Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 1

< 30 November	2 December >

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 Keep (withdrawnm, now sourced, tagging for refimprove though). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chung-ying Cheng[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. Endofskull (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources coverage seems to be consistent Rirunmot (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - English language sources suggest he's notable [1] [2] [3] and GNews returns several Chinese language sources that I'm unable to read. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:prof #8. The person is ... an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.. Editor of Journal of Chinese Philosophy published on behalf of the International Society for Chinese Philosophy by Routledge http://www.wiley.com/bw/editors.asp?ref=0301-8121 (Msrasnw (talk) 14:47, 2 December 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. Consensus is that the subject's verifiable activities do not meet WP:PROF Mkativerata (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Jowitt[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that subject passes WP:PROF -Drdisque (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic scholar : eg. one of leads on the Richard Hakluyt project at the NMM. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/richard-hakluyt-conference - Her story in the BBC History magazine (UKs best selling history publication) was the lead http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/issue/july-2010 Passes WP:Prof 3 The person .. has been an elected a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor via election as a Fellow of The English Association founded in 1906 - http://www.le.ac.uk/engassoc/fellows/list.html (Msrasnw (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Based on the high number of people that have been elected in the last few years among what appears to be a very small potential pool of selectees, I don't consider that "highly selective" -Drdisque (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Delete: Seems pretty marginal compared to the slew of unreferenced academic articles I've worked on recently. E.g, if she was a Fellow of the Royal Society like Ruth Lynden-Bell who I worked on earlier, that would be enough. (Note, the article when created included the line "She is famous for her enthusiastic gestures and cheerful laughter. She is going on sabbatical for the first half of next year, and she will be sorely missed. She is awesome.")--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, paltry citation counts. Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 3 December 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) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Jaffe[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG -Drdisque (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After filtering out false hits, like Philip Jacob Jaffe, I find a trivial mention at Gnews and the existance of his Gbooks, but no discussion of him or them. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all, propably non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, pointers to his work "Land of Dreams" are actually self-referential and much of the article is WP:COATRACK for discussing "Land of Dreams" and "Hobgoblins". Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. First off, I had to remove some blatantly wrong information. That having done, I am not sure one way or the other about his notability. When he was younger, he wrote scholarly articles, see, e.g., "Attitudes of adolescents toward the mentally retarded". He also wrote "What's in a name—Attitudes toward disabled persons" and "ATTITUDES AND INTERPERSONAL CONTACT: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTACT WITH THE MENTALLY RETARDED AND DIMENSIONS OF ATTITUDE ," while he was at Columbia University's Teacher's College, all cited articles at Google Scholar. So he might pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The trouble with GS in this case is the overwhelming number of false positives because the name is fairly common. For example, all the really high-citation papers are biology-related by a Jacob D Jaffe from Harvard. What's really problematic is that there's a Joseph Jaffe in the same field, who's written some reasonably cited papers. I tried filtering as best I could using WoS (query = "Author=(Jaffe J*) Refined by: Institutions=(COLUMBIA UNIV OR CITY UNIV NEW YORK) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=(ENGINEERING, CIVIL OR OCEANOGRAPHY OR ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC OR ENGINEERING, OCEAN OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") and then checking results by hand. I found 35 papers with citations: 128, 88, 59, 31, ... (h-index = 10)...borderline, assuming none of these are false-positives. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please if kept someone add some refs to the article! This was tagged as a UBLP in June 2008 and Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue will be sourcing or eliminating all UBLPs tagged prior to 2009 by the end of the month.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF (takes more than a few cited articles) or WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says: "His research was published in national psychology journals and he has made numerous presentations at conferences." Can someone find these publications, and what national psychology journals they were in? Are any of these conferences notable? I'm searching about for things about the guy, but can't find anything, just a lot of dead ends for people with the same name as him. Dream Focus 16:12, 7 December 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.

In part because of the Wikipedia article, Jacob Jaffe's name wound up on the list of the most famous scientists of the past 2 centuries. The discussion of this is at So where did Wikipedia go wrong?. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qamosona[edit]

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

Previous AFD closed as no consensus due to lack of comment. I don't see enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. Jujutacular ^talk 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I said in the last one. A link to this site in the External links section of Pashto language is sufficient; the site in itself is not notable enough for an article. —Angr (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the external link to Pashto per Angr (without redirect) and delete this page. There are no reliable sources and no clear notability. It doesn't seem necessary to treat the dictionary separately from the language it describes. Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. -Drdisque (talk) 05:46, 2 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig A. Miller[edit]

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

Amazon.com does sell the book but I don t see how having published one book would make one WP notable - nothing else mentioned in the bio would suggest so; the article is entirely unsourced to boot Mayumashu (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. JFW | T@lk 03:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His book exists, and it was published by a real publisher, not a vanity press. However, I could find no independent coverage about him or his book except for this review in JAMA. I doubt if that is enough to make him notable. I could find no confirmation of the claims that the book is in its third printing and has been translated into Japanesee. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The being published in Japanese does seem a dubious claim - a search of the key words '２１世紀の外科医' (for instance) at Amazon.co.jp turns up nothing and a search there of the name of the book in English turns up just the English-language version of the book Mayumashu (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 7 December 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 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs); rationale was "Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hardin[edit]

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

Little notability asserted for this BLP unsourced for over 2 years Black Kite (t) (c) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found this that talks about him, but does not establish his notability. In fact, I think it reinforces his lack of notability. -Drdisque (talk) 05:52, 2 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Eboh[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no reasons given. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 21:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assuming the content of the article is accurate, he has in fact played in a fully-pro league. Apollon Smyrni F.C. played in the Gamma Ethniki in 2006-07. However, given that this claim is completely unverified, and that he very clearly fails WP:GNG, I believe this article should be deleted anyways. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. If we can verify that he made an appearance for Apollon Smyrni, then he would meet notability requirements. Giant Snowman 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:51, 2 December 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 was almost tempted to relist this because of the 3 !votes, only one mentions sourcing/coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Bowling Team[edit]

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

Admittedly I don't know much about the American bowling scene, but this teams looks rather unremarkable and non-notable. —Half Price 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be non-notable. Has lowish rankings on the Southwest Intercollegiate Bowling Conference, which doesn't have an article. News coverage is all from the same local paper, giving scores, but not much else. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete College bowling, especially in the South, is a very minor club sport. -Drdisque (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Colleges have bowling teams? Ravenswing 20:57, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown-Lakeville Middle School gas leak incident[edit]

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

Prod removed by author (sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Bun39) and I don't see a speedy tag that seems to fit outside of csd-iar. Principal thinks he smells gas and pulls the fire alarm. Kids evacuate, fire department responds. There is no leak...just some stuff rotting in a drain. This doesn't seem notable enough to even mention on the article about the school. Onorem ♠Dil 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no sources for this and it doesn't seem to be notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a news source and this event has no enduring encyclopaedic notability. - DustFormsWords (talk)
Delete This is silly. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Mandsford 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...words fail me. Speedy delete A3 and tagged as such. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:37, 2 December 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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamy Raimon[edit]

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

Possible autobigraphical article about an artist of questionable notability. Some claims of notability, but cannot be verified - only sources found are primary or press releases from the subject. No significant coverage found from independent third-party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 - clear self-promotional page (note links to Amazon pages selling the book; User:SteamyR is a WP:SPA for this article/subject/author, indicating WP:COI. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails WP:NOTE. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 2 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Kitt[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Has won awards from amateur websites only. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Original author and major contributor appears to be the subject of the article herself. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely self-published, unrecognised author so far as I can see! The Land (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable awards won; no evidence of notability for her publisher. (Which, if it was/is notable, should have its own article, not one on her.) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 December 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 History of Arda#Valian Years and the Years of the Lamps. The only "keep" opinion does not address the substantial problems raised in the nomination. I'm noting for the record that there is a consensus to delete this article, but am closing as a redirect anyway to allow for history-merging of any useful material. Sandstein 07:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years of the Lamps[edit]

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

The article is written with an in-universe perspective with no inline citations for verifiability and also no third-party sources to verify notability. The only reference is a primary source, The Silmarillion. While Tolkien's work is notable, this article in no way meets the criteria of the general notability guideline, being an unnecessary content fork and a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion and there is no need to merge anything here with another article because this topic, along with other similar ones, is already covered in History of Arda. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deletion isn't needed if sourcing can be provided. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; plot-only summaries of fictional work are not appropriate for this encyclopedia, as per WP:NOT. Sourcing is only relevant if people have mentioned the context, impact, or importance of this subject; sources saying "this is what Tolkein said" aren't particularly germane. The Land (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sadads (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Arda -- 65.93.13.216 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suggest that Corvus get cracking and find some independent, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," then. I very much doubt they exist. Ravenswing 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only deduce that the people who are saying that no sources exist have made zero effort to determine whether that was in fact the case. I've already found an atlas and three other encyclopaedias. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw one of the encyclopedias too. But that's a tertiary source... not a secondary source. And probably from one of the publisher's business partners... not an independent source. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument is weak and highly fallacious. What is unreliable about Karen Wynn Fonstad? What makes you think that Tony Tyler and David Day are not independent of Tolkien? What on Earth possesses you to think that the fact that something is in other encyclopaedias makes it not encyclopaedic? Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which encyclopedia are we talking about? Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia might use the term, but I'm not sure it's using it in a way that's relevant here. (Though, I have to say, I haven't read it) The Land (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Use the term"? Indeed, you clearly have not read it, not even the table of contents. Why are you forming an opinion based upon not even reading the tables of contents or indexes of available sources? What weight should the closing administrator give to such an opinion, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a premature nom - quite a bit of literary commentary exists about Tolkien and I think some digging will uncover enough to source the article (as Uncle G has demonstrated). Although I'm tempted to suggest a merge, but in my view, this can be a stand-alone piece. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm uneasy to keep an article on the grounds "there's probably something about it..."; perhaps people could post details of anything that supports the article? I am not sure a mention in a publication like The Atlas of Middle-Earth, which seems like it's basically a reworking of Tolkein's material in a different format, is enough to justify us having an article.... The Land (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree I hyave seen this before. If its not notable now remove and and replace it when it is notable. Or try and find some sources that are independant of the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the IP above. (and by "merge", if there's nothing really not repeated, that would be a redirect) Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trouble is, there are no out-of-universe sources for this - nothing that tells you this is based on Finno-ugrit mythology, or was inspired by Tolkien falling into a netty and seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary, nothing that refers to the difficulties he had writing it because of a lack of ink and paper, or Worthington white shield. What sources there are are reliable, for what they are, but they are only reliable to assure us that these are Tolkien's words, this is Tolkien's world. I've got every book Chris Tolkien published - is there nothing in these sources that refers to him reading it to the other Inklings, or something. No critical reviews that refer to this section. If not, I'm not completely sure what the point of the article is other than regurgitating the book (and yes, I feel exactly the same about all the Black Dagger Brotherhood articles as well, and I'd feel the same about an article on Pride and Prejudice that didn't also tell you something about Jane Austen, or the times she was writing in, or what people thought of her work).Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't yet have enough books, obviously. ☺ I suggest starting with Whittingham 2008, pp. 118 et seq. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhittingham2008 (help), taking a quick pass at Duriez 2003, pp. 61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDuriez2003 (help), taking a slower pass at Scull & Hammond 2006, pp. 80, 517 et seq. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFScullHammond2006 (help) and Sammons 2009, pp. 97 et seq. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSammons2009 (help), and then proceeding to Clark & Timmons 2000, pp. 110 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClarkTimmons2000 (help) and Flieger 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlieger2002 (help).
  - Whittingham, Elizabeth A. (2008). The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth. Critical explorations in science fiction and fantasy. Vol. 7. McFarland & Co. ISBN 9780786432813.
  - Duriez, Colin (2003). Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: the gift of friendship. Hidden Spring. ISBN 9781587680267.
  - Scull, Christina; Hammond, Wayne G. (2006). JRR Tolkien companion & guide. Vol. 1. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 9780618391028.
  - Sammons, Martha C. (2009). "Art Theories and Metaphors". War of the fantasy worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on art and imagination. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313362828.
  - Clark, George; Timmons, Daniel (2000). "Horticulture and the Aesthetics of the Elves". J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances: views of Middle-earth. Contributions to the study of science fiction and fantasy. Vol. 89. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313308451.
  - Flieger, Verlyn (2002). Splintered light: logos and language in Tolkien's world (2nd ed.). Kent State University Press. ISBN 9780873387446.
- Literary criticism doesn't begin and end with what Christopher Tolkien read to someone. As evidence of that, although it's not a good source, I give you a self-published work comparing the end of the Age of the Lamps to the destruction of the Twin Towers:
  - Gauthier, Nick (2009). "The Felling of the Lamps". Diversity. Lulu.com. pp. 155–156. ISBN 9781435711570.
- Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We're getting somewhere. If some of the material you mention ends up in the article and it stops being a plot-only summary, it's a very likely keep. The Land (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. It's no good telling me - I don't have any of the books or I'd already have put the content and references in. Someone needs to put it in the article :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:47, 8 December 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) CTJF83 chat 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for detailed information about how one particular game treats one particular kind of monster. We could, if we wished, have articles for every monster which has appeared in any vaguely notable game noting differences in armour class, hit points and so on between editions. We should not, because this is not encyclopedic content. If someone wants to set up a D&D wiki then that's great, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Land (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much of the above is one user's opinion. This article does cite one reliable independent source (White Dwarf), and I suspect there are more out there. This article does not address armor class, hit points, etc. It may need a trim here and there, and better sourcing throughout, but those are not reasons to delete. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscrimnate collection of information is not only my opinion! Also, I'm not sure that any amount of independent comment on how the Mummy plays in a game of D&D is enough to establish notability. to quote WP:NOT again; "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". Reciting the different D&D books a monster has been in, and the fact that a gaming magazine has commented on this fact, is not discussing reception or significance, and is not encyclopedic information... The Land (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well referenced sub-article of the main Dungeons & Dragons series, of too much detail to fold back into a parent article (whether Dungeons & Dragons or Mummy). See WP:SS for guidelines on this approach to articles. In any case D&D is such a seminal work in the fantasy genre, and its original treatments of various creatures so now-ubiquitous, I'd expect to have little trouble sourcing independent notability if it came to that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DFW. D&D monsters are, in many cases, the only variation people know of a particular creature. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - notability asserted (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Elliot[edit]

