Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 February 24 February >

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 deleted by TigerShark (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. TigerShark also salted the article as this was the fourth deletion (one prod and three A7's). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Jones (musician)[edit]

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

Seems a fairly obvious hoax (performs to crowds of 350,000 yet no Google matches).TigerShark (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. The sources reliability has no bearing on if the application is/was secure to use. You are clearing misinterpreting how sources support the article. They support the articles Verifiability not necessarily the articles topic itself. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCrypt[edit]

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

The development of the application was ended and the application lost significance (it is not secure to use and users should not note it).

Any sources previously supporting the application cannot support it anymore as the application is not secure to use.

The article is missing a reliable source supporting the application and needs to be removed (see No original research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User340 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Notability does not just go away because the product has been discontinued. There have been an enormous amount of reliable sources which have reported on Truecrypt and in depth too, and quite easily meets the General notability guideline. Additionally, I don't want to bring this back onto the nominator, but do you have another account? It's very peculiar for your first edits to be nominating an article for deletion. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The story of how the application was widely used, then suddenly came to be declared insecure, with development apparently disappearing, is significant in itself and widely covered in the tech press. TrueCrypt is likely to persist as a long time as an example of a situation where this has happened, and is therefore likely to continue to be a notable subject, worth covering, for the forseeable future. Jheald (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. TrueCrypt remains significant because of its historical significance. Should we delete the article on <dead person> because they've died? See WP:N#TEMP. As the grounds for this nomination are invalid, there is little need for extended discussion. —WOFall (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above - Ridiculous nomination, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - extensively referenced software article, including major RS news sources. Notability is not in question.Dialectric (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Agree with all the above to keep. There are plenty of reliable sources and the application hasn't been proven to be insecure. The audit isn't even complete yet. Dgrinkev (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is not a proper nomination. We don't delete articles about software programs just because they are, allegedly, no longer secure. Laurent (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I think this application is very significant despite being discontinued, as it was the go-to application for data encryption. Lucasoutloud (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments invalidated the fact that the application is now only an original research without support from reliable sources. It also does not matter whether you think the application is secure -- it was declared not secure to use.

From Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. User340 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited any evidence that the material IS original research. The way to prove that material is not original research is that there are reliable sources. There are an abundance of reliable sources. We don't need any original research to extract material about Truecrypt, the sources do that all by themselves. Notability is not temporary. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alone (2009 film)[edit]

Alone (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This short film does not appear to meet notability standards. No sources found with a quick Google search. –Grondemar 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB talk 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loop (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no notable people involved. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinsmore Golf Course[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable based on current sources Montanabw(talk) 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the current sources do say its the third oldest course in the US. Still it could be non-notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't verify the claim that it's the 3rd oldest in the US, nor can I find anything else of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But that's just my opinion. I'm certain it is one of the oldest courses in the U.S., based upon my research into Staatsburg's history, however I can only cite the NYS parks dept as a reference, which while being a govt agency, I tend to believe, (I originally included the link). I added it as it related to point of interest in the hamlet of Staatsburg and the history. Feel free to do as you all wish. For the record, I'm not endorsing the place, I've never played a round of golf in my life. Nysage (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to admit it would be rather odd for a government agency to lie on this, and they should know from the planning requests etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the state website is a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [4] and [5] provide additional sourcing to that already uncovered. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just because it's a state government site does not guarantee accuracy, tourism sites often take the promotional statements from the source verbatim without independent fact-checking. To me, what is more notable than age (and age even if accurate is as a 9-hole, not an 18-hole, and so what? Is it on the National Register of Historic Places? ) are things not yet mentioned in the article, the source of the land and its location within or as part of a state park, which if accurate, is kind of unique. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found and sourced the bit about it being located inside a state park. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are multiple sources, including the two books above, saying its the second or third oldest course in the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesmerism and british romanticism[edit]

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

Hopelessly essayish, not a good candidate for redirection to Mesmerism -Zeus-u|c 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no idea how that happened, I just used WP:TWinkle. Well, thanks. -Zeus-u|c 02:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace Listening and Nonverbal Communication[edit]

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

Hopelessly essay-ish, doesn't seem worth to salvage. Was prodded but removed by creator. -Zeus-u|c 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check-Out[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely. Article topic is adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article.

This AFD follows same reasons for deletion as listed in the following debates for similar articles:

Sottolacqua (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or redirect and lock. Never mind that these were all bundle-AFDed not too long ago, they still do not meet WP:N in that none have been explicitly written about in detail, and the entire content is unsourced trivia cribbed from golden-road.net. If anyone says that these are salvageable, the burden of proof is on him or her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite delete all - Price is right games do not need their own articles, as tempting as it might be to create. Shadowjams (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Marcus[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Sources only go to his bio. I would maybe view it differently if the entry included some writeups of his work. But with only bios, then delete.SoxFan999 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some write ups of his work. There are quite a lot out there, but I only added two. This author has had multiple stories published in respected literary journals and has also had 3 books published (to date). I think his contributions definitely make him notable. Article does need some expansion though. -- alan1701alan1701 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. At least two write-ups of his work in clearly reliable sources. Would like to see a couple more to be sure, but per alan1701 it seems likely they exist.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I'm satisfied based on alan1701's addition that he is notable so am changing my "tentative delete" to keep. But yes, I would like to see some more to make this a better entry.SoxFan999 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Auto-Tune. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Auto-Tune Movement[edit]

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

The term is only coined by several sources [6] [7] but those sources does not class such "movement" to be that significant, just numerous artists that are against the use of Auto-Tune. WP:TRIVIA might apply, since there is only list the people and songs that are against auto-tune and nothing more. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Haghighi (physician)[edit]

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

Contested prod, {{notability}} tag also removed, but my concerns remain. The article is about a Iranian medical researcher at Oxford University. A Google Scholar search doesn't throw up anything to indicate that he passes WP:PROF. Notability is claimed on the basis of his extra-curricular work for "Network of Iranians for Knowledge and Innovation" (NIKI) and "Advancement Initiative for Medicine and Science" (AIMS), but I have been unable to find reliable third-party sources that mention him in either context (in fact, I can find no Google hits for the AIMS body apart from its own website). A couple of webpages in Persian are used as sources, but Google Translate indicates that mentions of this individual are trivial at best. Delete. BencherliteTalk 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of German origin[edit]

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

Redundant. There is no information in the article that List of German expressions in English doesn't contain already. Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it should be a redirect? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a redirect. If an admin could close and redirect that would be great. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine to me, sounds like the best solution. Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient notability of the company as a whole, with the limited coverage available all focusing on specific lawsuits. ~ mazca talk 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Territorial Mint[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional article for a company of questionable notability. An editor who may have an affiliation with the company has requested deletion indicating that much of the article is factually inaccurate. An additional concern is that the article has become a magnet for addition of contentious, unsourced BLP content about the company's owner. This company may indeed meet notability criteria, but I think the best thing here would be TNT. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. This business COULD be notable, but as it stands now it is completely an advertisement with only one outside source. Without outside writeups, this is just an advertisement and should be deleted.SoxFan999 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to highlight the lawsuits, which appear to be the only aspect of notability. However, on second thought, I still believe that this entry should be deleted. It's one long advertisement with some controversy sprinkled in. If it's not deleted, it should absolutely be shortened.SoxFan999 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Lahari[edit]

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

Notability concerns. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Speedy deleted by User:Malik Shabazz (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings of The Suite Life on Deck[edit]

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

Doesn't need its own page, covered fine at The_Suite_Life_on_Deck#Reception CTJF83 GoUSA 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A3. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanihood[edit]

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

Bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and may i offer my opinion for reason, not given by nominator: no indication of notability given, none likely, even if this is a real "place".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, man![edit]

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

This recently-created article offers a definition of the expression, along with some vague description of usage. It was prodded by User:RadioFan with the concern, "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources." I seconded that prod, noting, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a usage guide."

User:Pômgut contested the prod without an edit summary. Note Pômgut's comments at Talk:Aw, man!, however, under the heading "How To Improve".

The interjection aw is already included at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a slang dictionary. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cant put it any better than the good Baron RadioFan (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1. I think we can all agree slang does not belong in an encyclopedia. 2. This must have found its way into popular culture after being made up one day 3. It is almost definitely original research. See WP:FORUM. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's no neologism; it ought to be possible to document it going back at least thirty years — if Wikipedia were a dictionary. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith S. Lockwood[edit]

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

BLP has carried "unsourced" and "notable tags" for 16 months; my casual search for web-based reliable sources failed. Article has been maintained by a series of similarly-named single-issue editors who seem very familiar with article subject (apparent COI), the most recent of which refused PROD. Article subject might in fact be notable, but in the absence of acceptable sources, and the mildly promotional tone (IMHO) of the article call that into question. Delete or source. Studerby (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability that meets WP:PROF in any manner. (GregJackP (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't even appear to claim anything that satisfies WP:PROF, never mind source it. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't even see a claim of notability here. It's just an ordinary person's bio. Probably could have been speedied, but I guess since it's well-written it gets its day in court. --Griseum (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has a doctorate, but no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. So he wrote into The New York Times once, ... --Bejnar (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is well written and is referenced. Multiple articles written by this person and listed APA format. Articles in Journal of Nursing and the Journal for Learning Consultants. This person is developing a reputation and is the reputed writer of "The Constructivist Manifesto." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

BLP claims to have completed web search for reliable sources. Upon my review of sources they do seem to exist and article should not be delted. LENA4674 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps article should be blended but not entirely deleted--notability is clearly evident. Lena 4674— Lena4671 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_annals_of_the_deaf/v152/152.2doctoral_dissertations.pdf http://www.kennesaw.edu/cetl/conferences/gaconf/2010/17%20Session-Paper%20List.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Hopeless article, I can't even tell what he is or what he does. Is he a teacher? A professor? An author? An "advocate"? An unemployed PhD? Google search does not make his field or contributions any clearer. Maybe if the article was userified until it makes some sense, it would be possible to determine whether the guy is notable or not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerolist, LLC[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP & WP:WEB notability guidelines. I originally tagged this for CSD A7 but the author contested and I decided that discussion may be more appropriate. All sources appear to be works of the organization itself, and I was unable to locate substantial 3rd party reliable sources that esablish notability. Nick—Contact/Contribs 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New United States Football League[edit]

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

I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. The first reason is that it relies mainly on one source, the original league website, which doesn't even exist as it did before. The league website used to have numerous pages with related information, but now it is just a single page with a message about the league's future. There are also many sections on the page which cite no references at all. I think that the current information about the new league should be included on the page for the original United States Football League. Once there is sufficient information about the new league I think it would be appropriate to then create a new article. C Wiki S (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It needs some work, but poor sourcing is not grounds for deletion of an entire article. RF23 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, with comment. Though I will not object if there is a consensus for deletion, there is a little bit information on the league out there in reputable news Web sites, even if it is far more sparingly mentioned than other leagues such as the AAFL and the UFL. The task is to find it. This does seem like a borderline case of whether or not this is a verifiable, notable league, considering the relative lack of press coverage. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per JMF. Also, the AFD header was removed by User:NortyNort as "vandalism" per this diff. I've restoerd the header and warned the user. - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Did a Google News search for the league, but it was complicated by the existence of the old USFL, which was the subject of most of the hits. Was able to find this link that could be useful as a source for a couple basic facts, but the few other stories mentioning the new USFL were trivial mentions or press releases. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Comment - I understand why this page should be deleted, and maybe it is the lazyness in me, but since this team is set to launch next year, this page would just go back up once the USFL launches...that is, if the USFL does launch. I would delete this page if it nears the Spring 2011 timeframe and you hear nothing about a USFL launch. Six-Thirty-Three 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Gaming Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable video game awards issued by a non-notable website. I cannot find find significant coverage in reliable sources, or anything else to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web). Contested PROD; only sources added were press releases.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are available via Google for this event. Since this was a first event and also for a very small niche hence the sources are not many, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitterman (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The references and external links cited in the article are all sources from the Cricket Gaming Awards (either directly or via press releases), except possibly a blog post at www.sticksports.com. Saying "sources are available via Google" is not very helpful: if you have found reliable sources then why not give us specific links to them? I have looked on Google and found no significant sources at all: of those pages I found, the majority give brief verbatim quotes from Cricket Gaming Awards press releases, and that is all. Not a single one was a reliable independent source, and scarcely any of them gave significant coverage either. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found in magazines either. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enoki Kunuk[edit]

