor (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement the name is incorrect comes from the above Penn StateU publication (Table 1-6B. "Parentage of common and new apple cultivars" p. 17), quote: "Incorrectly called Stayman Winesap". The other sources in the Comment concur.

Your search doesn't say what you think it says. Google returns comma separated names (‘thinga, thingb’) for a "halfofname otherhalf" query. There are 2 separate varieties: 'Stayman', and its parent the "Winesap".

If you limit your quotes-enclosed "Stayman Winesap" search (using advanced search), to the last fifteen years (1995–2010), to reflect modern scholarship (and for purpose of this discussion), the amount of results decreases fivefold to 96.

Of those 96, I counted at least ten that use "Stayman", but adjacently mention the variety "Winesap". For example, the 3rd result has "Jonathan, York, Stayman, Winesap, and other varieties have decreased in importance", another has "whereas, varieties viz., Rome Beauty, Jonathan, Stayman, Winesap, and Mclntosh", another "Virginia produces eleven major varieties: Red delicious, Golden Delicious, York, Rome, Stayman, Winesap, Granny Smith", and so on.

Some only contain the term(s) through citing another paper e.g the Apples: botany, production, and uses book uses "Stayman" itself, but also cites two works consulted; of which the 1937 one uses "Stayman Winesap" while the newer 1961 study uses "Stayman". Not all results are "scholarly articles" either. Around 20+ are mass market cookery books, and one's a cycle routeguide! The bicycle one uses "Stayman Winesap", incidentally. Two recipe books that I selected at random used "Stayman".

Here's what happens if we adapt your search--same year range, search on 'all words' (not as exact phrase): Stayman apple. There are 391 results (clicked through to last page to confirm). Even when you add -"Stayman Winesap" there are still 298. Far more than 96. I appreciate hits, while helpful, can be an inexact metric. I also accept not all will necessarily be for the "Stayman" apple; a few could be for its sports (aka mutation strain) such as "Stayman Red". As the variety under discussion is among the top 15 commercial ones, however, most results will be for the former.

Oh there are uses of "Stayman Winesap", but the specialised RSs, modern scholarship and bulk of sources prefer and/or assert as correct "Stayman". 92.30.85.175 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that my change was a redirection is not borne out by the log. As that shows, I described it as a merge, then you, in apparent agreement about what it was, called it a merge. The placement of {{R from merge}}, part of any merge, doesn't make it "a redirection". Your comments come close to implying I attempted to subvert the earlier redirect !votes. Not so. As you can see, at least two editors express uncertainty over whether the articles were about the same variety. My s-merge including subsequent single-revert was made in good faith after reliable sources came to light that resolved the uncertainty. As I indicated in my revert, the AfD nom is about having an article on the variety period; otherwise it presumably would've been brought to WP:PM.

Notwithstanding other site processes, sometimes moves & merges are the right thing to do. To have the title "Stayman Winesap" only to say the name is incorrect in the body, and given WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply either, would defy logic. Making the newly created "Stayman apple" a redirect then moving the older "Stayman Winesap" article over that redirect to ensure the correct name obviously doesn't make sense either. That's process for its own sake.

The reasons we normally keep the older one, i.e content and licensing reasons, were in fact among considerations I took into account. The only substantial content to the older page was added by its author, when he created it. There were two sentences added by a then-new user--one of which was a conjectural interpretation. Once you took away the unverified, poorly sourced and/or wrong, minor/bot and reverted changes, to be honest there wasn't much to merge. The older page had nothing that wasn't covered in a more specific form by better sources presented either in the newer page or in this discussion. I conducted the merge in accordance with WP:SMERGE instructions, ensuring it did conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. --92.30.85.175 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination gives arguments for improving this article by editing (which, incidentally, has happened) rather than for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 5 September 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.