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

Citations and searches don't assert any real notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the searches/citations might not "assert" notability, but they do establish or demonstrate it. Meets WP:ENT with no difficulty, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well additional citations have been added but they look like mirrors of reports to me, non notable appearances in non notable movies. After the addition of some citations and reading them I am still waiting to be confirmed as to in what what this person is actually wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per easily meeting both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. And searches find many more sources than are curently in the article.[4][5] And if a Nigerian actor or Nigerian film is non-notable in the Northern hemisphere, it is just fine that an equivalent notability is sourcable in Nigeria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMDB gives him over 200 movie credits and there is plenty of coverage in the Nigerian, and indeed international, press. Nigerian cinema should be just as important to this encyclopedia as Hollywood! The Land (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010

comment - 200 IMBD credits - - One issue that I will note here is that in users desperate desire to keep an article, one detrimental issue is that a BLP can be bloated and exaggerated through the addition of multiple citations, some of them not wikipedia reliable and some of them reliable but with only a minor mention of the living subject with the ensuing result that an article is created that is a false representation of the noteworthiness of the subject. As an example of this, there are ninety names in his Filmography section and there is not a single one of them with a wikipedia notable internal article .. allegedly he is a notable movie person with ninety additions to his film section .. but not a single one of them has an en wikipedia article. Clearly Nollywood is notable if it asserts itself on the global stage but we are not here to propagate it until is assets its own notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kastela Republic[edit]

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

I cannot find anything to establish the notability of this place other than its own web site. I've searched for "Kastela Republic" and the official "Kastela Respubliko", and the majority of hits are for blog and Twitter posts. It is telling to note that the top Google hit for the English name is for the newly created Wikipedia article, and there are no hits on Google News for either version. Ckatz^chat _spy 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for nations made up one day. This article fails verifability and notability having absolutely no independent reliable sources. There aren't even any unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 00:04, 9 December 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) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorverse timeline[edit]

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

The article consist of synthesis of published material that advances a position, it does not have references or third-party sources to verify notability, the chronology does not meet the general notability guideline, it's an unneeded indiscriminate collection of information and I don't see how this article would fit the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is no need to move anything from this article because the chronology is already covered in the main article. This is an unnecessary content fork written with an in-universe perspective that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion in my opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly in-universe fan information, are there any wikis to transwiki to? Sadads (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advances a position?? Debresser (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research that is taken from multiple sources to create something that doesn't exist in said sources, such as creating a timeline that is not mentioned in reliable sources but that it's created with the information available. I did not want to call the text original research directly, but it might be. Jfgslo (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plot-only description of a fictional work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to honorverse.wikia.com 65.93.13.216 (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main Honorverse article... except that this one is plot only, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Improve the main article with due weight on the plot. Don't create forks that re-present the same information in an original way. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent nomination. I can't add anything except to say that it is 100% correct. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 6 December 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) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Glover[edit]

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

Non-notable daughter of a more well-known musician. Article exclusively sourced from her website. Released a single solo album three years ago, which didn't chart and is likewise being listed. G-hits list the usual Wiki mirrors, social networking sites, personal webpages, music blogs and user-inputted music sites, with nary a reliable source to be found. The sole G-news hit is from a relatively obscure Australian music site, the text of which is almost entirely sourced from Glover's MySpace page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. Ravenswing 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for non-notability per WP:MUSIC:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability other than a famous father, which doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:10, 4 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blame sydney[edit]

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

Creating this AfD discussion on behalf of a user for whom it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the rationale is along the lines of "fails notability criteria." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the guy Kuyabribri jumped in for, and yes, it's "fails notability criteria" per WP:BAND - the two articles sourced are from a school publication, the band has no released music, so no chart success, no substantial airplay, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Couldn't this be included since its a band related to a Major University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.26.220.195 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable band, does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:N or WP:BAND. To IP above - notability is not inherited. The band must be notable in and of itself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 December 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) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty vs. predictability[edit]

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

WP:ONESOURCE applies here, and there's no independent, significant source to establish notability. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - was just about to Afd it myself. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though more sources were added, theres no categories to merge this to, if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any and all of: failing general notability guidelines, being a dictionary definition, being original research, and lacking sufficient context for other editors to meaningfully expand the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the arugments set forth by DustFormsWords. That said, it's extremely bad form, IMHO, to nominate an article for AfD eight minutes after it is created. Show some good faith and give the article author more time to work on the article, and if it's still a candiate for deletion, why not WP:PROD first? Just yesterday a newbie, writing on what turned out was a notable subject, was bitten in this manner - and left. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I'd like to point out that if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article is a rather faulty argument (and one that smells rather like straw), especially since that statement was made only one hour after the AfD opened...! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DustFormsWords is wrong, however, on pretty much every point. This isn't a dictionary article. It's not in any way documenting the meaning, etymology, pronunciation, translation, or grammatical classification of a word or phrase. It's not original research, either. Wikipedia editors haven't made up something that doesn't exist in scholarly literature. And the context from the sources (as well as other scholarly literature that a quick search easily turns up) is clear, too.
What this in fact is is the rather odd decision by an editor to take just one dimension (out of three) from Baxter's/Montgomery's/Rawlins' view of relational dialectics, not even attributing it correctly to them, and make an article on it. Clearly a simple redirect to the actual topic is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's defining the term "novelty vs predictability", which is all it can do because it is a term, rather than a discrete concept or theory. It's a BAD dictionary definition, but it's certainly not an article. You've provided the context for the article in your comment but it wasn't in the article. Redirect isn't appropriate because this isn't a plausible search term. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make up your mind, either it is a term or it isn't. You cannot have it both ways. This is not a dictionary article documenting the meaning, etymology, pronunciation, translation, or grammatical classification of a word or phrase, and is no more a dictionary article than any other stub is. You have the wrong idea about what dictionary articles are. I suggest checking dictionaries to see what dictionary articles actually are and reading the Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy that explains the the very error that you are making, of conflating "short" with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 03:45, 6 December 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/withdrawn. An obvious reason to have speedy userfication. — Timneu22 · talk 01:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 Minutes In Hell[edit]

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

No indication of importance, no notability asserted, no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kinda early to be XfDing this article as it was just created? Do we loose anything by letting the author of the article finish their work? Hasteur (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No need to be so quick on the draw--see this search. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. — Timneu22 · talk 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Converseley WP:BITE, WP:DEADLINE, WP:NPP, WP:BEFORE. You're supposed to do due dilligence (see if it's possible there are sources) before putting it up for deletion Hasteur (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, judging by the lightning speed proposal for deletion, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this isn't the first time this page has been around. It would be pretty impossible to perform the necessary research to determine whether the appropriate guidelines were met during the 3 minute interval between creation and tagging. So delete away. I've been through this song and dance before and I know how it ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could always write the article including the proper references, instead of letting other editors do the work for you. I don't necessarily agree with the nominator, but that doesn't mean I think you did your job as article creator. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ironically, one of the sources cited, which derided the author of the book, Christianity, and religion in general, made the case for this book's notability by mentioning that it was a New York Times best-seller. (See here for an example; I don't know where this book peaked on the best-seller list, and this is just an example that shows it was ranked, not necessarily its best ranking.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a problem there--I could not find other evidence of NYT status, and that newspaper (a campus paper) can't really count as much of a reliable source. Drmies (talk)
  - Just look at this search; if the book is listed on best-seller charts that we can see on NYTimes.com, we don't need to rely on a college newspaper's claims that it was a NYT best-seller. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, in that link you provided, did you see what was on no. 22? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the descriptions of this book that I could find, I take it that the author of 23 Minutes in Hell didn't report being offered any beer in hell, but then, he said he was only there for 23 minutes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect Metropolitan, how could there be beer if he were in Hell? Dlohcierekim 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would have to ask Tucker Max about that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Clearly fails WP:NB. Could qualify only under criteria 1, but there's only a single review in a student newspaper. Does appear to have sold quite a few copies and attracted some discussion, but all seem to be on blogs and the like, none on maistream Christian or secular sources.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's incorrect. The book is reviewed extensively here, in a notable publication, Christianity Today--footnote 1 in the article. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I'd like to see another review, but combined with the evident high sales volume, I'm leaning towards keep....Sumbuddi (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the article's creator and (up until recently) principal advocate, I'm going to say that we all know how this is going to end. Save everyone some time and trouble and pull the trigger right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know this at all. I'm not sure if you're trying to be helpful or not. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone cares to make a wager on that send me a message. Otherwise I'm not wasting any more time on this article since it'll be in the trash heap very, very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I fully expect this one to be a Snow keep (and yes, that's a bit of a pun). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is decent, Notability is somewhat established by NY Times list showings. Improvement can still continue IMO. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sources exist besides those already listed, such as these articles from New Statesman and Philadelphia Weekly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~perhaps a speedy~~ keep is in order. Generally, being a NYT best seller makes a work notable. Dlohcierekim 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only placed 22, but still combined with other coverage is notable. Dloh cierekim 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect, Timneu22, this is why it's ill-advised to rush a new article (and new editor) into AFD 5 minutes after the article was created. Dloh cierekim 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Geez. One of these "less than 5 minutes and it's at AFD" cases again? WP:DANNO. And notability has been establshed through NYT best-seller list. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though you were right about Novelty vs. predictability getting an afd, this afd is nonscense, and I dont need to explain, clearly the consensus has explained better than I could, its a NYT best seller, cant get much more notable than that. Longevitydude (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in multiple RSs means WP:NBOOK is met. SmartSE (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bestselling book backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 7 December 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 userfy on the off chance that this may be someone's homework assignment. It's definitely not an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tv and film where does the money come from[edit]