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

Only appeared in the news over one story for a temporary disappearance which fails WP:NTEMP. Also simply being related to a notable person does not pass WP:NOTABILITY. -WarthogDemon 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:BIO1E. Inuit hunters have survived on the Arctic tundra for hundreds of years. No notability. Wikipedia is not news. --Bejnar (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a no consensus, leaning towards weak keep. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant criminality[edit]

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

The article as it stands is basically anti-immigrant propaganda, and I think that any article at this title will be fated to be biased. It makes the implicit assumption that there is a thing called "immigrant criminality" (some special character of immigrants), and looks at the issue of crime conducted by immigrants in isolation of other factors and without addressing the issue of crime against immigrants. Fences&Windows 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crime importation appears an attempt at a more scholarly interpretation of such an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the problem is mostly that the article doesn't communicate clearly to readers from outside the countries on which it concentrates why it exists. This article is no more inherently anti-immigrant than the article negro is inherently racist. Ausländerkriminalität (foreigner criminality, translated here as immigrant criminality) periodically becomes a key topic in public discourse in German-speaking countries, often dominating elections. It is also a precisely defined term in the German legal system and appears in official criminality statistics. These facts explain why the German Wikipedia has an extensive article about the topic which debunks the widespread misconception that immigrants are more likely to be criminal, by explaining that the high numbers in the statistics are due to high mobility of criminals and the fact that some of the most frequently committed crimes by foreigners such as illegally entering the country or working without work permit cannot possibly be committed by citizens. Hans Adler 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently my inner censor became active, making my example less effective than it was intended. The standard example of a non-racist article with a highly offensive racist title is of course nigger. In my opinion every argument for deletion regardless of notability needs to be discounted if it could be equally used to argue for the deletion of that article.
A general article on immigration and criminality makes more sense than an article specifically on the problematic term "immigrant criminality". But that's an argument for renaming, not for deleting. Hans Adler 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very title seems inflammatory; we don't have articles about other propagandistic terms such as Black crime (there is only a redirect from there to Race and crime in the United States), so there seems to be no reason to have an article called "Immigrant criminality". Perhaps the title should be made into a redirect, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This problem can be fixed by renaming the article, there is no need to delete it. Hans Adler 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW keep, come on. Very notable topic. So it is "inflammatory"? Well, so is depictions of Muhammad, race and crime and Intelligent Design. WP:CENSOR, andof course WP:TIGERS. Of course the article needs work. Deletion requests on notable topics that need cleanup and expansion are not helpful. --dab (𒁳) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about censorship, it's about the fact that your choice of article topic is inherently biased. It makes the false assumption that there is a type of crime called "Immigrant criminality" and then simply lists crimes committed by immigrants, rather than demonstrating that this specific category of crime actually exists. This article actually carelessly propogates a myth, see:[8][9][10] Fences&Windows 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename using the Race and Crime in the United States as a good example of a title that doesn't have any POV connotations. "Immigrant criminality" as a title seems to make a value judgement whereas something like "Crime amongst immigrant populations" or something else that makes a neutral statement that retains accuracy. My standard POV test goes something like this: Can another article that is the exact negative of this article be created using easily found reliable sources? Since this answer is clearly yes (seeing that one could easily write a "The myth of Immigrant Criminality" article) then the name should be changed or the article re-writtent to encompass both sides of the discussion. Nefariousski (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, but rename to what? The point is to address the concept of Ausländerkriminalität. It seems gratuitous to keep this in its German form of a 21-letter compound when the current English translation is "immigrant criminality". Crime importation is if anything more "inflammatory" because it insinuates that "these foreigners are criminals", as opposed to the rather more neutral observation that there is heightened criminality in the immigrant milieu. Maybe, just maybe, because as an immigrant you have less opportunities and not because you are "foreign". --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you 100% on this being a valid article. And I'm not disputing the concept but literal translations often produce unintended results regarding context and implied intent of a phrase. As the article is currently named it makes an implied value judgement. I'm not going to presume that I can come up with some elegant title that makes everyone happy. Maybe the best solution would be to keep article on the condition that you open a RM and post said RM on various notice boards so suggestions can be made and discussed? Then you can redirect the german term and "Immigrant Criminality" both to the new article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Immigrant Criminality" is a controversial term. From 37 Google News results for "Immigrant criminality", 18 use it as a part of "myth of immigrant criminality". According to WP:FRINGE, articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. The article doesn't do that. I also get the impression that it tries to cast the complex issue of European immigration in a bad light. The seemingly staggering Swiss statistic, for example, fails to mention that the actual number of prisoners is relatively low (less than 5900 in 2006) and that the discrepancy can partially be explained by the fact that the non-naturalized population has a significantly higher ratio of young males. And what about Sweden? Am I simply supposed to believe that In Sweden, counting on the amount of money criminal immigrants cost the society has been banned with the explanation that "...you cannot calculate the value of human lives"? Statements like this are not supported by sources, and considering that two of the five sources link to Wikipedia articles and another two are inaccessible, the entire article is practically unsourced. — Rankiri (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • what do you mean "the article doesn't do that"? The article states plainly that the term is politically charged. The entire point of the article is to point out the role of immigrant criminality as a motor of right-wing populism. Nobody claims that it is "neutral" to exploit crime statistics to get more votes, but our job is to cover the phenomenon, not to delete it because we dislike it. Your point on "the actual number of prisoners" is rather surreal. The absolute number is irrelevant. Of course there are less prisoners in Switzerland than in the US or in China. Probably related to Switzerland having a smaller total population, wouldn't you say? What counts is prisoners per capita. The point on young males is of course very important and easily referenced. Young males tend to (a) migrate more, and (b) commit more crimes. Hey presto, a correlation between migration and criminality, feel free to introduce this angle. --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say we should delete it. I said that the article has a range of WP:NPOV-related issues that need to be addressed. And just because the article has a single sentence that says that allegations of immigrant criminality can be used as propaganda, it doesn't exactly mean that the article discusses the fact that almost half of the Google News stories treat the concept of immigrant criminality as a myth. — Rankiri (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the article being tagged for cleanup. It's the AfD that I find phenomenally misguided. I would also like to point to the article on de-wiki, which is introduced by "Ausländerkriminalität ('foreigner criminality') is a criminological term referring to criminal acts committed by foreigners. The term is also used as a political catchphrase." This is what the article needs to address: both the statistics, and the political debate surrounding them. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that writing poorly sourced and non-neutral articles on sensitive topics is 'phenomenally misguided'. I told you that this article was biased months ago, so you had plenty of time to clean it up before this nomination. Fences&Windows 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious magnet for racist beliefs masquerading as theories. Articles, such as this one, that present statistics as if they mean something are generally original research and should be avoided and, unless some non-fringe academic sources that discuss intrinsic criminal qualities of immigrants can be found, this article should be deleted. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • you want to delete troll magnets as a point principle? To think that I spent years trying to fix them instead. Yours is a very, ahem, elegant solution to many of Wikipedia's problems, but unfortunately not one forseen by our deletion criteria. --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misphrase my comment above. I am not against troll magnets per se. I am against troll magnets masquerading as theories. (It's the masquerade I object to.) I'm ok with troll magnet articles if they are not original research and presenting a bunch of statistics is OR whichever way you cut it. However, if there are reliable non-fringe academic sources that study "immigrant criminality" as a phenomenon worthy of study (the third part of my comment) then there is no question that the article should be kept (are there?) That's my opinion, the rest, to paraphrase an old saying, is up to consensus. :) --RegentsPark (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article's content is considerably lacking, the subject matter is still a notable one. First I think a renaming is appropriate, to something along the lines of Crime and immigration. And the subject of the relationship between crime and immigration is a notable one, and it has played a major role in discussions of immigration, both historically and in the present day. Of course, it would need a lot of cleanup, removing the original research, adding considerable content, and remodelling it to meet a worldwide view, but the subject itself is deserving of an article. That is, the idea that there is a direct or causal relationship between immigration or crime, even if it is unsupported, is significant enough to be reported. Calgary (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are at least two books and one research report about Ausländerkriminalität (the German term), cited by the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, which is part of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, in its article about the same topic. [11] Rename to a less problematic title to discourage abuse of the article for immigrant-bashing, but keep a redirect. Hans Adler 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. I'm sure not even Encyclopædia Britannica had an article Crime amongst the negroes, because it wasn't a scholarly subject. A couple of German books might establish the notability of an author or some software, but an entire field of work would be required to support an article such as this, anything less and it would indistinguishable from a POV piece, such as Goat-Man relationships in Sudan supported by this reliable BBC reference would be.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • wth, "crime amongst the negroes"? And non-existence of an article in the EB is grounds for deletion now? This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. We have scores of quotable references establishing the topic as notable, certainly in Europe and in the US. The topic is very much part of current affairs in Europe. In the US, the term seems to smack of the 19th century, and appears to be stigmatized now, so it is not applied to current problems. The world does not consist of the USA alone. And even if it did this would still be a valid historical topic. In Europe, this is very much part of the problem of right-wing populism. Random reference, takes about 10 seconds to locate on google books, Patrick Richard Ireland, Becoming Europe: immigration, integration, and the welfare state (2004), p. 82, illustrating the mechanism of immigrant criminality both fuelling and being conjured up by far-right populists in Nuremberg in the 1990s. Lots of other examples are yours for the picking. If you are interested in the topic, start working on the article already but stop pretending this AfD has any sort of merit. Am I a right-wing populist for insisting that right-wing populism must be covered? No. See WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you misunderstood my analogy. Encyclopædia Britannica didn't have an article Crime amongst the negroes in its early 20th century editions because even though it was a subject discussed widely at the time, there weren't any serious sources covering it and it wasn't a mainstream enough notion for a suitable enecyclopedia article. There is nothing in this article of value about immigrant criminality. There are some stats about crime and immigrants, but nothing that reveals anything about whether an immigrant commits more crime than a non-immigrant. There is no data that controls for socio-economic group, income etc and exludes offences such as illegal entry. It would be great to find lots of references that cover this and show immigrants actually commit less crime than their "native" equivalents, but such a body of research doesn't seem to exist(?). Without this proper data, the article is misleading and leads the reader to make false assumptions with the misguided use of statistics. Unless many sources with suitable data can be found, indicating it as a suitable subject for an encyclopedia, the article should be deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Rename to Immigration and crime. The notability of the topic is beyond dispute. The article has been tagged since Oct 2009; there are articles that have remained tagged for years, so why the big rush to swing the ax on this one? This nomination seems based on nothing more substantial than distaste. (Please someone address Hans Adler's point about nigger too, thanks.) rudra (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename as per some suggestions here. I've seen some pretty abhorrent takes on this topic, and it's certainly open to racist abuse. But that's not a reason to delete it - even if it's sometimes abused, it's been a notable topic for quite some time. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a lot of work to make it more neutral (for example, the fact that a direct comparison and natives can be flawed, needs to be explored in more detail) and to have a more worldwide view. However, it's well sourced and the topic is obviously widely referenced, so it doesn't really fit any criteria for deletion. I agree that renaming might be a good step towards making the article more neutral. Kostja (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. despite support from an overflowing sock drawer. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal creology[edit]