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

~Darth Starbo 16:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Delete. While the nomination doesn't supply a reason, given the title that might be wasted words. [This page is an assignment submitted for Coleg Ceredigion, Aberystwyth: National Diploma in Media Production, Autumn 2010] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. This is a school assignment, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY; even says it's an essay right on the page. There should be a speedy category for stuff like this. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, not encyclopedia article. Seriously, this should be a speedy criteria. -Drdisque (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete an Essay and a pretty bad one at that. It is badly written and factually incorrect. This essay really makes me worry about the quality of education in this country. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:41, 5 December 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) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anointed Fire Magazine[edit]

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

Notability concern. Google search does not show any reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources are referenced. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources.. not notable at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no assertion of notability, quick searches show nothing. The article's creator, Urbanshowoffz (talk · contribs) claims (on their talk page) to be the person behind this website, so undoubtable COI and spam issues here. Possible Speedy Delete unless the third sentence counts as an assertion of notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:33, 9 December 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 whitdrawn (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006[edit]

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

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

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

Original research and synthesis. There is no source which contains, how many points the players received in this season and the points were determined from this three sources and the players performance in the ranking events. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you miss some link, just add them, don't start a deletion process. These pages are obviously not research or synthesis, the info is available on multiple sources. But, if you like destroying useful pages, please go ahead. I don't care anymore. Betelgeuse11 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) — This is pretty important information, since ranking points go to the core of the sport. We can source the later seasons, so it's just these three seasons that are a problem. Obviously the lack of sources is an issue but given the importance of the rankings I think we should at least make a concerted effort to locate sources first before just dumping the information. I wasn't even aware that these three articles were not properly sourced, so I think a better course of action would be an "improve the references" template to start with, and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable topic, but it needs better sourcing than at present. I not convinced that building the list from multiple sources really classifies as synthesis - at least tag it and give it some time to see if it can be better sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources to Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006 and Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008 and they are now fully sourced: 2005/06 2007/08. I've also added sources to Snooker world ranking points 2006/2007 so that the total points and all tournaments except the world championship are sourced: 2006/07. We still need a source for the 2007 world championship points (although these can actually be verified to be correct because they follow mathematcially from subtracting the other tournament points from the totals, all of which are sourced). In view of this I don't believe a case exists for deletion now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 1 December 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) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Szymakowski[edit]

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

Sources I can find aren't clearly RSes, claims of notability seem weak to me. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've relisted the debate, as the article does not appear to have been tagged with the AFD template. I also added the debate to the log. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, nor even a clear explanation of what the problem was/is with him conducting a Latin Mass. I'm wondering if there is something not being said here, I think you can all guess what I mean, the Catholic Church in Alaska has by no means been exempt from the scandals of recent decades. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 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 Jesus Dress Up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Bob Smith[edit]

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

Jesus Dress Up appears to be the only notable output of this person, and this page should redirect there. None of the sources for the article discuss Bob Smith as Bob Smith, they merely mention him en passant as the creator of 'Jesus Dress Up'. It's noted that he was one of seven Bob Smiths in a documentary film; however, that documentary film appears vanishingly marginal[6]. Fails WP:BIO for not providing substantial reliable sources covering its subject. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. The article does not include a recent NY Times article specifically about Smith, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/nyregion/26union.html, which discusses him for more than just the Jesus Dress Up. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good source, but someone needs to add the info there to his article as it is failing at the moment. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, yes, but the article can't "fail" based on that not yet being done. We don't delete articles that can demonstrably be expanded just because they haven't been yet. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they get deleted if they fail to meet WP:BASIC. Obv. if you feel the article shouldn't be deleted it would make sense to demonstrate that it is something more substantial than a subsection of Jesus Dress Up. The NYT article demonstrates that he's a character at a park in New York, but it doesn't show the kind of notability/infamy that you get from someone like World Famous Bushman. Does that article prove he is notable? Definitely not. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as appropriate to Jesus Dress Up per Sumbuddi. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Jesus Dress Up. Basileias (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jesus Dress Up. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 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) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen mattick[edit]

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

No sources whatsoever. Editor removed PROD. No indication of notability without reliable sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been trying to find some sources for a bit now. According to the guy's website, he's won architectural awards and been cited by the Prince of Wales...but having a real hard time discovering that independently. I did find this, but he gets a single paragraph mention and that doesn't exactly establish his notability. Syrthiss (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information on the Telegraph award is verifiable, see [7]. Is the award important enough in the field of architecture? There's some coverage at the G_Books, but I'm not sure if it is enough for an article here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete awards seem to be of little importance and has little media coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight claim to notability, but this article is so much like a CV, in order to make anything encyclopaedic you'd have to delete the whole lot and start again. Not worth it in this case. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian aviators[edit]

List of Russian aviators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I am a neutral party listing this article. I believe it faulty for the following two inherent reasons:

1. It is practically limitless in size. Its notability standards, as listed on the talk page, are vague, airy, ambiguous, and vastly inclusive.

2. It has no definition of a Russian ace. As I have found out through experience, a flier's citizenship can be difficult to nail down. The 17 missing World War I "Russian" aces contain at least one ace born in Lithuania and one in Latvia. All 17 won "National awards"–though not necessarily Russian awards. In fact, one of the two WWI aces presently listed won his victories and medals flying for the French air force.

To add to this list's woes, two of its editors are in an edit war over what constitutes a Russian, and it is totally uncited.

I would like to add one more caution, learned through bitter experience. Two years ago, I picked up this interesting year-old List of World War I flying aces to fill out. Through constant effort and a lot of help, it blew up into the second largest article in WP before I split it in nine about a year ago. In the process, I discovered that about 250 names is the maximum length for a list if you want to avoid browser loading problems for some readers.

Are there editors who will devote the necessary care or energy into this list? Or shall we shoot this puppy?

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or turn into a list of lists, containing links to several standalone lists of Russian/Soviet pilots. Notability standards, as listed on the talk page, lead us to a pretty limited scope of this list. There are about 50 names now, and that's after extensive search through all the categories related to Russian pilots (with dropping perhaps additional 50-100 names that possibly should be listed, but seemed less notable to me when the initial list was compiled and current more broad criteria hadn't been set yet). Currently there is simply not enough material on Wikipedia to make the list limitless in size. But if this changes later, there is always the procedure described at WP:SALAT. When list grows in size, it shouldn't be deleted, but just split into sections. Then the largest sections should be turned into standalone lists while the initial list will link to them. This list may be eventually split either by type of pilots (civilian/military/sport etc.) or by period (List of pilots of the Russian Empire, List of pilots of the Soviet Union, List of pilots of the Russian Federation). The latter variant will fix the problem of edit wars over citizenship.

Comment. As for the citizenship definition in the current unsplit list, it is pretty simple for the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation. All Latvians/Lithuanians born in the Russian Empire were its subjects at the initial period of their life, and if they started their pilot career before the end of the Russian Empire, than they may be listed as Russian pilots (in the sense of citizenship). There is, however, an issue with the Soviet citizenship, which resulted in the current long discussion on the talk page. There was no de jure citizenship for each separate Soviet Republic, there was just the general citizenship of the Soviet Union. And the Russian Federation is in some ways successor state to the RSFSR, and in other ways to the Soviet Union as a whole. This complicates determining whether a person should be listed on the list of Russians when this person lived in the time of the Soviet Union. I've suggested to determine it by de facto citizenship which I understand as the actual places of birth and residence. That's how Ivan Kozhedub, who was ethnic Ukrainian born in Ukraine, but who lived actually in Moscow, RSFSR, for most of his life, may be listed among both Ukrainian pilots and Russian pilots. And that's how Oleg Antonov, who was ethnic Russian born in Russia, but who then moved to Ukrainian SSR with his Antonov design bureau, may be listed among both Russian aircraft designers and Ukrainian aircraft designers. This is a fair, broad enough and sensible approach, which makes it possible for all Soviet people de facto strongly related to Russia to be listed as Russians, and all Soviet people de facto strongly related to Ukraine to be listed as Ukrainians. GreyHood ^Talk 10:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When compiling the List of World War I flying aces, I found "Canadian" aces from the USA in the Royal Air Force, "Brits" from all over the British Commonwealth, Polish pilots in both the Austro-Hungarian and German air forces, the French air force had aspects of an aerial United Nations because of the Foreign Legion loophole, and on and on. I took the stance that their nationality at the time of their notable feats was the basis of their listing. Then in the linking articles, I noted any changes in nationality adopted by the subject, or caused by political changes of national boundaries.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/russia/index.php should be enlightening as to the Russian World War I flying aces. I estimate this is half the potential 40 or so entries from World War I. I should think there might be 20 notable military aviators of the era outside the flying aces.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable. If someone thinks the inclusion criteria are too vague, then it's a reason to improve the criteria, not to delete the article. According to the nominator, "a flier's citizenship can be difficult to nail down" -- I disagree, per Greyhood's argumentation, and even if this were true, it would not be a reason to delete, but to be more careful. Offliner (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's a handy and useful list. The issue of pilots whose nationality is contentious can be handled with asterisks and footnotes. It's very useful for some readers to have all the USSR figures in one place, even if it may be necessary note that they are of non-Russian ethnic stock (or whatever the contention is). --Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Johnsemlak. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but as noted it has the potential to become a "list of lists" type of article. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scope is clearly set out, despite comments above. Re: referencing, if the aviator has a linked article, then that should suffice for a ref. Aviators without articles on Wikipedia do need references. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 8 December 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) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabeah Ghaffari[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT. Even in Persian I couldn't find anything about her. Farhikht (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Secret ^account 23:20, 6 December 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 Dinobots. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Dinobots[edit]

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

A minor toyline with no independent information to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether it merits a standalone article, but at a minimum, its information should be merged to Dinobots and Transformers (toy line). postdlf (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dinobots, it's essentially part of that article. 198.111.56.66 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the IP above me. ----Divebomb is not British 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Nothing to WP:verify notability and would support deletion. But let's try to give the Dinobots article a shot at improving. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:06, 3 December 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) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona 5-0 Real Madrid C.F.[edit]

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

Procedurally completing an AfD on behalf of an IP who completed steps 1 and 3; I assume the rationale is along the lines of "non-notable individual football game". I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If there is any enduring significance to this particular game, I'm not seeing evidence of it in the article. From the looks of it, one famous club routed another in a match that is part of a well-known rivalry. That in itself doesn't strike me as being worthy of an article. WP:NOTNEWS is something I rarely invoke, but it's the first thing that came to my mind here. Obviously we can't have articles on every match ever played, and as I said above, I see no reason why this one is special enough to warrant a page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Giants2008. Wikipedia is not Sports Illustrated. Literally when I saw this here my first reaction was "You have to be joking". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Real Madrid C.F. 2–6 FC Barcelona article, alive and undeleted since August, seems to be the precedent. This opens up great possibilities ... any match/game between two well-known teams in any sport can now be an article ... those diehards in the WP:WikiCup can now generate new DYKs by the hundreds ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear lord. I've prodded that one. Probably will have to AfD it, but one can hope. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As PROD was not an option any more (the article had already been PRODded), I have taken it to AfD here. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has WP:RECENT written all over it. Copy the valuable parts of this match and the 2–6 affair from last season to El Clásico, if not already done. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a mildly surprising result, but no notability above and beyond that of any other top-flight football match. Nowhere near to a goalscoring record, not even the biggest win in a match between these two teams! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We seem to have arrived at consensus that major finals are notable and matches that would be included in a history of one or either club. A historian writing the history of either of these illustrious clubs in 10 years time will not spare even a word for such a routine match. No special notability - delete. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what exactly is notable about this game? A team beat another team by a score that wasn't 1-0?! Big whoop. Giant Snowman 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be a lot of bias coming from the Users who want the article deleted. I think if the match was between Liverpool and United most of you would think different. The build up alone was newsworthy and the match itself was a spectacle that can be shared. The article needs work and more neutrality but it is worthy of having its own article. La Fuzion (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, we wouldn't. This isn't a case of WP:BIAS, this is a case of a football game, nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't a championship match, and it wasn't an especially historic one either. Should I create an article titled 2010 Pittsburgh Steelers-Baltimore Ravens game because there was news coverage of the rivalry in the leading up to the event, and because the game was memorable? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Liverpool beat Man U 5-0 and there was a brief burst of people going "Ooh, that was slightly surprising", I would !vote to delete an article for that game too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries from me as I won't fight it but the bias is quite clear. Cheers. La Fuzion (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like the only notable parts are the buildup to the game and how it was a spectacle. Both are arbitrary commentary and not historically relevant events. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in itself. Even if the article was kept, it would need to be disambiguated because it was the fourth instance of that specific scoreline! Barcelona also beat Madrid 5–0 in 1935, 1945 and 1994. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to El Clásico, the article covering the rivalry between the two clubs. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Giants2008. --El Unique (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable scheduled league match. All meetings of the two clubs have similar build-up and post-match analysis so coverage should be considered WP:ROUTINE and only reflects on the notability of El Clásico not the individual match. The surprisingly lop-sided scoreline may have prompted much hyperbole in the immediate aftermath, but ultimately this clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:EVENT. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it man ya geeks.--Supersewelly (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Supersewelly (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no actual assertion of notability, also self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Kane (Writer)[edit]

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

contested BLP prod, but the references added do not establish notability. a nomination for an Aurealis award does not satisfy wp:ANYBIO and he doesn't seem to meet wp:AUTHOR or wp:GNG either. Yoenit (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence at all of notability. All of the "references" are links to pages which are written by Kane (not about him) or otherwise not independent, or just give Kane's name in a list. The article describes him as "upcoming", which appears to suggest that even its author thinks that Kane is not yet notable, but hopes he will be. (It is perhaps worth noting that the article was written by a user called Damien Kane (Writer), and appears to be promotional in intention.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this self-publicizing, non-notable [[:WP:UPANDCOMING|up-and-coming "writer" who can't even spell "up and coming"!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 3 December 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) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KAL 007: The Naval Search[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, with the apparent motivation being to flesh out details of a particular conspiracy theory advanced by rescue007.org Note that there is already a separate article entitled Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's sole author is the chief advocate for this conspiracy theory organization and this poorly-written and unnecessary article is heavily skewed towards advocacy of this theory. Furthermore the author has used this article as spam, for example trying to include it as a "See also" entry in History of the United States Navy and a similar attempt in Naval history (both since reverted). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also reverted the 'See Also' entries made by this article's author into somewhere between six to ten other articles. Most of which were on naval ships.William 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for the time being I've renamed it to Naval search for KAL 007 because the original name sounds like a novel. If anyone can think of a better name please feel free. Will Beback talk 12:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a good move, because that's exactly what I thought the article was about at first. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same here; thanks for moving it. wacky wace 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Korean Air Lines Flight 007#Search and rescue. A sizable portion of this article is quotes and photo images that are either not form a WP:NPOV or otherwsie offer little encyclopedic value to the topic; removing most of the quotes then summarizing the information and it could fit nicely into the main article on KAL Flight 007. -- Aeonx (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive effort has gone into copyediting the main KAL 007 article, and to ensure that the weighting of its content is appropriate. Merging this article into that section would regress that article by re-introducing the very problems that people have been working so hard at resolving - in short the article would lose its GA status. Secondly, length is an issue with the primary article - it's already over 100K. Lastly, for people that are not familiar with this subject, the author of this article has a history of making POV edits around this topic, to the extend that some people are thinking about a topic ban. The size of this block of text here should not be grounds for keeping or merging - we've seen it before in the main article, where it was copyedited out. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, last observation is that the quotes refered to above would be better placed at WikiQuote if they are that noteworthy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As Wasted Time R and Socrates2008 pointed out, the author of the article has a strong POV issue with the subject of the article, and also has COI issues, not to mention the entire article is, essentially, based on a fringe conspiracy theory for which there isn't a single piece of reliable evidence. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:FRINGE. I wouldn't rule out WP:SYN issues either. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete: The article does need to be written better. The article does try to provide in more detail what is provided in a section of the KAL 007 article. That the article appears to support the theory that the author holds is true but that is not because the article is skewed but because that is where the evidence lies. Others are free to provide other evidence or amend what I have written. Aside from this, the author merely presents that evidence rather than drawing conclusion concerning survival. The article is well referenced, and the anomalies crying for a solution have been noted by others. The photos, by and large, are very relevant as they are the real time photos of particular vessels concerned. There should be no problem with my association with the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors. It is the material itself we must deal with. I think it true that everyone of us has personal motivation as to why he is involved with Wikipedia in the first place, why he chooses to edit one type of articles rather than other, why he may choose a particular topic or topic for which he dedicates himselfBert Schlossberg (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's already extensive coverage of this topic in the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article and this does seem to be advancing a particular theory. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete - you can tell a lot of work went into this article but in keeping with 9/11 and other major events. Should only have one article about the mainstream theory. And one article about alternate theories. This article need to be folded into one of them and my guess is it should be the latter one. Perhaps if the quotes could be removed and just the mechanics of the search described, this could be a child article of the main theory article. --MarsRover (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korean Air Lines Flight 007. My first thought was to merge the articles, but Socrates2008 points out that the weight issue is already heavy towards the recovery. As it stands, the article is heavily redundant to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories (especially with the excessive quotes), but I would not redirect there because the article seems to focus more on the Cold War tension between the Soviet and American navies than outright conspiracy theories. That said, I don't think the near-confrontations merit an article independant of the main one. A little bit of careful merge work can raconcile this to the main KAL007 article without sacrificing the GA status. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and redirect to Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The material here which goes beyond that which is present at the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article is not worthy of a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though I prefer a non-delete, I agree with Bahamut0013 that material can be added to the main article without that loosing GA statusBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant material such as the search confrontations timeline (USSR list also, if available) into the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article. The size of the existing article is not a reason to not provide significant additional information. Relevant pictures and charts should be preserved. SBaker43 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Eckl[edit]

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

I can find literally no coverage of this guy. Google news, LexisNexis, google generally comes up with nothing but unreliable sources. He may have some excellent achievements, but without anything to verify them he can't pass WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find several references to verify some of the notable achievements and have added added them to the article for verification. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks; I've withdrawn. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 1 December 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) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Ian[edit]

information is correct now. 76.65.11.23 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PROD was removed by creator. Refs are to non reliable or self-published sources. Searches fail to come up with any other reliable sources. Subject fails at WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- Aeonx (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source has been refined 76.65.11.23 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Akcelrod[edit]

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

Akcelrod is not an actor, he only played as an extra in two movies not released. His WP was deleted one year ago, when he was a football player —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyliam (talk • contribs) 08:43, December 1, 2010— Crazyliam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Agreed, if anything he's an impostor trying to use Wikipedia to create fake notability.[8] -- Aeonx (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if kept as an article about an actor, as his meager acting career[9] sadly fails WP:ENT. Not being aware of the earlier version where he was touted as a footballer, he does seem to have coverage as a soccer player,[10] but it was only over a 7 month period just this year, and this current article is NOT asserting notability through WP:ATH... which might have had a chance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 2 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gilbert (Theatre Educator)[edit]

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

Delete. High school drama director and local director of regional theatre company. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet criteria for notability presented at WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Cindamuse (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly non-notable. I can't find any independent coverage of the subject. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Aeonx (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply non-notable per WP:GNG, no coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No realistic claim to notability, no refs, SPA-created. This is most likely a vanity page. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No notability, no refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 2 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Utahn[edit]

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

This is a neologism not covered by reliable secondary sources. The only Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and the comments of people who noticed the Wikipedia article. Ntsimp (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Ntsimp (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this invented neologism. The lone source in the article neither mentions "anglo-utahn"'s nor supports the claim being sourced. Total lack of secondary coverage of the topic. Possibly made up. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Aeonx (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GreenGlass^(talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no coverage in reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Roscelese (talk) 05:59, 7 December 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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque[edit]