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

This appears to be an overly peacock-y non-notable science that was described in a phd thesis, then not referred to again until a french-lebanese journalist wrote two articles about the thesis. (Although I use the term "science" with hesitation, as there's no evidence to suggest that this is practiced by anyone other than the scholar who proposed the idea). Given that the notability guideline requires multiple, independent sources, I'm not sure this qualifies. I was unable to find any further sources: searches for "criminal creology" on google, google scholar, google news, and ISI all returned 0 searches aside from wikipedia. Bfigura (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to avoid this being called a WP:GHITS argument. I also tried to find if the two nontrivial sources in the article are published anywhere and they are not. Smocking (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside: this may be because the site in question doesn't maintain old enough archives (I google translated the arabic site, and tried to find the two sources mentioned). Of course, even if I could find those sources online, my concerns about notability would remain. -- Bfigura (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am Petra Hanna. First of all, Dr. Frangi's criminal creology is most interesting work. His research took me 8 months of study and analysis. Mr. Frangi has not completed his reasearch yet. He is involved in many other new sciences he is proposing, and I have commented on them. Second, the term "science" does not mean "practice" as one reader has put it. Science means "knowledge of". This is the meaning of the greek term "logos". Third, Time is not a sign of a low importance of the idea, only to answer he who mentions that since the time of his thesis we have not heard of it until the time I have commented about it. May I point out that Marx and Engels's Manifersto took 10 years to get through, and Einstein's Special Relativity took 30 years to get through. Although there is still controversy as to whetehr E=mc2 is his idea or De Pretto's idea who published it in 1903. Fourth, I ask you please to read him before judging. so simple is his idea that it can mislead the reader. If you are not being able to access his trext, I am ready to send it to you by mail (not by e-mail). my e-mail address is <redacted>. Thank you Petrahanna (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Petrahanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I am a lebanese german. I do not thing there is any violation of your policy. I have read Mrs. Petra Hanna's comments on Dr. Frangi's Criminal Creology research, and other comments of hers on other research of Frangi. Most scientific and objective. She is certainly renown here in Lebanon. I have copies of her comments. I am ready to provide you with copies thereof. Just let me know. my e-mail address is: <redacted> Laoun (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Laoun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The reason "Mr./Ms. Bfigura" why "no one has heard about Dr.Frangi's Criminal Creology until the time a lebanese french has commented on it" is that Dr. Frangi started to publish his reasearch, including his Criminal Creology, in september 2007 in his own journal ("Journal of Legal Research"). And it was in December 2007 and January 2008 that Petra Hanna started to comment on Frangi's research. Mostreal (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Mostreal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Criminal Creology did not violate your policy. Petra Hanna is most reliable source. She is well respected scholar. Her comments on Frangi's research has made big news here. Bybliotheca (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Bybliotheca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep We were colleagues Dr. Frangi and I, at Harvard Law School, between 1994 and 1997. I agree with all that has been written about Criminal Creology. Dr. Frangi had started to propose Criminal Creology in France at the age of 21-22. Frangi was particularly renown here at Harvard for his innovative ideas. He was working as full time researcher on his new type of democracy which he called "Democracy of History". It can be found at Harvard Law School Library. It is the first government in the history of thought based on "group", not community or individuals. This does not surprise me at all from Dr. Frangi. I know him personally. I am happy to hear that he has just started to publish his ideas. Iamamerican (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Iamamerican (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. For he who was against using the term "revolution" by the Criminal Creology page writer, I would say that I have read Dr. Frangi's research. I can assure you that it is a complete revolution in the history of criminal sciences. You see? Petra is not the only one. We are many now. "You may join us"! Phoalphabet (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Phoalphabet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment There's nothing wrong with a theory taking decades to becoming accepted. As far as this encyclopedia is concerned, an entry is warranted after the topic has been extensively discussed. Mrs Hanna, you might want to read our policy on gaining support from colleagues or friends -- Even if it looks that way, this forum should not be a place to vote. --Pgallert (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I ask Mr./Ms/ smocking to ask "laoun" or "petra hanna" for copies of Dr. Frangi's research, if he or she is, for some reason, unable to find it. I ask them, then, to write an article about it showing objectively how criminal creology is not a revolution in the history of criminal sciences, instead of taking beforehand a negative attitude and "smocking" nonsense. Nicereply (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)— Nicereply (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The author isn't the only one who knows a thing or two about scammers. The SPAs use of "Mr./Ms" or "Sirs/Madams", spurious quotation marks and grammatical errors (particularly leaving out articles) is remarkably similar to that of the article's creator (see [12]). It might just be common among Lebanese Germans, but it is quite a coincidence. The timing of the comments is also pretty typical of a puppeteer becoming careless; with one hour intervals at first and 10-minute intervals later. Perhaps an SPI is warranted? As for "there is still controversy as to whetehr E=mc2 is his idea or De Pretto's idea who published it in 1903."... comedy gold! Smocking (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing whatsoever on web/scholar/books/news, and I've tried both the French and the English spelling. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like I just confirmed Favonian's assessment of the sources. Hits for "creology" relate instead to a little used word for the study of creole languages. This "theory" that calls itself a a revolutionary understanding of criminality that likens crime to creativity seems to be very much more of that sort of thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I give credit to Mrs. Hanna for what she is doing for science and knowledge's sake. Upon reading Dr. Frangi's research, it becomes clear to me where the revolutionary aspect of it is. Frangi shows in his 20-page introduction how all criminal sciences have been non-structural in their research, meaning that they have studied causes of crime outside the structure of human act itself. He shows also that this non-structural study would not allow understanding of crime because it would be subject to relativity of crime in space (what would be a crime in one state would not be so in another state), and in time (what would be a crime in one state at one time would not be so at another time). Thus, Dr. Frangi has called for moving our study from outside to inside the human act of crime as to avoid variability in our understanding of crime. As such, I say yes, Mrs. Hanna is absolutely right, what that 21-22 year old student was starting in his LLM paper is a true revolution in the history of criminal sciences. I give full credit to Mrs. Hanna. Thank you.

Certainthing (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Certainthing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. Mr./Ms. Smerdis of tlon Dr. Frangi's criminal creology is not likening crime to creativity! God! This is totaly irresponsible. What are trying to do? Being smart or ignorant? Is it just a matter of an attitude? This how we bring scientific judgement on things? Just read his research. He is not joking with his life like you are doing! For God's sake!! where are you coming from?

Truehannah (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Truehannah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment. The article currently says:

    Criminal creology also studies how the development of creative activity may influence the development of the criminal personality components of the person dealing with creative activity. Thus, Frangi started his doctoral thesis with studying how the creative activity would influence the development of the creator's criminal personality components. Of course this does not mean that a person dealing with creative activity would be led to be criminal! This only means that the transgression and creative aspects of every human act have a specific value which should be taken into consideration when determining the criminal's responsibility. This also means that a legislative act, by the fact that it is a human act, has a creative and a transgressive elements within it,which should be taken into account when defining the criminal's responsibility. This means that the value of transgression within the legislative act should be subtracted from the quantity of blame imposing upon the criminal.

    To the extent that this is coherent at all rather than patent nonsense, it seems to be positing some kind of vague relationship between crime and creativity, and that crimes have some kind of creative value to criminals. It is a bit hard to follow, and would benefit from a rewrite in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mr smocking! There is a entry in wikipedia, entitled "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea". Please refer to it.

Mostreal (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Where? I can find "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea" referred to in Olinto De Pretto in a link to an article of that name in The Guardian, but there is no article on Wikipedia, so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "Einstein's conception of mass-energy equivalence is dissimilar to de Pretto's, and Einstein's deduction of this equivalence from the theory of relativity bears no resemblance to de Pretto's (erroneous) reasoning" Peridon (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reply to the sock gallery: The central issue here is whether criminal creology is notable as defined by our notability guideline, nothing more. In this case, that means determining whether multiple, independent reliable sources have discussed the subject in a non-trivial way. This does not appear to be the case, as only the articles by Petra Hanna have been found. Since this appears to be a theory advanced by a single scholar, this isn't surprising.
In general, Wikipedia does not care how important you think an idea is, as it is not anyones personal soapbox. Nor is it a platform to promote ideas which may become popular in the future. It's probably worth noting that many scholarly theories do not pass this bar, as Wikipedia does not host original or synthesized work. And as an aside, if there is a "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea", at a minimum, it needs to have a properly formatted title. -- Bfigura (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "May I point out that Marx and Engels's Manifersto [sic] took 10 years to get through, and Einstein's Special Relativity took 30 years to get through." May I point out that they wouldn't have had Wikipedia articles until they had reached compliance with Wikipedia's standards of notability. Please note: Wikipedia's definition of notability. May I also add to the comment somewhere above about socks, that this is a discussion, and that it is not a vote as such. We put keep or delete on our !voting (note spelling) purely for convenience - and do it only once. All else must be comments, responses, etc. For those that don't know, sockpuppets are multiple accounts used to influence (they think) !voting, or to cause disruption. Either can lead to blocking. Single purpose accounts are accorded little weight in these discussions unless they make a significant contribution. I can see little value in this article. Someone has written a thesis. Someone else has commented on it. It doesn't seem to have made any further headway. Maybe in five years (things go quicker nowadays....). Peridon (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mostreal's article on Frangi's criminal creology is able to command attention and respect. Mostreal is right and courageous enough to write it. I would like also to point out that Mrs. Hannah's commentaries on Frangi's research are, contrasting with other commentators, highly scientific, objective, balanced and unbiased, even though she is more likely to regard Frangi's research with favor.

Learn enough (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learn enough (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) — Learn enough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete If in the future this term grows in usage then it will grow in sources. Until then it doesn't meet inclusion criteria, regardless of all these peoples sentiments about the subject and the creator. Beach drifter (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note, per the massage on this Afd's talk page, all socks in the drawer have been blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By strict vote counting, this would be a clear delete. However, the article has been improved since creation[13] and now has a good deal of reliable sources to show that it is not a hoax or a neologism. In response to Misterdiscreet's comment: WP:NONENG is policy. NW (Talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler bacon[edit]

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

The page purports to translate and define a Hungarian expression, citing the Wikipedia editor's translation from A magyar honvédség a második világháborúban as a source. Even if this is an accurate translation (I don't read Hungarian), the content runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Page was prodded by User:NawlinWiki with the concern, "unsourced, apparent neologism". Prod was contested by User:Izomtibor with the comment, "I gave you a source, where it is definitelly used, and also explained more in detail, so can it stay?" Izomtibor is the page creator and has contributed all of the substantive content. Cnilep (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi!

it is a translation of a slang. Same slang as faggot in the South Park meaning(Harley motorcyclist).

If you think that it is bad for the non-hungarian speaking people to stress them with another expression, and the background of this, then delete it.

btw in the meantime while it was on the wikipedia, I had to check the book page by page, and realized another interesting fact, that one of the latest cavalry charge was made by hungarian hussars(around 200 in numbers) against one soviet group at II World War I thought that I also could add that, but if this Hitler bacon is deleted then I will lose my passionate to enter it :)

and another btw could you please tell me the copyright about it? so am I allowed to cite parts from book without any proper permission from author? the author: Ungváry_Krisztián the book: "A Magyar honvédség a második világháborúban. Budapest, 2004, Osiris (2. edition: 2005. February)"

about hoax: google, hungarian-wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izomtibor (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

br: IzomTibor

  • Delete None of the sources in the search are significant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verifiable sources so far. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as hoax and neo. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hitlerszalonnának (Hitler bacon) appears to be a genuine hungarian term 1 2--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I can read it, but the one looks like a wiki type site. CTJF83 GoUSA 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a reliable source, just evidence that the term is not a total hoax. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get mustard with that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really seemed that you have made your decision only according to the name, so I have provided some other examples to clarify this. Have you reconsidered your vote? Izomtibor 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see... Stalin organ, 22 references... Molotov cocktail, 9 references... Hitler bacon, mustard. I think I have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you love mustard with jam? or is it only that you have not even read the first line of this article? at the article there is 1 ISBN number, and at this debate 2 other printed books has been mentioned Izomtibor 14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this entry gives a really picturesque support for this fact: Battle_of_Stalingrad "The Hungarian 2nd Army, consisting of mainly ill-equipped and ill-trained units, was given the task of defending a 200-kilometre (120 mi) section", "The German northern flank was particularly vulnerable, since it was defended by Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian units that suffered from inferior equipment"