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

I'm a little on the fence about this one. This article seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT (and the article's title is terrible, but that's another story). Prod contested by article creator. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a general news headline that is not encylcopedic. (Unless the author means 'Man' as in 'Mankind'?). Neither the event nor the man nor the mosque appear to be notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - blatant plagarism - the article is nothing but a cut-and-paste from the DOJ news release, with a few words cut-moved-and-pasted to make it read ever so slightly different. Not a speedyable copyvio - I think - given that the source is a government press release, but... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(also, fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Delete A clumsy word-by-word reworking of the DOJ article that functions as its source. Also: WP:ONEEVENT -- I mean, look at the article title. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS are so often misused and misinterpreted, but here is a crystal clear example of the type of article it seeks to prevent. One question though, is Central Illinois Mosque and Islamic Center notable enough for it's own article? (I honestly don't know.) If so, I think it should be created and a sentence or three on this incident should be included there. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems improper to have an article about someone if we don't even have the chap's name in the title. ONEEVENT is relevant as well, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No justification for an article on the person per WP:BLP1E, or for one on the event per WP:NOTNEWS. Really nothing here but a trivial news story of the day. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant plagiarism and violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a flagrant transgressor of WP:NOTNEWS. It’s not even close. Greg L (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to fail several parts of Wikipedia:Notability (events), including WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, and already is failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE — Google News shows only one hit for "Ilya Sobolevskiy". --Closeapple (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. Plagiarism is not allowed.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VR _talk 19:24, 5 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Husayin[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - this is biography of a living person known as a result of one event, which can be seen in the fact that the entirety of the coverage is directly related to this single event. This belongs as a few sentences in Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority or as part of a more specific Freedom of Expression the Palestinian National Authority. Nableezy 07:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This individual is notable for one specific event and no more. The nominator mentions several very viable merge topics for rescuing usable content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills WP:1E exemption: "Large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." See all notable coverage of Husayin in the article in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Le Monde, Associated Press and others. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at the examples given there. You really want to argue that this blogger being arrested compares to the assassination of world leaders? nableezy - 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plot Spoiler.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what happened to him is notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true, how does that make this not a violation of WP:BLP1E? nableezy - 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No different from non-notable Furkan Doğan. Chesdovi (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination misses the point, because even if WP:BLP1E applies here, the article should not be deleted but converted to an article about what happened to this man (which would involve little more than a title change). These events are certainly notable, as Supreme D. stated and as the sources in the article and in Plot Spoiler's comment show. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notabilty for the article subject is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources that cover him as an individual. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the extensive international coverage. Schwede 66 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a relevant question to be asked here is this: Can we reasonably expect our readers to search for this person? Considering the fact that he has been covered in the New York Times, BBC News, and the Washington Post, and considering that the page has already received 400+ views in the first two weeks of its existence, the answer is a resounding "yes". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:25, 9 December 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 Long Way Down. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Way Up[edit]

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

Speculative unreferenced article written about as yet non-existent TV series Biker Biker (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I see no evidence that this TV series has commenced principal photography. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as still being WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Nice that this film has been spoken of since 2007,[11] but it seems no closer to filming than it was three years ago and fails as an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long Way Down. A search on GNews confirms that this series has indeed been considered, but nothing more. It therefore makes sense to mention this somewhere in the article of the would-be preceding programme. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Chris Neville-Smith. Makes sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect seems like the right idea for now. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Chris above. Good call. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:13, 5 December 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) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaksh[edit]

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

I am this article's original creator, and I no longer feel that this subject needs a separate article. It's already covered sufficiently in Ithkuil, and has no independent notability. Bob A (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed? Why did it originally need a separate article according to you? --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I thought the topic was more notable than I do now. Bob A (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you now think differently? --JorisvS (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly because I'm not interested in this anymore, and secondly because I have different views on notability. Bob A (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have something more substantial than just personal interests and views for us? --JorisvS (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I have to explain. The nomination stands for itself. Bob A (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not a vote. As the nominator you should thus be prepared to discuss the matter, explaining your reasons properly is part of that, definitely when asked for them. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were asking me to defend the evolution of my personal views. I've already given an explanation of why I think this should be deleted, so I'm not sure what more you want me to say. Bob A (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping for something more concrete, more objective if you will, as that could have been relevant in making up my (and other people's) mind(s). If there just isn't anything else, so be it. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could merge/redirect it without this formality. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already there; it was my understanding that this had to go through AfD. Bob A (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how a very short description of why Ilaksh was created and a somewhat more detailed overview of its script could constitute "the information is already there". --JorisvS (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only material in the article not duplicated from the article on Ithkuil is the phonology section, which I consider to be outside the scope of notability. Bob A (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on WP refers to articles, not content. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:Indiscriminate rather than WP:Notability. However, since you're an inclusionist, you'll probably think differently, so you're free to copy that information to the article Ithkuil. Bob A (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that can be relevant, none of these points have anything to say that can be linked to this article. Note also that phonology is an important aspect of a language, natural and constructed alike. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is required if the article is to vanish without a trace. That doesn't happen with merge/redirect. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my 2p. I am neiter an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but more like a mergist. And that's what I probably would done here as well. Ithkuil indeed is a very notable language, but I'm not sure if the same can be said about Ilaksh. If it is true what the article says, that it is some kind of Ithkuil spin-off (and as such part of the same project), then I think it would be wisest to move those contents to the Ithkuil article that are not already there, and turn this one into a redirect. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far what I've seen here are really only feelings and opinions. I really care only for the arguments, the arguments behind opinions. You can convince me that such a thing is better, but not with feelings and opinions. How to define "a spin-off" as such and why? Why then do you think it wisest to redirect it to another part of the same project. But firstly, notability itself, when exactly should we consider something notable and why (the definition on WP:Notability leaves some room for discussion here) and does the subject comply with this? --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator clearly says in his nomination, the topic is already given substantial coverage in the article on Ithkuil. Additionally, the topic at hand is not supported by significant, independent coverage in multiple sources. Furthermore, as a personal aside, I would like to swat several persons above (aside from the nominator) with a bit of trout for giving us an AfD conversation featuring over 10 bits of point and counterpoint without a single vote. Outstanding. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken your turn-my turn symmetry of the above 10 bits of point and counterpoint seems too cooperative for separate individuals. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma, Please direct your (totally ungrounded) accusation of sockpuppetry to the appropriate channels. --JorisvS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ginsengbomb. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Personally, I was trying to get an opinion based on sound arguments, that's why I didn't vote. --JorisvS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic at hand is not supported by significant, independent coverage in multiple sources. Here is the lead of the article: "Ilaksh is a constructed human language marked by outstanding grammatical complexity and an innovative system of writing. It is based on Ithkuil. The language’s author, John Quijada, presents ..." Is the grammatical complexity really outstanding? Is the system of writing really innovative? I especially like how the name of the language’s author is worked right up into the article lead. Nice self-promotion. At this point, Carnac the Magnificent would probably be saying "Nominated for deletion." Then, tearing open the envelope to reveal the question, the question would be "What is the future status of the Ithkuil article." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I detest the expression "self-promotion" in this context. First of all, would you expect the name J.S. Bach to appear only in the third alinea of the Brandenburg concertos article? Of course not - it's perfectly normal that in an article about a book, a movie, a musical work or a constructed language the name of the author is mentioned in the first sentence. Secondly, it is wrong to assume beforehand that articles about works of art are by definition written by their authors. In this case this is quite obviously not the case. I know John Quijada and I can assure you that he is a very decent and honourable person who'd rather not indulge in that sort of things. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:04, 1 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Cheong[edit]

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

Only supporting source is dead and was a fake. There is no Ministry of Culture in Singapore. Article written like a curriculum vitae. Information unverifiable and article is insignificant Reiuji (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have blanked the article content due to copyright concerns as all versions of the article appear to be a substantial copy of the subject's bio on his web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least in stub copyright-compliant form per [12][13][14][15][16]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have started a non-copyvio version of the article at Talk:Felix Cheong/Temp which can be used in place of the current copyvio pending administrator review. A big thanks to Phil for the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from relisting admin. Okay so here's what I did which is hopefully kosher. The previous version of the article and apparently all of its history was a copyvio so I speedy deleted it. But Whpq started a non-copyvio version at Talk:Felix Cheong/Temp. I simply moved this page to Felix Cheong. The article looks different now, but the nominator might still feel it warrants deletion. Anyway discussion should be restarted based on the new version. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm skeptical of the barrage of sources from AsiaOne -- the site's About Us section seems to suggest that it might not be reliable -- but taken in concert with the other sourcing, I think this topic barely passes notability muster. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Its not clear what it is that makes you think it is unreliable. AsiaOne is a property of Singapore Press Holdings. It appears that the site is designed as a portal site with news as one aspect along with lifestyle stuff, but there's no reason to believe that there isn't editorial oversight. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This posting, while not a reliable source itself for most things, lists a bunch of reliable sources from which the Wikipedia article may be developed:
- (2000, December 22). 6 win awards for promoting Singapore. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Chow, C. (2004, September 25). Literature prize makes comeback. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Hara, C. (2005, October 16). Young Asian poets woo with words. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Ho, V. (2004, October 30). Playing with romance. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Leong, S. (2003, September 26). Best-selling authors. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- National University of Singapore. (2005). Instructors@NEX. Retrieved 27 December, 2005, from http://www.nus.edu.sg (then click on NUS Enterprise > NUS Extension > Instructors@NEX > Cheong Felix).
- Oon, C. (2000, September 23). Easy ride for young artists?. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Pang, A. (2003, April). Sex and the city poets. Quarterly Literary Review Singapore 2(3). Retrieved 27 December, 2005, from http://www.qlrs.com (then click on Vol.2 No.3 Apr 2003).
- Tan, G. E. (2000, November 29). Following the call of the Muse. The New Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Tan, K. (1998, September 5). Truth can be mundane too. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Tan, P. (1999, July 10). Double your vision of things. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.
- Yeow, K. C. (2001, August 18). Spare, crisp and descriptive verse. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Factiva database.

In addition, if you search the achieves of The Jakarta Post, The Straits Times, The Press, and Business Times (Singapore) for "Felix Cheong", you will find additional material for the article. Also, check out irishtimes.com. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 1 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emiratis in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

I don't think the subject of Emiratis in the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on the lack of significant coverage of the topic. The article relies solely on a population figure from the census and a few statistics on student numbers. This doesn't constitute significant coverage in my book. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's supposed to be a stub. Also, why did you remove the 'community' section earlier a couple of days ago, without any explanation? Mar4d (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it a month ago, and explained why in the edit summary. The sources you had used for that section weren't about Emiratis living in the UK. They were about visas for visitors (not immigrants) and about Emirati visitors feeling at home in London. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also now realise that you breached copyright by copying part of one of the sources word-for-word. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out which part is copied. Also, the above source clearly talks about expats - not visitors. Mar4d (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained at Talk:Emiratis in the United Kingdom, and yet you continue to add the material, claiming in your edit summary that I have removed it without explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I can see what you mean now and have removed most of it. However, please don't wipe out the whole section as some of the content does specifically directly relate to Emiratis in the UK. Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see one sentence that should perhaps say, as I highlighted on the article's talk page, but we can continue to discuss that there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to clarify the UK being one of the most 'popular destinations' for Emirati expats - which, as you pointed out, was previously unsourced. Mar4d (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourced coverage is not significantly focused on the topic at hand. The sources demonstrate that Emiratis are in the UK, and that they are, I don't know, doing things, but I don't see any independent coverage of the actual topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many other articles on Wikipedia of a similar nature and their existence may be of encyclopedic value to some readers. Aeonx (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Merge~~ - into both Emirati people and List of Emiratis and spin off if needed. The "(fish out of water) in the (name of country)" article is a standard type Wikipedia article, but you first need to build up the parent articles with text before you can spin a topic off of the parent. As for a tit-for-tat article, see Britons in the United Arab Emirates. Also see, Emirati American and United Arab Emirati detainees at Guantanamo Bay. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep since my merge position was more of an editorial decision rather than a deletion decision. Keep since it is there is enough source material to maintain the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that other similar and equivalent articles exist, but the question here is whether the topic of this specific article is notable. Given the lack of significant coverage, I don't think it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 1 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem[edit]