the real meaning of this word is that the hungarian soldiers has not received normal bacon at the front at that time but received only flavoured jam, so that is why they mocked that food with this name Izomtibor 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was considered notable and had it's own article on Hungarian Wikipedia, then we might consider something here. However it's not. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the linked page is the bacon itself, while this article is about an artifical jam used heavily at the II WW to supply troops with cheap food Izomtibor 14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that the other language wikipedias are far smaller than the English one, (Hungarian has 156,135 articles compared to our 3.2+ million)--Milowent (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where there be a mention of Hitler there will be strange things...and this is one of the strangest I've ever seen. Delete per either WP:NOTDIC (in which case move it to Wiktionary) or WP:HOAX, whichever applies. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, note: [14] [15] Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
szalonna == bacon in hungarian, and the postfix is a grammatical stuff which is really common at that language Izomtibor 14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete Possible - This article has no need to be here. Come on a google search brings nothing important. This is an easy delete.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hitler bacon is not a hoax, I am Hungarian (look at my userpage) and this kind of jam really exists. When I was a child my mother called it as Hitlerbacon (hitlerszalonna in Hungarian) and it looks like a cube or a brick held in a piece of paper and not in a usual jar. But since then I haven't seen it. (It was in the 80s). But I think this is not a notable thing, but can be mentioned in the article of the (Hungarian) bacon. --Perfectmiss (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not that notable to be its own article, perhaps as above, it can be mentioned in the Hungarian bacon (Szalonna) article?. --Bsadowski1 09:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell? Bad case of biting the newbies going on here. This appears to be a new editor trying to contribute something of value to the project. Assumptions of it being a hoax and neologism are lazy and wrong; the jokes probably not taken as friendly. Its not like similar english terms don't have articles here, e.g., Freedom fries, or merged to a relevant place, e.g., Liberty cabbage. I suppose the content can be merged into Szalonna (bacon) if deletion is the outcome.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the information is merged, the article should not be deleted, but rather redirected to the merge target (for preservation of history for GFDL). LadyofShalott 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's ultimately what I would suggest.--Milowent (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will never last there though, that's my thinking. Szalonna is the Hungarian term for bacon, and the title is derived from that.--Milowent (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a better place for it, as I think about it. Whichever place it is put, the other should link to it. LadyofShalott 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another possibility - move to Pumpkin jam and expand. LadyofShalott 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - more possible sources can be found by searching Google scholar for Hitlerszalonna and "Hitler Szalonna". Since they are in Hungarian, I can not evaluate them. LadyofShalott 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: I moved the article to Hitlerszalonna, as the chance that anyone would search for "hitler bacon" in English seems remote. Using google translate I can find many references to Hitlerszalonna, it seems to be a common product that is often maligned not unlike Spam or Vegemite. These references aren't in newspapers so far, but I suspect they exist if we keep digging. I would like to suggest that any closing admin either relist this article for another week or userify to me to see if a stand alone article can be created. Cheers--Milowent (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the remark above that several of the comments here seem lazy. There seems no doubt that it's neither a hoax nor a neologism, and nor is it any more a dictionary entry than the perfectly acceptable Spam. There is no reason why this article couldn't be expanded in the same way, with nutritional information on the product, etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been renamed and improved. Further improvements are needed, andmy Hungarian is not very good, but this is an interesting and notable subject. It's also written Hitler-szalonna, and is noted in numerous books and articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can understand that at first it looked like a hoax, but now renamed and with some sourcing I think it quite acceptable - it is no longer just a dic-def. Further sourcing would help, but may come, given time. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted an editor who speaks Hungarian to see if they can help. I don't have enough confidence in the Google translations for the many Hungarian sources where this subject is noted and discussed to use them myself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid topic that warrants an encyclopedic entry. With the addition of information from the searches provided above, this can turn into a decent article. Cunard (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a hoax, and not a dicdef, but not notable either. I'm just not seeing evidence of significant coverage of either "hitler bacon" or "hilterszalonna" in reliable sources. Yilloslime TC 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that something is notable in german does not mean it is notable in english. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Swahili? Its friggin Hungarian!--Milowent (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude drink[edit]

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

Nonnotable energy drink, article reads like an advertisement. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Violates WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. It may be theoretically possible to write a non OR/SYNTH article on this topic using entirely different sources, but that theory has not yet been tested. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre stick vs side-stick[edit]

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

This article is a comparison between two aircraft control systems. The only refs cited or available do not compare the two control systems and thus the entire article violates WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Discussion at WikiProject Aircraft reached a consensus to nominate for deletion as not encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not encyclopedic in scope, and per the nom, synthetic in nature. Some of the referenced material might be salvageable for the joystick article, though. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- somewhat essayish, and inherently suffers from synthesis issus. Reyk YO! 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems it should be broken up into two articles or renamed; the name is just silly. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as:
  • Richard Geiselhart; Paul Kemmerling; James E Cronburg; David E Thorburn (1970), A Comparison of Pilot Performance Using a Center Stick VS Sidearm Control Configuration
  • Reuven Gal; A. David Mangelsdorff (1991), Handbook of military psychology‎, p. 355
  • Richard W Shoenberger; Darrell L Wilburn (1973), Tracking Performance During Whole-Body Vibration with Side-Mounted and Center-Mounted Control Sticks

There's also some interesting studies of sidestick controllers as opposed to steering wheels in land vehicles such as S Birch (2000), Stick or Non-Stick so the topic might be expanded to cover vehicle controller ergonomics in general. Any deficiencies of the current draft are best addressed by further discussion and editing effort in accordance with our editing policy. There has been no significant discussion at the article's talk page and it appears that the editors above have not yet made a search for sources per our deletion policy and so deletion would be premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's useful and has sources (Idot (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge and Delete Redirect - Merge any useful content to existing Side-stick and Yoke (aircraft) articles and delete the comparison article for the reasons stated above. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:MAD which explains why merge and delete is improper. What you're saying is that there is content worth retaining here. In this case, we keep the article per our editing policy. Any issues of titling and distribution may be addressed by ordinary editing and so deletion is not required. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, Merge and redirect. Pick one of the two articles to redirect to then. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we do not delete material which is to be salvaged as the edit history should be maintained in accordance with our licence. The article may be merged, split and renamed without any need for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison articles are a no-no on wikipedia, but the references are diamonds in the rough. Salvage therefore in this case refers to anything cited to those reliable sources that can be shoved else where. I'm not saving this article, nor am I preserving its edit history; this is the same mentality I had here: the references are good, the article sucks. Salvage what we could (which we did) and delete the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy reason against comparisons which are fine if the comparisons are notable such as Comparison of web browsers. There are good policy reasons to forbid deletion of articles if their content has been plagarised or copied because this is contrary to the licence terms by which we reward and recognise our contributors. This topic is notable as the sources above testify. Your dislike of the topic is just a personal opinion and, unless you can produce a policy to substantiate it, that opinion is just WP:RUBBISH. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Rlandmann. Merge anything useful and reffed to a relevant page, and delete the rest. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • please see WP:MAD as explained above. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That essay doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. The "rest" will be deleted from the page, not the history. A hist-merge propably won't be needed. Please drop the pedantry, as most of us here are not newbies - we understand the fine points quite well. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some capacity per WP:PRESERVE. As the article does contain referenced information, I imagine we could probably at least make use of some of it in some airplane related article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comparisons such as this aren't encyclopedic Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:UNENCYC which explains that this is a circular argument. Do you have a rationale grounded in policy or is this just a matter of personal taste? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden's book find. Comparison articles are fine if covered in notable books. That's why we have articles comparing ancient empires, and whatnot. Dream Focus
  • Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and consensus reached WikiProject Aircraft. Appropriate material contained herein can be incorporated into other articles, obviously. — Satori Son 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unequivocal DELETE - per nom, nuff said~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Colonel Warden's references above. Hepcat65 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is WP:OR/WP:SYNT. We do not WP:PRESERVE such articles. If comparisons indeed exist in references not used in this article, then someone can write a policy compliant article from scratch. Pcap ping 11:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete as article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNT. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (card game)[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources making mention of this game, much less anything to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The few actual independent sources added to the article are all basically the same press-release based filler. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wichita Technical Institute[edit]

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

Non-degree granting, non-notable career school. 2 says you, says two 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources referenced in the article are generic press-releases that are available word-for-word in at least three or four other sources, they all start with something along the lines of "from wire reports" and read like advertisements. As a non-degree granting, for profit institution they need to show some form of independent notability, and that would be accomplished through non-trivial journalism about the school, not press-releases. 2 says you, says two 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added references establish notability RadioFan (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete In answer to "added references establish notability", no they don't. They all report fairly minor facts: for example this one is a six sentence report the main point of which is that the institute has moved to a new location. This one contains a three sentence mention of the institute among many similar brief mentions of other news items. The whole character of these "reports" suggests that these are no more than press releases, and such facts as their existing verbatim in different sources (as pointed out by User "2" above) confirms this impression: for example this cited source is duplicated here here and here: this is exactly what would be expected with press releases, but not with original journalist-written copyright material. I can only assume that when RadioFan wrote "added references establish notability", he/she had not examined the sources very closely. These sources come nowhere near indicating notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article needs to be looked at from the point of view of WP:CORP rather than as a school. Coverage in the local business newspaper as well as the mainstreem paper is enough for any other kind of business to meet notabilty guidelines, its enough for this business. They just happen to be in the business of selling education. RadioFan (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a lot of original research and quality control problems. This article will be very difficult to properly source. Incidental local coverage does not establish notabiity. Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that there is an internet war going on, with an agency hired to defend Dr Gunter and a disgruntled customer using attack sites to attack him. Wikipedia should not be part of this battle: in these circumstances I think it unlikely that we can achieve a stable and balanced article and per WP:BLP it is better not to have one. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack P. Gunter[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant third-party coverage of this person. The article was written by a user representing a company which sells "Internet marketing and public relations services for elective healthcare providers." The article is likely an attempt at damage control in the wake of this (which incidentally is the only usable source I have found on Gunter). Haakon (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Rosemontmedia is, in fact, hired by Gunter. In [16] from this month, they are listed as his "Media Contact". Haakon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess there are a number of options. If his only notability is wrt nosejobsgonebad than he should be redirect to the article about Rating sites. Nosejobgonebad could go here along with RateMD and many others.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the only independent source is one angry customer with a nose job complication, then the page should be deleted in order to comply with WP:ATTACK. Actually, I think unless nosejobsgonebad is balanced with other sources, it shouldn't even be included. If enough reliable third-party sources exist to support an article, then there would be something worth keeping. At this stage, the problem is a lack of good sources. If Rosemont Media can come up with enough good sources for an article, then that's great. If all they are going to do is put up a resume, then they've come to the wrong place and the article can just be deleted. I've added a few good sources below. Anyone else is welcome to add more.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a subtle attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. THF (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page should not stay up in this current state. This is not a good representation for a biography of a living person in Wikipedia. He is an educator and has authored numerous books and articles contributing to the field of rhinoplasty. The Revision as of 18:21, 23 February 2010 is a better representation of his contributions to plastic & reconstructive surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.240.2 (talk)

Other sources[edit]

  • Kron, Joan (1998). Lift: wanting, fearing, and having a face-lift. New York: Viking. pp. 120–1. ISBN 978-0-670-87060-8. 'Noses don't grow, but gravity pulls them down,' says Jack Gunter… (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
  • Perry, Arthur W.; Roizen, Michael F. (2007). Straight talk about cosmetic surgery. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-300-11999-2. …of this operation and for the plethora of bad rhinoplasties. In the 1980s, with the push of the well-known Dallas rhinoplasty surgeons Drs. Jack Gunter and John Tebbets,… the open rhinoplasty was taught to a new generation of plastic surgeons. (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
  • Rees, Thomas D.; LaTrenta, Gregory S., eds. (1994). Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-7216-3712-9. In recent years, 'open' or external rhinoplasty has been championed by Gruber (1988), Gunter and Rohrich (1987), and others. In fact, the open procedure is advocated by many as the… (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
  • Saint Louis, Catherine (October 28, 2009). "When Plastic Surgery Calls for a Do-Over". The New York Times.
  • Aktar, Alev (October 16, 2005). "911". The New York Times. Gunter is a pioneer in the field of secondary rhinoplasty, credited with advancing grafting techniques. Dallas's Dr. Nose performs 'open' operations - wherein a small incision is made across the skin that separates the nostrils and the skin of the tip is lifted - because they allow direct vision of the area. He counsels patients to expect improvement, not perfection.
  • "Annual List of 'Super Doctors' Features 33 Texas Institute for Surgery Physicians" (Press release). Texas Institute for Surgery. November 21, 2008. Retrieved February 26, 2010.
  • "Getting Better With Age". Texas Monthly. 16 (1): 125–7. January 1988. Such procedures are not without controversy, but Dr. Jack Gunter, president of the Dallas Society of Plastic Surgeons, describes the increasing social acceptance of aesthetic plastic surgery as part of a nation-wide desire for personal fitness and self-esteem.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Ground Studios[edit]

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

No sources found. Fails WP:N. Claims amoung to releasing a bundle of red link games. Article said they were due to release something in 2006. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techwiki[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded but is ineligible for prod due to being nominated at AfD in 2006. Prod rationale was "This is a non-notable wiki application, with no known usage or outside mention (note that there are various wikis on the web called "TechWiki", but they're not related and they all use other software). There doesn't even seem to be a homepage for Techwiki any more, indicating total abandonment of the software. Yaron K. (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete previously deleted after an AFD, not seeing much improvement in this article or in the subjects coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless it was deleted at AfD under a different name, the previous AfD was closed as no consensus. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was also 4 years ago, and had little participation. Pcap ping 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dante (comedian)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable standup comedian who won $10,000 on a gameshow and finished ninth place in a little-seen reality competition about stand-up comics that has yet to launch a single career. His IMDB bio highlights the fact that he has served as a warm-up comedian for extras on sets. Other career highlight is role on non-notable one-season cable sitcom in 1996. One secondary source: Pravda (Slovakia) is cited for his real name. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only notable for one thing, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a promotional page - Criteria G11. I'd recommend against salting, unless (or until) it's been recreated - and if it has, I'll salt it myself. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Teplica[edit]

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

Blatant spammy article. Sources mostly don't mention him at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G11, spammy peacock advert, even if he were notable we'd need to start over. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps salt, spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11) by User:Phantomsteve. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthroteer[edit]

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

This was PRODded by A little insignificant (talk · contribs) as an unsourced neologism; the prod was then removed by the author, Rhampshire (talk · contribs), who added a source. Unfortunately the source is a primary one, and I can't find any coverage in independent sources sufficient to meet our notability guideline. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. There are no independent sources, and the only result google brings up for "Philanthroteer" is the Wikipedia page for the word. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice the article's now been tagged for CSD as G11. I considered that but thought it borderline enough to go for AfD instead: although it is somewhat promotional in tone, I don't think a total rewrite would be required to turn it into a neutral piece. I'll leave it up to the discretion of whichever admin/user wants to deal with it, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The argument that it is "quite probable that these exist" is one of the least compelling arguments to keep an article I have ever seen. We need reliable sources to verify content, not just a good chance that the subject even exists. While there is no deadline, this has had 36 months in which to "grow", and it hasn't happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinto shrines in Brazil[edit]

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

All redlinks, no sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons Koavf stated. All redlinks, offers zero sources. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of character[edit]

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

Also nominating

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

Mostly original research based with a couple of citation for two obscure facts from dubious sources. The second article has no references whatsoever. Also redundant to Corpsing and Breaking character as far as theater/film are concerned, which are better referenced. Pcap ping 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the burn[edit]

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

Really a non-notable catch-phrase that fails WP:NEO. Although it gets used, there isn't much in the way of evidence from reliable sources about it's origin etc. The article has been a magnet for vandalism and WP:OR. Has been totally unsourced since 2005. Tagged as an orphan since 2006. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Sonar[edit]

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

Contested prod. DJ whose notability is only asserted from primary sources. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an uncontroversial housekeeping task ("obviously unnecessary disambiguation page"). JamieS93❤ 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Woodward (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Dab page no longer needed as there is now only one article on a person named Woody Woodward. Article title with "(disambiguation)" on the end of it is not a plausible search term. Note that the talk page says I contested a prod on this page; that was when the dab was at Woody Woodward. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:DAB. There is no need to disambiguate a single page. Cnilep (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like there were two links, but one was deleted. Even with the two, hatnotes are preferred over a DAB page. Since this title isn't a likely search term, it can be deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom; housekeeping.—DMCer™ 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Revolutionaries[edit]

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

non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe band has featured in the Triple J Unearthed top 25 (tracks have since been deleted), sold albums through iTunes, Amazon etc, pressed and sold physical copies[1][2], been featured on CD Baby and All Music Guide, is listed on All Music Guide[3] and Rate Your Music[4] etc. and is therefore notable. Just because they haven't played live concerts and are a studio-based band does not mean they are a 'non-notable' band. See band's official website[5] or blog[6] for further details. Gas Panic42 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/WeekendRevolutionaries
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Boxes-Boomgates-Weekend-Revolutionaries/dp/B002UBSBB2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1266272811&sr=8-4
  3. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fjfqxxl5ldde
  4. ^ http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/weekend_revolutionaries
  5. ^ http://www.weekendrevolutionaries.com
  6. ^ http://weekendrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/
None of which appear to meet WP:MUSIC, the notability requirements for articles about bands and other musical artists. Quite frankly, anybody can sell their music on iTunes, get listed on AMG, etc. What we need are reliable sources showing that this band meets our notability requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many times are we going to realist this, 3 deletes and I guess one keep that lists a bunch of blogs. This really should have been a speedy but now it's being resisted yet again? Ridernyc (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
never mind got this confused with another debate. I still would like to know why this is being relisted at all though. Ridernyc (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BAND. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is still here because of the unearthed claim to notability, you should know that means they came in 25th in a an internet battle of the bands. No notability there at all. Ridernyc (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply being listed on Amazon and Allmusic means nothing if the listings are blank. Other claims are not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 17 year old kid, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Turner (author)[edit]

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

Delete no evidence of notability - seems to be autobiographical. Creator has also twice blanked the entire page. Boleyn3 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby threes[edit]

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

Minor variation of rugby football that seems to exist only in a few blogs on blogspot. No reliable sources to indicate this is anything other than something made up one day. PROD and PROD2 deleted by author with no explanation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

]] (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, can you provide some evidence of this please. (NB - not off blogs, they don't seem to cut it with some people. :( )--MacRusgail (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above !vote is user's only edit to date -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd never heard of it and I cannot find any coverage of it either. In response to the above user, we do not generally judge things compared to what other topics are covered. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Rather, we go by our policies such as notability and verifiability. In any case, a quick search brings up lots of information about underwater rugby, but nothing about rugby threes. Quantpole (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - rugby union wikiproject has been notified. Watch this space.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom and Gnevin unless some reliable sources are found GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hate to say it, but it's a delete for me too, as there just isn't a verifiable source. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we play Rugby 3x3 in Amsterdam. Its funny, interesting and even heavy sport if you play high level. Probably nobody who play Rugby 3x3 in the world we had thought to tell nothing about it on internet, because we just like to play it. But there are many lovely things in life that not appear in internet. That not means those things not exist. I think you would look for sources out of internet too, for example asking rugby clubs if rugby players play sometime Ruby threes and then youll have the real answer, not only looking for at google.com. Have a nice day and enjoy every kind of sports, not only mega-professional, mafia controlled "sports"like soccer, football and basketball. AmsteRugby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.242.118 (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tocata, Rugby Threes, Rugby 3x3 or how you want to call it, it's a fantastic rugby modality. Many years ago. Just enjoy it. [[17]] peace&rugby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.242.118 (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even people who want to keep the article are basically admitting it's completely non-notable. When I was at school decades ago we invented two-a-side football (soccer) and played it very keenly for all of about a fortnight. That wasn't notable, and neither is this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lacks reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hudson (announcer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Significant coverage of Hudson not found - just minor mentions. This has been unsourced for almost 3 years. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The sources do not need to be improved - they need to be provided (there are none). I looked, and couldn't find any. If you can find some, TJ Spyke, then please do add them. However, unless some can be found, I still feel that this article needs to be deleted. If he truly is notable, I would expect there to be significant coverage in the media - and if the American media don't think he's worthy of coverage, why should Wikipedia? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I get around to it I may add these myself, but here is a fairly reliable source: [18]. TJ Spyke 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now is a good time to check that this is the same Scott Hudson that went by the name of "Hurricane" Scott Hudson in the old AWA. He also jobbed one time to Ted DiBiase in the WWF. Not much I know, but it would fill out the article if it cane be sourced. I know what I've just said is OR even though I know what I saw. !! Justa Punk !! 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah I've just seen that someone else also mentioned it on the talk page a few years ago. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of third-party sources. The only other significant coverage I found (besides the one linked above) was [19], which is probably not a reliable source by our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and Evaluation[edit]

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

Essay and OR. I redirected it but the originator has reasserted it as an article in its own right. Not getting into an edit war, so AfD Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems like this would be speedily deleted, were there a good CSD category to file it under. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article stuck somewhere between a business dictionary and a how-to page; neither appropriate here. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The author is welcome to contribute to Stranger danger. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger (person)[edit]

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

Article is the work of a single editor nad presents a personal viewpoint and original research. It has twice been prodded for deletion; the second time the prod was removed on the basis that "i made some improvements", though this is in fact hardly realistic and does not address the origianl prodder's onjection. The article is at best a dicdef (and not a very good one). Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Stranger, a disambiguation page that Stranger also redirects to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stranger danger. Problems with original research, verifiability and lack of a neutral point of view. Edison (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:NOT a dictionary and IMO, is written in an extremely non-neutral POV. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't redirect, original research essay and I don't like redirects with qualifiers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a rather bizarre article, too big for a dictionary definition and way too small to act as a notable substitute for the existing Stranger danger, which is is already all that WP needs. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly i'd like to give an award to whomever wrote such a lengthy article to define a word bravo for work ethic. However I agree this is a clear case of WP:NOT and borders on WP:OR (how else can someone take a definition and turn it into a page long article). Nefariousski (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, if you people don't mind another opinion, I'm the person who created this wonderful article (heh heh, sarcasm)...I know that this article may not be suitable for wikipedia, and may act as a dictionary article. But I was thinking of a solution to benefit us all, by possibly merging this article to the existing Stranger danger article. This does not mean to include this whole article into the merge, but a good piece of it. Thoughts/Questions? Tinton5 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikspeak[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:N. An electronic dictionary application with no independent coverage. Pcap ping 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based upon nom's own rationale. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two trivial mentions 2-3 years ago and that's it. Doesn't bode well for a piece of software, I imagine it was obsolete before it was ever released. Wine Guy~Talk 11:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seemingly non-notable application. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlism[edit]

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

Article is about a concept which was only recently developed. At present, it appears to be too new to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. As such, it does not yet meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Papa November (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracee Hutchison[edit]

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

Unsourced BIO on a living person, without cited reliable and verifiable sources the claimed notability can not be verified. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently working on this Tracee Hutchison page. Work in progress. This is my first entry and am having to get up to speed with the protocol. However this takes time which I will have more of later on in the week. Please afford me some patience in this matter as I am a new user. Regards. --simonashford (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate So we have an active editor who is engaged in trying to write the article so that it passes WP:N using WP:RS. As long as there are not possible controversial remarks or blatant BLP violations let's give it a week or so and then review the article to see if it still needs deletion. I'm more than willing to assume good faith and give simonashford a week or so to get the article up to at least stub level with enough sourcing to meet BLP basic standards and policies. Nefariousski (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high profile, long term journalist and TV presenter.The-Pope (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is verifiably notable through the recently added sources, thus addressing noms concerns. Still needs cleanup though. Wine Guy~Talk 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only sources located are write ups in the entertainment section of local papers, only "keep" argument self identified as "weak." Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Scum The Movie[edit]

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

Unreleased minor movie of band with limited notability Chuunen Baka (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kennedy Club[edit]

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

Firstly Notability - nothing in Gnews, incidental mentions in Gbooks. Only the one telegraph art - this is just a Uni club with 35 members - does not meet WP:CLUB guidelines as the scope of their activities are not national or international in scale and secondly and more importantly Verifiability - most of the article is un-sourced and un-referenced and not verifiable Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom points out the same issues I would have, so I won't bother repeating them. Wine Guy~Talk 11:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Wine Guy~Talk 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows library files[edit]