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

While the article seems to be heavily referenced, almost none of the articles mention this forum at all. It's supposedly citation of its rank on big-boards.com is not true according to the website itself (it doesn't look like it ranks in the top 2000 even). The two items in the supposed "controversy" section aren't really that controversial. For the first, none of the links actually mention the forum and the second Walken one the website is only briefly mentioned as the possible originator. There really aren't any reliable sources showing this website's notability. Wickethewok (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ranking on big-boards.com is near-accurate, it's currently (11/19/2010) fallen to #59. It's difficult to find since it's under the name General [M]ayhem, which means normal searching won't find it.ThAlEdison (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ThAlEdison is right, it's on BigBoards as General [M]ayhem, and its size according to that source is sufficient to found a claim of notability even before turning to the other sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, this forum's traffic totals are not sufficient to found a claim of notability before turning to other sources. That is simply inaccurate. Notability has nothing to do with web traffic as defined by any source. Notability depends upon reliable, significant coverage in independent sources, of the actual topic at hand (and not, say, the result of actions undertaken by the topic). I do not see anything like significant coverage in third-party sources on this topic. I see traffic statistics and coverage of events related to more notable topics than this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:47, 1 December 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Stein[edit]

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

This individual is a failed politician according to WP:Politician she recieved less then 31,000 votes in the current election out of millions. Has ran multiple times and failed each time. although on the ballot the amount of votes she recieved were insignificant, see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim McKenna who recieved 837,813 (or about 30 times the vote including more then her in write in votes alone) of the votes and was given a delete decision. judging from her previous elections she is actually going down in votes and it is highly unlikely she will even come close to winning an election in the future. The only post she ever was elected to was a small one with 539 votes. This article should be deleted. Tracer9999 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green-Rainbow Party. Mandsford 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, Stein has received primary coverage in multiple statewide and regional publications. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the sources are independent. Stein appears much more notable then McKenna. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHaving not won an election means she is not automatically notable. Her total number of votes is not what is relevant to her notability on Wikipedia. Does she pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO? The answer is yes. See the following sources: this from NECN, this op-ed published by the Boston Globe during the campaign, this from the Berkshire Eagle, this profile from the South Coast Today, this Boston Herald article criticizing her fashion sense and others. She received non-trivial coverage for multiple, reliable sources and is thus notable.--TM 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are in regards to the fact she was on the ballot.. outside of being someone who runs, gets hardly any votes and loses, she is not know for much else. her votes had absolutley zero effect on the election any coverage was simply for the news to avoid criticism so they could say they covered the third party candidate as thoroughly as any major party candidate. The fact is.. outside the failed election, she is not known much locally much less nationally. if anything this should be merged with the election article. -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation behind covering her and her campaigns cannot really be known nor should we ask why they covered her. Neither is being known somewhere an indication of notability. GNG and BIO clearly state that if someone receives non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, she is notable by Wikipedia's standards.--TM 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom states no policy-based cause for deletion. While she may have not received enough votes to be elected, there is no policy that requires or recommends that an article be deleted just because someone lost an election. There is also no guideline stating that a person can lose notability because they lost an election. As a State Co-Chair of a minor party, and through several elections over the last decade, she has received significant coverage over many years for her political activities. Multiple losing candidacies with coverage also clearly negate any application of WP:BLP1E to this article. Per WP:GNG, the subject meets the guideline. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the positions that the subject has held meet notability guidelines so local press coverage covering her work in those roles is not notable. Deputy regional leader of a minor party certainly doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN and there is nothing to suggest that she passes WP:GNG either. Valenciano (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is she notable for? She's a frequent candidate, failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't need to be notable for anything. Wikipedia has lots of articles about politicians who were never elected. Are there multiple non-trivial sources covering her and not just her campaign? I have presented a number of them on here and there are more on the page itself. Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it seems.--TM 22:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - While not a completely horrible page, she is not notable in the least. Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be discounted.--TM 13:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says he don't mind the quality of the page.. just that she is not notable.. sounds like..a case of he thinks she is not notable... -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what notability is on Wikipedia? Notability is not the number of votes a candidate receives; Many articles exist and are regarded as notable on candidates that have never held an elected office or received a large number of votes. The question here is whether she passes WP:BIO. There are multiple, non-trivial newspaper articles and television coverage from reliable sources covering both her and her campaigns. Those are what we should be judging, not the vote total.--TM 14:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from relisting admin. As of now there is clearly no consensus, but editors are not really discussing/debating the quality and extent of the sources on Ms. Stein. If the debate centers around the GNG, WP:BIO, etc. specific arguments about them should be made with respect to the sources rather than simply saying she either fails or passes these guidelines. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. As far as I'm concerned, all else (whether she won or lost, etc.) is immaterial. She's noteworthy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Multiple articles from reliable sources satisfies this guideline... And therefore also paragraph three of WP:POLITICIAN. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage she got looks like the standard coverage for minor candidates in a campaign, not significant on anything other than her efforts to get elected to super-local office, which were all losses. Hekerui (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Valenciano and Hekerui. It is well-established that routine campaign-related coverage for fringe and losing candidates isn't significant coverage for the purposes of the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 9 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Avenue (Eureka)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article title is supposes to be about a street in California that's no notable. The only reference in the whole article is for the length. The rest of the article is about a section of a city, and even that isn't particularly notable. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article also has POV issues. Article creator removed {{POV}} along with PROD notice. –Fredddie ™ 04:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Admrboltz (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is called "Myrtle Avenue" yet the content is about Myrtletown, California. If someone wants to create an article about the street and can demonstrate it passes our guidelines, then I'll re-consider. But for now this article is nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above and nom. -- Aeonx (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay that doesn't match the title, nothing worth keeping. tedder (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's author (Offrecord09) is relatively new, and I encourage him or her to keep contributing to Wikipedia. In this case, I would suggest that the author work on the existing Myrtletown, California article. To the author, who I imagine is reading the ongoing debate, learning "encyclopedic style" can take some time-- "If you look down the hidden streets, you will find a business for every occasion" is essay rather than article, Personal observations are barred as original research, although the observations made in published sources are often okay. Best thing to do is to google "Myrtletown" and then add links to the town article. Good luck. Mandsford 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The road, also referred to as the "Old Arcata Road" preceded the highway that exists nearer the edge of the Humboldt Bay. It is the original route of the highway that exists today. Historically and currently this road is one of three major arteries that connect Eureka, California to the college town of Arcata, the other two being numbered highways. However, there is not enough significance to list this as its own article. Additionally, the editor that created the page has created nonsensical categories and general mayhem. Additionally, the grammar and sentence construction in related edits is problematic to say the least. Norcalal (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "For those who live in Myrtletown, it is easy to tell when you are in the neighborhood. After you have crossed the deep gullies of Eureka and the redwoods are in view, the clouds seem to lift a little bit, the fog turns to mist and the sun shines through more often. There are plenty of stores and enough medical assistance for the whole city. If you look down the hidden streets, you will find a business for every occasion." Nonsense. wacky wace 19:50, 6 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirco Braccini[edit]

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

As noted on the article's talk page in more detail, Braccini fails to meet any of the WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:N notability criteria. While the article lists a number of references, many are self-published and therefore not reliable sources. The remainder do not serve to establish notability, as they are not articles about Braccini; they are merely articles for which he was hired to provide photographs. Having his work included as part of a number of articles does not satisfy the notability requirements; the requirement is for articles where Braccini is the subject of the article. I have yet to find any such references. I put a note on the article's talk page 20 days ago looking for anyone to provide evidence of notability; none has been presented. The article, a BLP, reads like a resume and makes numerous claims not substantiated by the cited references. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator does a sterling job of distinguishing between mentions in third party sourcing and actual coverage. I have found no evidence of significant, independent coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:53, 1 December 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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Hoffman[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets the general inclusion guideline or the specialized inclusion guideline. NW (Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears to be notable for one event only. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of a lack of demonstrated notability. Organising an event at which one person said something controversial about another person doesn't make her notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. All sources quoted appear to be primary and not primarily about the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elbert D. Mondainé Jr.[edit]

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

Delete. Pastor of church with claims as singer/songwriter. Cannot find supporting documentation outside of the church's website or MySpace. At this point, does not meet criteria presented at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. I can't find any independent coverage of this individual at all. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 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) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Camping[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a resume with no references for many pertinent things (like direct quotes); 99% of sources are self-published, COI & NPOV. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing in the article is in dire need of improvement (it's almost exclusively content written by Harold Camping!), but a quick GNews search reveals a pretty significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. That an article is faulty is not a reason to delete it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Masses of current references on Google News, which is pretty good going for an 89 year old, didn't even need to search 'archives'. The fact that the article is a horrible mess is a separate concern.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is popping up in the news so he's definitely notable and it would be worthwhile to keep the article. It can be scrapped and rewritten to fit with Wikipedia style. PseudoOne (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually came across the page looking for info on the subject because of a news article I read. As was said above, much improvement needed, but still a noteworthy subject. Schluum (talk) 15:43, 7 December 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) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet search engines and libraries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Internet search engines and libraries

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

While a very nice essay, this violates WP:NOTESSAY. It appears to have been a school project, and the editors have never returned, and little other improvements made to make it encyclopedic. Westbender (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per...well, nothing else really needs to be said. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot else has to be said, actually. I, for one, would like an explanation of what, exactly, is essay-like about this. There's no personal reflection. In fact, there appear to be no first-person or even second-person remarks in the entire article. It appears to be an encyclopaedia article on a subject that would be Libraries, effect of World Wide Web search engines upon in a paper encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. The tone is a little off our usual style, but it's not a personal reflection. Vaguewaving at WP:NOTESSAY does not make a valid nomination. Fences&Windows 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedic topic that clearly meets notability guidelines and is referenced. If there are any problems with style or sufficiency of references, they can be addressed by editing. ^Bongo_matic 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep and rewrite. Unquestionably notable topic -- there are about two dozen books on the topic. But the article itself is not really written in our usual style--the "essay-like" charge reflects its style as a college paper, not any major inherent deffects, such as being written to express a personal viewpoint. That last , an paper expounding a subject and coming to a conclusion or expressing a viewpoint, is what we normally mean by essay-like. This style misjudgment is only to be expected, since the article was prepared as a course project.

It is extremely appropriate to encourage these projects to do it right. It is extremely detrimental to the development of Wikipedia for us to delete the articles--such projects are one of our main areas of growth for the coverage of major topics. I'm going to declare some degree of COI here--I have been involved in discussions with the people involved the relevant Wikipedia and WMF projects about myself organizing and leading such projects. But I have not yet actually done any, though I have volunteered for some. I'm not writing to represent the view of those projects, for there are some significant ways in which I do not like the WMF approach. (This particular article is not part of any such formal project; it would have been written more appropriately if any knowledgable Wikipedian has been there to give advice. I will personally make myself responsible for helping them improve it, and, if they should not cooperate, I shall personally rewrite it.)

I see the nominator has made no effort to help them, which truly puzzles me, because his contributions shows some interest in libraries.Perhaps had he been here longer than 4 weeks, he might have known the lengths we will go to in helping people learn to work here, and realized the existence of the policy WP:BEFORE, that deletion is the last resort if nothing better can be done. If we start deleting relatively poorly written articles on the grounds of their low quality alone, we'll remove half of Wikipedia--myself I think half of Wikipedia is indeed less than satisfactory, but what it needs is people working on their improvement. Nominating such articles for deletion is not constructive work. Nominating the efforts of class articles for deletion, instead of guiding the class, is one of the most effective ways to prevent Wikipedia from growing, and will lead to its eventual destruction. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what in this article isn't already covered in Web search engine? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, how about all the stuff about how search engines affect libraries, i.e. the whole article. Did you actually read these two articles? Fences&Windows 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then there should be a sentence or two about how libraries are impacted, with sources to the primary source that makes the argument. This article is making the argument, which appears to be original synthesis of source material...an essay. Westbender (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How internet search engines are used by and affect libraries is a notable topic, there's a lot of reliable sources covering this specific issue and many of them are cited already. If it reads like an essay, that can be fixed by editing. Fences&Windows 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a retitling will make this more acceptable. It's really about the Impact of Internet search engines on libraries. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact suggested that to them back some time ago. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Title must be changed in order to keep. Tone needs editing - the fact that this reads like an essay affects its neutrality. Needs work but offers a lot of well-referenced information worthy of a place on Wikipedia. Kirstinhepburn (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Abductive and Kirstinhepburn. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 2 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musharaf Bangash[edit]

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

Does not seem notable enough. I am willing to withdraw my nomination if he can be proved notable JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteable enough!?!

Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB9VlBVdTSE and his (new) facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Musharaf-Bangash/109320379089335?v=wall and all over youtube, try this link for example!!!

Mr. Bangash sings great songs, and he is very famous in his part of the world! For people in Afghan and Pakistan, he is very well known. And his recent abduction has come as a shock to many! Please do not delete him just because you haven't heard of him. You would not like it if some Pashtun tribesman logged in and deleted Michael Jackson just because he hadn't heard much about him!

And why merge with Taliban and culture? He just happened to be kidnapped by the Taliban, he and his songs are not about the Taliban.

This article is currently lacking volume, but everything has to start somewhere. It's one of the first Google results that comes up when people, on hearing news of his kidnapping, will find. It will grow.

Please sirs, I implore you to stick to editing things that you know about, and not to discount things simply because they a) lie beyond the boundaries of your experience and b) don't come up in your limited Googling efforts.

Regards Aurora Boringalis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurora boringalis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Facebook page and am on YouTube too. I am not notable. It needs more reliable sources. JDDJS (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not funny. You didn't even look at any of the dozen or more of his film clips, did you? Why don't you go and delete Britney Spears, or some other pop singer. Something not being culturally relevant to you does not necessarily mean it is not relevant. Aurora boringalis (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your reviewing our Googling efforts and the boundaries of our experience. Could you cite any reliable sources supporting your claims? All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, in other words, the information must be verifiable. This project is an encyclopedia, not a forum where you can write whatever. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find any evidence confirming that Musharaf Bangash was a notable singer in Pakistan before his kidnapping. The search for his name in Urdu (مشرف بنگش) reveals another news about the event (see BBC Urdu), but nothing more. The topic is important, however, there is no room for expansion and not enough information for a standalone article (at least at the moment). I would like to say "merge and redirect to Taliban and culture" (it is possible that his kidnapping is related to his "patriotic songs" and the context could be broader), but there's no such an article in the Category:Taliban. On a side note, not long ago I participated at a similar AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Valles Garcia). It was a similar example of WP:BLP1E, but the coverage of the event in the world media was more substantial, and our editors voted accordingly. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We must judge on what we can see and find. I see a ref to what looks like a reliable source - but which tells us little. I find there are many hits on Google for the singer's name. Have a look at WP:RS and see if you can add some more references about him. We would prefer them to be in English, as this is the English language Wikipedia, but some in Pashto would be all right too, so long as we can check ones we can understand. By the way, please sign your posts with four ~ things, and please post below the latest other post - unless commenting directly on something. Peridon (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.Farhikht (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peridon. Yes, there are thousands of web and image results on Google on the singer's name, along with many professionally produced film clips of Mr. Bangash's songs. Is such media rendered unreliable due to the fact that (as JDDJS points out) anyone can add a clip to Youtube? Should not the presence dozens of his film clips, readily searchable on Youtube (not to mention all the search results Peridon has mentioned), be enough evidence that he was a well known Singer in the Pashto music scene before he was kidnapped a little more than a week ago? Anyway, now we have the BBC, Radio Free Europe, and the Khyber News. You want more sources? I will get more. You guys better give me a nice certificate or something after all this. Aurora boringalis (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can only give a virtual certificate... Try to get more about him rather than just the abduction. A lot of people get abducted over the world, but WP:BLP1E comes in (you don't usually get notable for one event). A notable singer - now that's a different matter. And please try to get refs in English or with some sort of summary in English. Refs in foreign are allowed to give further info - but for this purpose we really could do to see what's going on. It isn't easy sometimes to show notability for the sorts of music outside Western pop, rock, jazz and classical in English sources - heck, it's not always easy for some of those... Do what you can. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- @Peridon: Sorry for moving away from the topic, but I don't see much problems with citing reliable non-English sources, G-translator is a tool sufficient for basic verifying (Of course, it can't serve for creating of perfect articles, however, it might help in cases like this). I created a lot of articles on significant Czech related topics, and those articles are often based solely on non-English sources. In fact, they are the first existing English information available on the Internet. I tend to see this project as a really world encyclopedia, and I don't associate notability with one particular language. Unfortunately, the sources for Musharaf Bangash describe only the circumstances of his abduction. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's proof that he's a singer plus the fact that his abduction by the Taliban recieved coverage verifies some notability about his profile as a notable icon. Mar4d (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article fails WP:Music not notable enough as a musician. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee D' Ass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG; no nontrivial GNews/GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely unreferenced BLP, subject is not notable and as the nom suggests this article clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. This article appears to be used solely for promotion and I am inclined to believe the author has a conflict of interest. --§Pumpmeup 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE, as 2 brief mentions in articles[17] do not allow building of a proper BLP. She might be prolifc,[18] but she does not have Wikipedia notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established, no sources. TFD (talk) 21:01, 3 December 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. copyvio -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouachita Parish High School Marching Band[edit]

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

Fails the General Notability Guildline Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is WP:OR, fails WP:V and as such is not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is just a staff directory. No showing of notability. Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 1 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kleff[edit]

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

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

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

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

This person lacks notability. It is autobiographical. The references are from local Pattaya advertizing sheets Note, nominated for deletion by Rak-Tai (talk · contribs), assisted by me, per request Chzz ► 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SaksitVongaram 10:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is important to Chonburi's architecture and as such published. References are not advertising sheets. Mario Kleff is nominate for honorary degree in architecture and engineering from Thai Authority members and Pattaya Construction Department. Please help to improve the article instead nominate for deletion.

Note: See my comment Mario Kleff (talk). SaksitVongaram (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)— SaksitVongaram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The article needs some work, esp. diversity of references, but the subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Multiple SPAs working in coordination to protect a poorly source article of marginal notability? Forget it, not worth the effort. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is about a local architect with no notable accomplishments. Part of the article is autobiographical. A look at the history will show that any attempts to question its authorship or notability are speedily removed. รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything like that in the history. The article was only created yesterday.

Also you're generally not supposed to vote on your own nomination. By nominating it you've indicated your position. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

This article's present edit-history is incomplete and now somewhat convoluted but there has been a "Mario Kleff" article since July 2010. This can be seen at the the Talkpage, which has been through some reversions and edits but August 2010 posts remain. (Also see the Talkpage edit history here).

The article was moved from Main to User:MarioKleff at 16:05 on 29 November here.

The article's content then was moved from User:MarioKleff to Main at 16:20 on 29 November. This is the date that now appears as the apparent start date for the the article being discussed in this AfD. Shearonink (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

This may be well true, however this article today is improved and much better sourced. If you have any comments on particular sections of this article, you are welcome to comment or improve it yourself!

I still don't understand what is wrong with this article? SaksitVongaram (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Hello, it's me User:MarioKleff and person the article is about. It's true I did some correction on this article in the past but wasn't the creator. Reason for my edits that time because information were incorrect or incomplete. I did not know that this not is allowed?! If somebody create an article such as Ulrich Kaiser did about me...it must be alright to do some correction on this in order to appear properly. However, at Dec 29 I sent email to Wikipedia Community in order to help and to remove this article to my account. It seems that SaksitVongaram and others did a much better job on this and post it new. Now, what is the problem here? Please explain I am open to get your comments otherwise all content of the current article is correct post. MarioKleff (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a portrait of an building designer, automotive designer and artist, not about a local architect! After my research this article is proper sourced and links to major media in Chonburi region and Pattaya must accepted as reliable source. This article is linked to other pages and as such accepted. This also is reliable source.

It seems personal critics and feel is reason for nominate to deletion.

I would suggest helping on improvement and style of this article. NittayaWongsin (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)— NittayaWongsin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I just added a few more information on this article by SaksitVongaram. Again sorry for did not log-in. Ptty (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)— Ptty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No one is questioning the career of this architect. The question is that there is no evidence of notability, the criteriun for inclusion. รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems there are multiple issues here, including likely sock-puppetry. This should probably be taken to WP:ANI. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Wikipedia about when a person who has done some outstanding things to the public is nominate to deletion? The man has received honoree as a multi-talented designer from appreciate people and communities, and as such published in media Germany and Thailand... I recommend first to do a better research before questioning the Qualification as Architect

Again, help to structure and fill this article with further information. I also believe this man has the right to be mentioned on further Wikipedia pages such as "Pattaya" and "Chonburi" NittayaWongsin (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not about a local architect! Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt. Do not label or personally attack people or their edits. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes. Give yourself a try. I did some work on this article based on reliable and given sources.

Keep - The article is not about a local architect, and yet not autobiographically! Luzferni (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)— Luzferni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep IF AND ONLY IF it is stubbed and rebuilt on sounder foundations - this is a blatant vanity piece full of unsourced assertions and meaningless fluff. However: underlying the fluff may be a marginally notable individual. It needs sound sourcing, encyclopedic language, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:CREATIVE. Sources cited in the article are mainly (totally?) WP:SELFPUB. Little-to-no coverage in reliable third-party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an outrageously promotional article, with no sources for notability and little likelihood of finding any, for it does not seem any of the work is actually notable. He is not in fact an architect even--see building designer for the difference. If kept, suitable for stubbification. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep And get someone who speaks Thai to search for his name and his buildings in Thailand, it surely mentioned. The article says he created the Memorial for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. That is an important accomplishment, it a national monument. That and his other accomplishments make him notable. Do any media sources review these buildings or give mention to the unique architecture design of any part of them? Does this guy have an official website which perhaps links to coverage might be found? An architect is notable if their work is a national monument for a country. Dream Focus 16:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS for any of these claims? www.slideshare.net does not count. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already researched him in Thai (hence my nomination). Besides a few condos which his staff designed, I find nothing notable about him in this country. The magazines in which he is mentioned are English publications printed for the local foreign community in Pattaya and circulated locally to sell condos. The condos for which he takes credit are rather common local structures which I have personally seen. According to his account, the memorial for the king is a design which he designed on his own, which will no doubt never be built, and of which the king or his staff have no knowledge. Such a memorial, if built, would surely be designed by a famous Thai architect, not a low-level German designer. รัก-ไทย (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you searched in Thai and found nothing, and the memorial isn't an official existing monument, then forget what I said. This should be Deleted Dream Focus 00:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been researching this asserted 'memorial' (for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej) as well as the asserted 'architecture landmark for Pattaya' and have been unable to find any mention of either project in sources that are not directly connected with Mr. Kleff - the memorial is not ever mentioned as a 'national monument'. Regarding the claims of his 'star architect' status I can find no international reviews or discussions of Mr. Kleff's endeavours. A single mention of his copying of some of the content of the Book of Kells is found in the 1996 "Forum book art, Issue 20" as seen here. Shearonink (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of article does not appear to fulfill the general Notability guidelines and does not fulfill the guidelines for creative professionals. The only mentions found of subject's endeavours (other than his copying of some folios from the Book of Kells in the 1990s) are in local Pattaya newspapers/magazines. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 8 December 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) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahsa Saeidi[edit]

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

This is a clear case of someone notable for one event. Saeidi is notable only for her appearance on The Apprentice, and the aftermath of her firing from the show. My initial prod was deleted with the justification that she was legal correspondent for Fox News - however the source given for that statement in the article is simply a guest interview about The Apprentice and her firing - not her acting as a correspondent, or as Fox staff. It makes no indication that she is joining Fox in the interview.

That said, even if she is now a legal correspondent, I think that she would have to also become notable as a correspondent in order for her to pass the hurdle of WP:BLP1E - otherwise isn't it simply a case of her riding out the popularity gained from a reality TV appearance? Addionne (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to The Apprentice (U.S. season 10). There's no coverage about her other than the flap over the sexism accusation from Season 10 of The Apprentice. A selective merge of information would be appropriate as the Season 10 article has no information about this little tidbit. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given in nomination (notable for one event). - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 1 December 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) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventanas hotel & residences[edit]

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

Vanity page. No indication of importance, no third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability shown. Possibly spam. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete Ill add data showing notability. malwoz9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Go on then - that's what this is all about. Prove us wrong. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:28, 1 December 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 reliable source is being cited to support the content of this WP:BLP. It must therefore be deleted per WP:V. The arguments about notability are entirely beside the point as long as long as readers can't even verify the biographical facts of this person. Sandstein 07:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline A. Soule[edit]

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

Unable to find anything indepdent of the subject written about the subject in reliable sources. Can find a few things that she has written, but not much, only one scholarly paper, but again nothing written about her or anything that she has written. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is an author of botanical taxa (15 by my count) and reorganized the Tagetes subgeneric classification. Any complete description of the taxonomy of that genus would require links to this person's article. Botanists are inherently notable for the fact that they formally describe plant taxa. The lack of information about her in reliable sources is troubling, but it would be a worthy stub even if it only included basic biographical information and the author abbreviation. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One argument is that she has "only published one article" is invalid. I have added the citations of her peer reviewed articles which I have used in my work. Many botanists are not prolific authors, this does not make the work or the author less valid, if anything more accurate as they take their time to get it right. Koibeatu (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of those people who at first glance looks like they should be notable, however if no reliable secondary sources exist in enough depth to write a biography then we should not have one. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to lean towards keeping the article just out of caution. The fact that the person is a regular newspaper/magazine columnist seems to make someone at least notable in the public eye. Also per Rkitko it seems worthy of keeping for just taxonomy reasons.Chhe (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of on-line sources does not mean "non-notable." --Kleopatra (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm gonna hinge on the side of delete on this one. In the absence of actual third party sources to support the above argument, I disagree that being specialist of a barely average-sized genus (by opposition to, say, the massive Senecio) which is not of crucial agronomic importance represents inherent notability. Neither does merely being an author of taxa. Circéus (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagetes is is of crucial agronomic importance for its use and potential as a biopesticide, in particular, it is one of the species whose genome is being, and has been, studied extensively for tropical agricultural bioengineering. It's certainly more important in the non-western World, but it's a major genus.[19]
  - Except taxonomic expertise alone (and so far what I've seen her expertise is limited to this) in it is not sufficient enough to carry a demonstration of notability to me. In this taxonomy does not appear to effect agronomical issues the way they did with Armillaria. Her writing remains at best regional in distribution... Sorry, I stand by my vote. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not trying to change your vote. I'm just pointing out that your argument that Tagetes is "a barely average-sized genus ... which is not of crucial agronomic importance" is wrong. The genus is of great agronomic importance to tropical and subtropical agriculture and bioengineering. En.wikipedia is notoriously poor in these areas, and nothing I say will change that. But I do bother to point it out every so often. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll blame this one more on a lack of knowledge of Tagetes on my part than on the systemic biases of en:, of which, as a Quebecer, I am quite familiar. Circéus (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the same result, either way. Articles are deleted for reasons that would never come up when dealing with Western botanists/companies/actors. It never occurred to you, for instance, to research and see if the genus was important? To me, that's the Western bias: if you are not extensively familiar with the agricultural economics of Tagetes it must not be important. The bias can only be perpetuated if the basis for deletion is personal familiarity with a research genus. (Disclaimer: I'm a specialist in a huge genus of great agronomic importance to the Tropics.) --Kleopatra (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry if I come off as bad. Basically I'm working with what information I can find and the inference from them. And these inferences simply do not lead to the conclusion that it is likely that third-party sources not accessible would confirm notability. I have quite often drawn that assumption when the sources directly available did not seem to confirm notability by themselves, but here I don't see much evidence of this. I mean, if her research had been of significant effect on the economic aspects of Tagetes, you'd expect it to be fairly widely cited (especially since it's fairly recent—post-1990—research), but it simply appears not to be. I could have summarized it the way Sasata does below, but I wanted to be more specific. Circéus (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Size does not matter. Amborella is a small genus not of crucial agronomic importance, by the way.--Kleopatra (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned agronomy because it is the typical reason specialists of a group are notable. Only a limited number of small groups are in comparable situations. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I do not wish to imply that her work is unimportant, I'm not convinced this individual meets this criteria of WP:Notability_(academics) "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (italics mine) Some database searching shows that her 2006 Flora of Ecuador publication doesn't seem to be highly cited (I couldn't find any, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places?), and the other publications listed in the article are conference proceedings. Does publication of several taxa by itself confer notability? I don't interpret the policy that way. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 6 December 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) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Missoula[edit]

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

Most of the information on this page is false. No real reverences on this page. No real reason for this page. Linda Rider (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Can probably merge anything worth keeping into the city article, as was done in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Fargo.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, digging around is there some low-level edit war going on about Montana articles as of late? Whatever, the Fargo result is typical for smaller cities and their buildings.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable info into city article and delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If content is merged, the edit history must be kept. Having your cake or eating it. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Merge notable info into city article and redirect - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say Merge but the city page already has a tallest buildings list.

--Sara goth (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - building heights not given, so not worth merging. Racepacket (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with the tallest building list in the city article. JIP | Talk 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Missoula#Missoula tallest buildings. Not entirely necessary, but redirects are cheap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 1 December 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) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avery neumark[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney. Only claim of notability is appointment as a state insurance commissioner, but that in itself does not meet the guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. References provided amount to the "let me find some expert to quote" variety rather than any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fully concur with nominator. Pol430 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really prominent even in New York that I see. Being chairman of a temporary commission and then chairman on the state insurance fund does not a politician make, just a politician's friend. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:Note. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:05, 3 December 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) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Analysis and Feminism[edit]

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

Personal essay, fork of Conversation Analysis, unencyclopedic, not salvageable in current form. Figureofnine (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not a personal essay but an objective and detailed review of the arguments made regarding using conversation analysis to approach feminism, as well as the research that has been done using conversation analysis in feminist studies. References have been also given to avoid making it look like a personal essay or personal research. More authors and research can and will be added to this page. Would it be more feasible to shorten this review and merge this page with the current existing Conversation Analysis page? Trevgeley (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTESSAY. The presence of references doesn't change the fact that it quacks like a duck. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scot lavalla[edit]

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

Non professional athlete without additional coverage Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student athlete, and I could find no sources at least in the googles--the likelihood of notability is too low to be worth looking further. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Grušas[edit]

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

Not much of a claim to notability here. Artist who has some art displayed in public, but little else to claim notability. Gigs (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim of notability. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 7 December 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 Redwall characters. Krakatoa Katie 23:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romsca[edit]

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

Look, I read Pearls of Lutra back in the day and I always thought Romsca was pretty cool, but she just isn't notable. This (like other articles which will be joining it shortly in AfD) is a completely random selection of a character who has not received external attention. (Note that I am being fairly conservative in my nominations here - I'm not bothering with articles that cover series-wide elements like Martin the Warrior, Badger Mothers, etc. These, however, are all characters that appear in only one or two books and have no external coverage.) Roscelese (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they, like Romsca, are random and non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Redwall characters as appropriate. Violate WP:NOT#PLOT, no indication of WP:NOTABILITY, but such articles are usually better presented in list form. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Would support deletion as a last resort. The article lacks adequate sourcing to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 2 December 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. since the consensus is that this is inadequately sourced the correct outcome under policy is delete but this can come back as soon as sources appear Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatya: The Murder[edit]

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

Notability. Fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾ talk 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Verifiable as a released film with coverage.[20] Article simply needs improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I'm not familiar with the site you referenced, MichaelQSchmidt. Is this a professional review? The grammar and spelling issues make me think this is more of a fan post. (FWIW, the nom is questioning WP:N, not WP:V.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As grammer and spelling on Englifications of Indian reviews are often problematical, I'll ask User:Sodabottle for an informed opinion. He may find the Hindi souces that I could not myself translate. Whenever I have concerns about sources for Indian cinema, I ask him. And if he tells me this is not notable, I'll reverse myself in a heartbeat. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modified my opinion, See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a professional review. Sify is one of the two major English online magazines in India. (The other is Rediff). But the reviewer seems to have been pissed off about having to watch this movie and has written a review like this. The same review has been reused in Times of India's online portal here. The film was launched in 1991 (!) and took 13 long years to complete. Sank without a trace when released in 2004. I was able to find one more report from 2003 [21]. Wasnt able to find anything Hindi sources too. Usually i would say any Akshay Kumar film is automatically notable because he is one of the big five stars in bollywood and they receive a wide release. But i am not so sure about this film - 13 years is a long time to languish in development hell. Must have had a limited theatrical release. FWIW the film has entries in hindi and nepalese wikipedias.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge to Akshay Kumar. Appreciative of User:Sodabottle's input. As the film article itself is proving problematic to properly source, it would serve to have some sourced information about it in the Akshay Kumar article, so that readers can at least find it where it has whatever notability it might. If more is ever found in hardcopy or online sources, we can consider undeletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 December 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) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 10th Suicides at Guantánamo[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I couldn't find a single reliable source that references this study or otherwise indicates why it is notable. No Google Scholar[22], Books[23], News archives[24] hits, and only 61 distinct Google hits[25], most of them from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Replacing Denbeuax with Setin Hall in my search gievs basically the same lack of results. Fram (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:N. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I agree that this article fails WP:N. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to the deceased, as "no man is an island", I can't find any sources, outside of the blogosphere, that even took note of this report. When it gets better documented, it can be re-created. Userfy or delete. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. Horton and Koppelman both cited it. see http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368. Also, it is a part of a siazble body of work by Prof. Mark Denbeaux and Seton Hall's Center for Policy & Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shu cpr (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hinokishin[edit]

The result was Closing debate; result was keep since nominator withdrew nomination. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC) - Non-admin closure[reply]

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

It is apparently a non-notable Oriental teaching, and it has no sources to back it up and establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a significant concept within the religion of Tenrikyo. I've rewritten the stub and added a reference. A google book search shows there is significant material devoted to this. A sample includes [26], [27], and [28]. There's a lot more but that siffices to demonstrate that material is at hand to expand beyond the current one line stub, and that this concept has serious treatment in written texts. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. looks good now. The Land (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Issues fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:52, 2 December 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.