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

removed PROD, relist at AfD, since I thought it deserved an AfD 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROD reasoning:

  • Transwiki to WikiBooks, a book on the internal components of Windows, since it looks like material that is more appropriately hosted on a Wikibook or used at Wikiversity. The information contained in the article is more like what is found in a programming book or a system support textbook. It currently contains no statements of notability, and in my opinion close to violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I would not oppose a delete outcome, since this article just gives me grief, and I have no desire for further involvement. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This AfD ignores, and is disruptive to, work currently being done on the article - please see the talk page and the recent edit history.
Failing that... the reasons given in the PROD were incorrect as follows:
"Discussion of Windows Library files one-by-one is futile; There are so many dll files around" Yes, there are many, but just because a job can't be done completely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted at all, particularly for the most important. An explanation of the key API DLLs is helpful to people trying to understand the OS.
"and information stored here is rapidly rendered obsolete." No, just about everything there applies to everything from Windows NT 3.1 through Windows Vista. For Win 7 the actual implementations of many of the APIs have been moved, but these DLLs and all of their entry points are still there.
"Also, "Library Files" are not only DLL nowadays, article title may be misleading and could provide the new user with false and/or obsolete information." So, that can be fixed with a sentence or two indicating that .cpl, .scr, and a few other file types are really the same as thing under other names. Speaking of that, many of those do not need a section per file, they can be described en masse. No need to enumerate every one, which further erodes the PRODder's first claim.
And the reasons given for the AfD are also incorrect:
"The information contained in the article is more like what is found in a programming book..." Perhaps as incidental information, but a developer doesn't really need to know these things; you just call an API and the linker figures out where it comes from.
"...or a system support textbook." It is true that this information is valuable for system support, but there is nothing here about "what to do if it's broken." Nor does it meet the description given in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK for textbook-like material. As for the information that is here, it is of the same nature as that in Architecture of Windows NT and in Linux architecture. This article simply provides more details on one aspect of the former. For comparison, the article on Internal combustion engine similarly describes how an engine works, and while there is information there that might also be in a repair manual, one would not accuse that article of being a repair manual, nor instructive of how to drive a car.
"It currently contains no statements of notability,..." Well, that can be fixed very easily, since Windows' internal details in this area are notable. Though perhaps not to someone outside the field. I'm rather inside the field, so perhaps I missed the need for statements of notability. But I can certainly do some work to that end.
"...and in my opinion close to violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK." I don't see how. The "textbook" section of that says: "articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." Windows library files has nothing like that.
"this article just gives me grief..." Ok, I admit - this one I have no answer for. I'll have to hope that "just gives me grief" will not be taken as a logical, fact-based, WP-policy-based, and compelling argument by the closing administrator.
I'm trying to improve it. Please note that this is not simply an "I'll work on it" promise, I have already done so. My first step (merging the redundant kernel32.dll article) is done, second step (same for user32.dll) is in process awaiting comments. Not much has happened yet because this just started recently and each of those steps does require waiting for responses to proposals. It would be one thing if the article had not been worked on at all (as it had not been for a long time) but to have to deal with a PROD and then an AfD right after start of work is more than a little discouraging. I've had to spend half an hour or so composing this response - time that would have been better spent on the article.
I do see a few clear ideas for improvement based on the criticisms in the AfD, particularly in the area of establishing notability. However I wish the proposer had simply stated those on the talk page... particularly since the article history and talk page make apparent that someone is taking active interest in improving the article. Jeh (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly, at least as an interim. Whatever issues the current version has, the subject seems like it would support an article. I am wondering what the difference would be between this subject and dynamic link library, or what articles we have on the Windows standard DLLs, but I'll leave the organization of that material to experts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difference is that DLL describes the concept and mechanism of DLLs, while WLF describes the function and organization of some important DLLs that are part of Windows architecture. All of these are DLLs, but not all DLLs are WLFs. This distinction could be made better in both articles. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no need to go to AFD if you wish to propose a Transwiki, or a merge with other articles (as Smerdis suggests). On the merits, I concur that the subject works as an article, or as a component of a merged article later on. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lava[edit]

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

Band does not satisfy musical notability criteria; article also created and edited by same small group of users Es-won (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News comes up with a trivial mention in a NY Times article that focuses on one of the members [20]. The rest I could find is about two bands with similar names (Lava Baby and Hot Lava Monster) which seem to be more notable. It's a pretty neutral article and done in good faith, but they do not seem to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria. Smocking (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"? Hot Lava has only released one album (so far, but WP:CRYSTAL). See below Smocking (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further review, I think the article may be inaccurate. The article says they released a record in 2007 by the name of "Hot Lava Owns You", but I cannot find any sources that says this album actually exists. If they truly have only released one, I will change my vote to Delete. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the same problem, so I though it might be an early single or something. I've done some more digging and finally found info about the other album here: [21]. It exists, but was released by the label "Pop-Hop", which is not a notable one as far as I can tell (unlike Bar/None Records). Let's delete this for now. If they release another album with Bar/None an editor could always request a copy of the deleted article from the closing admin. Smocking (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to fit any criterion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba (Family Magazine)[edit]

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

This magazine appears to be non-notable. It has been tagged for reference improvement and for notability for well over a year without any improvement. Despite good faith searches (possibly in the wrong places) I have been unable to identify any significant coverage. I would welcome improvement to the article based on sources I am unable to find. Bongomatic 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If it's kept (on which I am neutral) it should be renamed to Hiba (magazine), since it appears to be the only magazine by that name, and "(Family Magazine)" is overly specific. Chuck (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also was unable to find sources. Sole Soul (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid van der Veen[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. The two albums she made (which can't be found anywhere) were self-produced and recorded (it is claimed), and no record labels are mentioned--and I can't find any. The work she did with Ayreon, guesting on an album, that's not enough to warrant an individual article, and she is an unlikely search term. For the record: here are her Google results, and here are the results from Google News. In short, nada. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not much to source, but I would not say a speedy deletion, as she does have connections with a notable band. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - She worked on two notable albums (Ambeon and Ayreon, see [22] and e.b. [23]) in two different projects with Arjen Lucassen. That does not constitute a "member[s] of two notable bands" as per the footnote in WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Although I like her solo music and it gets a bit of traffic on Youtube, there are no reliable sources for its notability. It's not a vanity page as the article is pretty neutral and has a diverse editing history, but I don't think it will fly under WP:MUSIC. Smocking (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's more likely than not that she'll meet the low bar of WP:MUSIC eventually, but I don't see evidence that she's there yet. THF (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

IMO this artist is noteworthy. Google search shows many pages containing her name and referencing her. Ambeon and Ayreon, while not "notable" bands you say, nonetheless created complete albums of quality original music. To me Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia containing all topics and to disinclude an artist of this calibre based on who did the album production or whether or not those albums are currently available to purchase from a record company is wrong. If anything self producing an album shows even greater talent and makes an artist MORE noteworthy, not less and many well recognized artists have albums that are not readily available as well. Maybe the original page needed an edit to correct wording but a complete delete is unfortunate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.47.110 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 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 Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhau Panchbhai[edit]

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

Non notable poet. DimaG (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bhau Panchbhai is author of two published poetry collections and an essay collection Marathi. He had received Government of Maharashtra's poetry

collection award for his first collection हुंकार वादळांचे. He may be non notable poet for the English-speaking world, he is certainly notable for Marathi language. Also, he is one of the key figures of Dalit Panther, the social and political organization of Dalits in India. I would like the editors to find sources about him in Marathi before decision to delete this article. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Sources might be few because less spread of internet in Marathi, but you will note that he was a president of a few All India Marathi Poetry Meets. I strongly oppose the deletion. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While English sources are preferred for English wikipedia, there is no policy that I am aware of making them required to estabilsh notability. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources --Joe Decker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This case leans itself to obvious WP:BIAS problems, there are some apparently RS-like hits for भाऊ पंचभाई (assuming this is his name?) [24] [25] [26] and in Gbooks [27] - I just cant evaluate them. The article IS sourced, we have a case of unclear notability, for which deletion is the last resort. Under such circumstances, I lean towards keep. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to Foreign policy of the United States. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily[edit]

History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely POV title ("exporting democracy"???) ... topic doesn't need to have an article anyway ... current mess is in blatant violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR ... why these categories? Which reliable source says that you can break up arguments about this topic into these categories? Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong to cite WP:SYNTH and WP:OR -- I meant that the way that the article was laid out, seemed like the author cherry-picked certain arguments and created his own categories and then chose arguments to fit within them. That is, he found reliable sources to back statements up, but synthesized them in a way that none of the original sources did (hence WP:SYNTH). Sorry about the confusion. Basically, I was trying to point out that I think the categories are totally off and that the author made them up (hence WP:OR), in addition to the other problems. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page was created with the following edit summary: "This is a chunk of Foreign policy of the United States, moved to separate article as per request on talk pages; POV tag added by me". The article itself is not that bad. Right now I'm leaning toward giving it a more appropriate title or at least merging it back into already bloated Foreign policy of the United States. Does anyone have any ideas for a better name? — Rankiri (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest -- I spent some time last night trying to think of a better title and am at a bit of a loss, at least without going to an extremely long name like "History of Debate over Whether or Not the United States Exports Democracy by Military Intervention" or something insane like that. I may be leaning towards re-merging this with the original article. Based on other people's thoughts here, it seems as if this article comes across more POV-ish and problematic as a standalone article than it did as a part of a larger (much, much larger) article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "History of foreign U.S. military interventions" or "History of governments forcibly installed by the U.S." or "History of governments installed by U.S. military force"? That way we don't include the POV viewpoint that they are "exporting democracy" in the title? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Awkward title for a very sensitive topic. The topic as such may be made notable by a coherent definition of the term "military export of democracy" and a sound structure of the article, but now it is still not much more than a poutpourri of loosely related opinions.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very subject of this article is a "point of view" of US Foreign Policy, and a false one at that. After all, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. It doesn't matter if you "retitle" it, it's still going to talk about a particular point of view of how the United States conducts foreign policy. The onus of proof is on those that want this kept to provide sources and reasoning that show how this meets notability standards. Once they do that, I'd like to see some non-POV sources that show this is anything but propaganda. Rapier1 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an article that provides three distinct and conflicting points of view is "propaganda." The very subject of this article is not -a- point of view, it is several points of view, and it is hardly the only article on Wikipedia to present multiple points of view on a historically notable point of debate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of promotion of democracy during U.S. military interventions is highly notable, however. Google Books is filled with publications that discuss the issue in detail and even Google Web immediately shows a number of WP:RS results with significant coverage of the subject: [28]. Aside from the article's title and such horrendous section names as "Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy", the article's actual contents do not seem to fall under a clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I think that renaming the article into something along the lines of "Promotion of Democracy and U.S. Military Interventions" or at least merging the well-sourced parts somewhere else would be a much more sensible solution. — Rankiri (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps something like "Political (motivations/basis/justification/rationale) for American military interventions"? Shimgray | talk | 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to parent articleNo reason this needed to be split. The simple fact that the author is at a loss for a concise and clear title supports that this information is best left as a section in the foriegn policy article. While I don't agree with the WP:SYNTH statement there's definately a claim for WP:OR to be made as well as POV issues. Here's the test I used to come to POV conclusion. If this article exists could there reasonably be another article exactly in its negative that also has reliable sources? If you don't like the merge suggestion then rename to "Exportation of Democracy" and write the article to include multiple different methods and historical examples. Nefariousski (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it a POV coatrack. Marge what is salvagable into other articles and then kill it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote...sorta: Keep/Retitle or Merge back to parent I think this article's content, when read in the context of a larger article on the history of the United States (or similar), loses much of its perceived NPOV issues. I am still fine with the article as-is if the title is changed. I really still don't see how the article itself is pushing a POV with the exception of the inadvertently POV-pushing and inaccurate title...it's reporting on the history of criticism on a notable topic, and giving each POV its due turn without taking a side. But -- big but -- (big but? did I really just... anyway) I can definitely see how this article, on its own, -can- be viewed as expressing a POV. Out of context, I concur that it is very easy to at least think of it in POV terms. In the context of a bigger article, less so. I think that's my final opinion on this, but this is certainly an interesting conversation and one I'll probably check in on again. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back. The new title proposals don't seem to get much support, so, unless a stronger consensus is reached, I too suggest to merge the content back to the parent article and continue this discussion without the need to pay close attention to the ticking of the clock. — Rankiri (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a WP:COATRACK just waiting for more "opinions". POV is unavoidable in an article like this. Wine Guy~Talk 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The majority of the delete arguments cite problems with the article that can fixed by editing it. Any cleanup/renaming/merging/splitting/whatever can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist antisemitism[edit]

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

The article entitled "Communist antisemitism" was added to Wikipedia a very short time ago. While I would not dispute that there is real encyclopedic merit to articles that explore links between Marxism and anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, and other related topics, this particular article does not rise to that standard. This is a polemical work that violates WP:SYNTH and WP:N, and I'm inclined to think that the title does not belong on Wikipedia at all. For that reason, I'm suggesting deletion.

Addendum: The sole author of this article has linked it to several other pages related to anti-Semitism and has attempted to add it to the antisemitism template. This strikes me as both promotional and very inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now - lets give the author and interested people some time to improve the article. The topic seems to be quite notable although we can think of a better title Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think that any encyclopedic content in the article should be spun off to separate topics. The current framework strikes me as pretty close to an inherent WP:SYNTH violation. CJCurrie (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I do understand the topic may be controversial, it has widespread coverage in multiple scholarly sources. Historian and ex-Harvard professor Erich Goldhagen wrote an entire chapter titled "Communism and Anti-Semitism". Raphael Patai and Jennifer Patai covered the topic well in their book The Myth of the Jewish Race published by Wayne State University Press. There is a scholarly journal article documenting this topic. I think the article passes WP:N and WP:RS and should be kept. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A google book search for "Communist anti semitism" [29] proves there are plenty of scholarly sources discuss this topic. Search for "Marxist anti semitism" also return many ghits [30] --Defender of torch (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt there are plenty of scholarly works that debate the topic of communism and anti-Semitism. What I'm suggesting is that the current article is incredibly polemical and may be an inherent violation of WP:SYNTH. CJCurrie (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the references it is clear, there is a link between communism and antisemitism, or communist regimes displayed antisemitism. I don't see SYNTH in the article, but as a compromise the name can be changed for example Communism and antisemitism. But blanket deletion is not a solution. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Communism and antisemitism seems to be much better title. I have moved the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defender: Right now the article does not define its scope at all, so every partisan can bring in RS to back up any point. Academic research on the topic addresses different aspects of it, in fact different topics. Consider the case of grassroots nationalism in the Eastern Bloc countries that frequently evolved into outright anti-everything. Was it part of communist ideology? no. Part of regime? Rarely, rather the regimes simply failed to control it. Part of the history of communist nations? Definitely yes. Any given academic source (say, Reinventing Russia: Russian nationalism and the Soviet state, 1953-1991 by Yitzhak Brudny]) will be on topic for some scopes and off topic for others. The fact that this book exists (and is fully recommended by yours truly) does not mean it's usable in each possible scope.
  • Delete since "communism" is supposed to be antithetical to religion. Since judaism is a religion, it would necessarily be hunted down and destroyed, just like any other religion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I agree with you that the article should be deleted, I don't follow your rationale. You're saying that communism and Judaism are antithetical. That's also (in essence) what the article is trying to say. How is agreement with the article a reason to delete it? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, since anti-religion is a defining characteristic, there's no point in singling out Judaism, since it's just another religion of out of many. It's core concept should already exist on the main communism article. So this article is pointless. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Given the extensive citation in the article, I would have said to WP:USERFY until the article's WP:SYN and WP:COI blemishes become sufficiently removed (assuming that they can be removed). However, given that the article's main contributor is no longer interested in being a part of the WP community, I see no reasonable option save for outright deletion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The article has problems -- in some places bordering on severe -- but the topic is notable, the content is well-sourced, and the re-title helps. I would be a very strong supporter of this being kept if the article's author hadn't just retired, however...indeed, I'm practically neutral on this. I can't quite endorse deletion, however -- the topic is a notable one, and the sourcing is excellent, if in places SYNTH-y. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow scope and Rename to evade the nonsensical oxymoron in title (how come "happiness for all /even if they don't want it/" ideology exclude one particular ethnicity? it did not). IMO, Communist ideology and antisemitism, Antisemitism of communist regimes, and Antisemitism in Eastern Bloc are three different scopes that only marginally overlap (the latter topic, for example, also covers antisemitism of anti-communists and grassroots antisemitism barely tolerated by the regimes); each has lots of academic research behind it. While all three can be merged into one summary-style pile Antisemitism and Communism, I don't see any chances of it happening in the near future. Start with one manageable topic. NVO (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too think the article should be Renamed; remember, Marx himself came from an (ethnically, not religiously) Jewish background. It should be noted that while the Soviet Union, etc., did frequently engage in antisemitism, it wasn't truly a "communist" regime, at least not in Karl Marx's original sense; Stalin strayed quite far from Marx's teachings, and in some respects, the Soviet Union also had many of the characteristics of fascism, including, of course, antisemitism, which is a common feature of fascist ideologies. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember about Jewish Bolshevism, which makes this article rather odd.Biophys (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Rather than noticing the atisemitism by many communist leaders, this article must establish connection with communism in general. This can be done by sourcing to works by Hanna Arendt who tried to justify the idea that all totalitarian regimes were antisemitic. This is not something universally accepted though.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Could become an interesting companion piece to Jewish Bolshevism. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Attack page. Any accusations of antisemitism of different communist leaders belong to biographical articles about this people. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the case unless we had official antisemitic campaigns by the Soviet state, like the struggle with rootless cosmopolitans and Doctor's Plot (even most "pro-Russian historians like Figes honestly admit it). The prosecution of refuseniks was also arguably an antisemitic campaign as most of them tried to emigrate to Israel (there were quite interesting published debates between Brezhnev and Andropov about this).Biophys (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a notable topic, as the Soviets were very harsh to Jewish people. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crude synthesis and OR. An article called Soviet antisemitism or Stalinist antisemitism would be better defined. Fred the happy man (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - weak ideological bases for the article in the first place --99.231.243.112 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC) --Mista-X (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Girl (My Story)[edit]

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

No sources found. Also Titles in the "My Story" series. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The article on the book is almost entirely plot summary, which is a problem - and there are no sources that show notability for the book. The series, though - My Story (Scholastic UK) - has some notability, or appears to. It would be logical to include examples of the format there - which means the list can go, as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I searched for references and couldn't find any. This is one of three articles on books in this series by the same user. AniMate 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afco-Skynet[edit]

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

Not notable: there is only one article, one reliable source to establish notability (besides sources that prove they exist), and this is it. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Tower (My Story)[edit]

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

Non-notable book by redlinked author. The book ranks 1,505,863 on amazon. No reliable sources, and zero mentions in Google news. Woogee (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Wine Guy~Talk 10:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Oak Kim Academy[edit]

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

Prod declined with addition of sources. Sources include two directory listings, a blog, and one non trivial news source. I don't know if that's enough to carry the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 C.O.P.S.. The "votes" below are quite divergent, making a clear determination of consensus difficult. However, I feel that a redirect meets the primary objection that their is insufficient notability for a separate article while allowing for a selective merge as determined by consensus at the target page. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Krusher[edit]

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

This article needs deletion or merging to C.O.P.S. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this was not listed or created correctly, I've completed the nom and transcluded it. tedder (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Dream Focus 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fearsome Five. Any verifiable content can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nano (comics)[edit]

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

Not notable enough to warrant own article, and is orphaned, sloppily written, etc. Should be integrated into main article for comic. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The fact that the nominator is also the original author is compelling, and the "keep" arguments are of a general nature and not specific to this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Holcberg[edit]

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

I created this article some 3 years ago when I was new here, and before I even knew that there was such a thing as notability criteria. I'm older and wiser now, and I don't think this person qualifies as notable under WP:BIO. Specifically, I can't find any independent reliable sources about the man. A google news search reveal plenty of articles by him, but I can't find anything about him (other than bios on websites that publish his writings). Yilloslime TC 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've never seen a nomination like this before. What an interesting situation. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not necessary for entities to always meet the General Notability Guideline. In this case, WP:CREATIVE, particularly item 1, might be more appropriate: A journalist heavily cited (published) by other journalists (=editors of important newspapers). I hold no opinion as to the outcome of this discussion, though. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His notability isn't huge, but having an article about him doesn't seem unreasonable in the context of a lot of the absolute and unambiguous unsupported BLP crap that survives here. Not someone I'd go to the mat over. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I tend to agree with QM. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But don't all articles--and especially BLPs--require independent, reliable sources? Yilloslime TC 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and, perhaps more importantly, WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @190  ·  03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dj jagz[edit]

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

Contested prod. DJ with sketchy notability. Only primary sources are used in the article. Google News returns nothing. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find any evidence that this DJ has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. It appears that the E-lastik label and its NYC Underground Dance Party Vol. 3 record exist(ed) – see this page at Discogs – but it does not appear that this DJ achieved notability due to his connection to that label. Actually, I don't think the label is notable either – but then again, it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @184  ·  03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After weighing up the opinions on both sides, I see a consensus to delete here. Many of those arguing "keep" failed to give reasons why the sources provided were reliable. Others did not base their arguments on policy or the article at all, only basing their vote on the fact that they knew it, so I discounted those completely. Those commenting to delete backed their arguments and gave well-reasoned opinions, hence this close. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game)[edit]

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, ephemeral roleplaying game. While I can attest that the game's existence was a heavily debated subject on a particular online forum, the article is sourced almost exclusively from that forum, and so fails WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not remotely sold that it clears any notability bar. There are zero Google News hits for the subject, and no evidence that print sources exist discussing it. What elements of WP:N would anyone like to claim this fulfills?  Ravenswing  15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Oh, good point; I'm normally extremely loth to edit an article under AfD, but BLP's pretty plain.  Ravenswing  23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are independent reviews listed as sources, (whether they are high enough quality is another issue.) This game is notorious for how bad it is, but that may not transfer to Wikipedia notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: They don't, and I'm a heavy patron of one of the forums listed. Anyone can submit a review on RPGnet, and there's no factchecking involved except for comments from the vox populi. Meeting WP:RS it doesn't.  Ravenswing  08:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely known as the worst RPG ever. If this is non-notable, then what is?  Grue  20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable Smappy (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notably infamous among RPG hobbyists. Check this review, or this one, or here. Or here or here. The poor prose of the reviews is unfortunately typical of RPG coverage on the web and commenters shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that there are other, better presented sites on this topic which are notable by their absence. On a more practical level, it's notable enough that if it's deleted you're going to see enthusiasts keep recreating it for years to come, so you're better spent on getting this version up to standard rather than revisiting it every six months or so in AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify the above - as far as web searches goes, this is it. There isn't any great authoritative editorially controlled site on RPGs in existence that we could reasonably expect to have covered this game. Print RPG magazines (if you can get your hands on them) are by and large either mouthpieces for particular publishers or eclectic local interest rags and fanzines. The only possible higher indicator of notability you'd see for an RPG is it winning an annual award or being picked up by a major publisher, neither of which leave room for games which are notable for being bad. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. There is this curious notion floating around Wikipedia is that if reliable sources don't exist for a subject, the provisions of WP:V should somehow be suspended. Nonsense; WP:V holds clearly that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." RPGs aren't exempted from the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Blog reviews that are poorly written, self-submitted and unedited don't signify that we should accept poorly written, self-submitted and unedited blog reviews as reliable sources; it's why we don't accept such submissions as reliable sources in the first place.  Ravenswing  11:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability is relative; the purpose of WP:V is to establish whether a source that makes a claim can be trusted to be accurate in that claim. The fact being sourced here, however, is that an opinion exists - in this case, that FATAL is so notably bad as to be a meme within the RPG community. WP:V isn't relevant here because the linked source is itself the opinion, much as in the same way as the statement "A video of a cat can be found on YouTube" can be sourced by linking to the video on YouTube. We don't care whether the person filming the cat fact-checked the cat or was subject to editorial control; the mere fact of the video's existence supports, in this case, the claim. Besides, I refer again to my practicality argument - it will require less work on the part of the Wikipedia community to get this article right now than it will to keep taking it back to AfD each time it gets re-created. It may not be a victory in principle but it will be one in real terms. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the article was about the opinion, then yes, a case could be made that a source about that opinion might be valid for it. This article is not about any controversy about FATAL, but about FATAL itself, and therefore sources which fail to meet the reliability bar are invalid. In this particular case, you're claiming that the subject is notable solely because some blog posts yell at it, which is a desperately low bar to notability; m That being said, that there's a ready remedy to non-notable subjects being recreated after deletion, presuming there's any such problem. It isn't as if we don't have an active deletion process, despite the risk that someone might choose to recreate the many articles deleted every day.  Ravenswing  16:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no reliable sources to show the notability of this. None of the sources given constitute a reliable source. If we had to rely on a user submitted review on amazon to try and show notability for a book there wouldn't even be any debate about it. This is no different. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete claims like "worst ever" and allegations of racism and misogyny against a living person would require some really rock-solid sources backing them up. Not only doesn't this article do so, it can't even manage regular reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reviews cause it to meet WP:N. BLP issues probably need to go however. (I'll tackle that now unless someone has already done so). Hobit (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strongly suggest closing admin look at the references, none of which appear reputable. Beyond that, absolutely no sources found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will admit, my primary objection here is that I've heard of it and I'd considered its notoriety a matter of public knowledge. It's personally notorious among gamers I know and internet communities I frequent. I know what policy says about the worth of that argument, and I'm using it only in the sense that despite Google searches not returning hugely reliable sources, I have reason to suspect that reliable sources nevertheless exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another argument totally without substantive value, note that typing "Byron Hall F" into Google returns the suggestion "Byron Hall Fatal", which again leads to a reasonable suspicion that notability exists which we're merely having trouble locating the sources for. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a statement in policy that where reliable sources establishing notability are suspected to exist, but cannot be easily located (often a problem in foreign-language or esoteric subjects) the community should hesitate to delete, especially where the statements in the article are themselves uncontroversial. However, I confess I'm unable to find that reference and even if I were there'd be a question as to whether this falls in that category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I found it at WP:FAILN - "It is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. [...] If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." Which isn't quite as strong as I hoped or remembered but is at least relevant for consideration. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right that the guideline's relevant for consideration, but considering it does your position no favors; do you consider it likely that any coverage can be found in reliable, independent sources, never mind "significant" coverage? That's the sole relevant definition of notability here, not whether those of us who participate in a particular Internet forum know about it, which is in the same category as an WP:IKNOWIT argument.  Ravenswing  13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- regretfully. The sources include a blog, a wiki and the game itself: none of which is sufficient. The only other source is a lengthy review from rpg.net, and I am not convinced they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And since attempts to find more stuff have failed, I am forced to conclude that deletion is the only option. I say regretfully, because the review I just mentioned is extremely funny. Go read it. Reyk YO! 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reliability of the sources is extremely dubious, meaning anything coming from a secondary source is not verified, so we have problems with original research, lack of notability and neutrality. If sources are found then there's nothing stopping the article being brought back. The question of notability was brought up on the article talk page more than 6 months ago, which is more than enough time for someone to have a good look for sources if they were so inclined. Someoneanother 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Game of some infamy in the RPG community - requiresd an additional source other than RPG.net of course, I;ve added the resuce tag accordingly in the hope that sources can be found. Artw (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GoUSA 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watashi Wa[edit]

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

I originally PRODed this article, which was removed for no reason I could see. Fails notability criteria for bands. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSIC for bands. 2 albums released on Tooth & Nail Records. Also, most of these 151 Google News hits seem to be about the band. --Smashvilletalk 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Darli Theintan[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - aka Poe Darli Thein Tan, daughter of Bamar Pyi Thein Tan. Released albums include Chit Yee Sarr and Sone Taw Myaing. A search under this name reveals multiple references from sources which seem to be independent, if not reliable, linked to phrases like "great Myanmar singer" and "singing icon"; given the foreign language issues involved there's enough for me to suspect that sources establishing notability do exist but aren't easily accessed by English speakers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found lots of blog and music download, but no real sources. Just as one would expect with a young artist who has yet to make her mark. The phrases "great Myanmar singer" and "singing icon" seem to refer to her father. Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @182  ·  03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to this the subject had over 20 hit albums in Myanmar. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nickson[edit]

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

Fixing broken AFD for another user. Apparently I'm the only one who ever notices redlink afds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin McClure[edit]

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

Non-notable runner. Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMEND IT STAYS: I'm a World Record holder recognized by several organizations throughout the world and see no reason why my page can not stay. If there are problems with my page, please assist me in correcting the issues; but to consider me "non-notable" I think not. you can google search my name and find several pages on internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.2 (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrholder (talk • contribs) — Wrholder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not understand why this page is being considered for deletion, if it needs help correcting certain issues, let me know so that I can address these issues and correct the situation. Thanks!Wrholder (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)— Wrholder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: Sorry, but "fastest 5,000 meters while wearing a 40 lb. rucksack", while undoubtedly an impressive feat, doesn't sound to me like it satisfies the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE - and Wikipedia doesn't have articles for single-record Guinness record holders -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Puff piece for a non notable single event. Nuttah (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Winters Tracey[edit]

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

Poet, with one self published work in amazon, & nothing on worldcat. She boasts on her homepage "Recently I was honored. I have had my name included in Wikipedia! " Already deleted by PROD, but rewritten. Not a blp; apparently recently died [31], no obit in G News, nothing usable in Google. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contrary to the single "keep" argument, WP:N is an editing guideline at en.wiki, and one of the most common reasons for deletion. It's status as a guideline, not a policy, but not just an essay either, was upheld by consensus at an RFC last year. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerika[edit]

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

As detailed as this article is, it covers a wiki application (Kerika) that doesn't seem to have any real notability. Kerika, the company and application, seems to have been active from around 2002 to 2007, and during that time never had any notable usage or press coverage, as far as I can tell. Yaron K. (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find independent coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 08:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to deletion. The software and the company are still active, and new users continue to use the product, particularly in the academic and non-profit communities, so it is not correct to state that the company and application have been inactive since 2007. The Kerika article doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion, which, presumably is why the proposal for deletion is based upon the fuzzy concept of notability, which itself is poorly defined, changes constantly, and lacks any consensus within the Wikipedia community. If this is all that's the foundation for this proposal, it makes for a very shaky proposal indeed. Note: I am the original author of this article; everyone contributing to this debate should disclose potential conflicts of interest. Spy99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Alright then: I'm a MediaWiki developer, which is a potential conflict of interest. By the way, lack of notability is one of the criteria for deletion in the list you linked to; and I think it's the most common one. Yaron K. (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Not all conflicts of interest are the same, and having a potential conflict of interest isn't a red flag in itself; it is important to examine the specific conflict of interest that may apply in a specific situation. In this particular situation, the person proposing the deletion has an direct, commercial conflict of interest since the company that he founded and leads (WikiWorks) gains whenever Kerika or other wiki software are marginalized by being tagged as "non-notable". Furthermore, the timing[1] of the original proposal for deleting the Kerika article raises concerns that the conflict of interest is actual and not just potential: the request was made less than a week before WikiWorks started its marketing campaign on Twitter[2] and its blog[3]. Spy99 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, yes, I also do MediaWiki consulting, which I should have mentioned. The timing is coincidental; I've been working on improving wiki-related articles here for the last few months. Not that it helps me to have the timing be coordinated. Thanks for plugging my company, though. Yaron K. (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Lester[edit]

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

Not really sure if this guy qualifies as notable or not. He has created a number of "big-user" fonts, but not much turns up as far as WP:RS. No big academical or philosophy contributions that I can tell. -Zeus-u|c 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think WP:CREATIVE#1 applies. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with 2/0 on WP:CREATIVE, especially since his redesign of the J.D. Salinger book covers appears to be quite a big deal [32]. Being the designer of Neo Sans doesn't hurt his notability either. Wine Guy~Talk 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larken Egleston[edit]

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

Non-notable culinary columnist for a local magazine. GNews, naturally, turns up a few articles by him, but no significant coverage of him.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article appears to be an autobiography. noq (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'speedy delete' under WP:CSD#A10, as redundant to movement DES (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What creates movement[edit]

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

An article that is completely unnecessary—just see movement. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (See Wikipedia:No original research as well.) Wikipedia is also not an FAQ., which this article apparently is. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the author wishes, I will userfy it so that he can work on it in his user space, but I invite him to consider that, if so much effort has not succeeded, the subject is probably in fact not (yet) notable by Wikipedia's standard, and further effort spent trying to make him appear so may simply be wasted - see WP:OVERCOME. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pollara[edit]

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

Second time around, same problems as last time. Speedy nom as recreation of deleted content was declined. This is mostly puffery to make it look like this guy is some big player in the film industry when in fact he is mostly just another member of the crew on most of the projects he's worked on. The sources are mostly YouTube or IMBD, although there's also a high school paper thrown in and a few other sources that are not exactly reliable. I would also like to see the page salted so we don't end up here again in another few months when Mr. Polarra and/or his friends decide to try this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the references are pages created by the subject of the article. He has worked on noteworthy projects that have wiki pages, but his involvement in those projects was merely as a behind the scenes crew member, which are important but usually not WP:N. Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Is there a policy on wikipedia that refuses my right to post an article if I happen to know the person? Also I understand feedback but what good does it do for the wikipedia community to merely shutdown articles you don't want to have posted. I have spent many hours on making this a solid piece with many references and serious data. I mean there are many articles out there that are ridiculous compared to the serious content I am trying to post. And yes its in the eye of the beholder so who is to say people agree with you? Lets take a second to look at previous topics: Delete. Creation of a WP: SPA, not sourced, no reliable sources available. No bias against re-creating in future should source/notablity issues be addressed. --Whoosit (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed There is a beginner's guide to properly sourcing your article at WP:REFBEGIN that may be of some use to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed Is IMDB not a reliable source? Johnart111 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing there is the most important one, you need reliable sources. And no, IMBD is not considered one of those, it's content is generated by users, and is often inaccurate. Also, several of the linked entries do not mention Mr. Pollara at all, just like last time. And since you asked, creating articles about people you know is in fact strongly discouraged as you have an obvious conflict of interest in such a situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a perfect example of what's wrong here, you just added a link to [33] to the article. That is a website intended to promote this film, it is not independent from it in any way. And, as if that weren't enough, I don't see any mention of Mr. Pollara on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense. In the frenzy of trying to prove everything is true I have posted so many references. And I changed that just because before it was IMDB. But now its completely removed as you mention the site without his name is irrelevant.Johnart111 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to: Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Releasing video content virally is equivalent to it being distributed. In addition I have added links to Future Shorts and Ad World who have written on these productions numerous times. Regardless of the fact that he has won an Emmy. Question: If I have a document in print that seems to be unavailable on the internet but comes from a reliable source like the Television Academy of Arts & Sciences could I simply make it available on the web then reference it as a PDF? If so I can do that as well.

Please Keep: Agreed Francis is not some world renowned cherished man. He is 20 years old but please tell me what you where doing when you were twenty. I am six years older and find his determination not only impressive but inspirational. That is why I reached out to do this in the first place he is unaware of the article actually as I have been attempting to complete it officially. To me his story is an important one and although it seems he hasn't made a huge effort to publicize himself on the web I am working with what I have and I do not agree that because I dont have "links" to share to direct content it makes this article unworthy of being posted. Johnart111 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Don't Delete! Johnart111 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, could I ask you to calm down a bit? Yelling "No, Don't" is simply contradiction and does not help your case. Your desire to tell his story to the world is not wrong, you are just directing it towards the wrong place. The purpose of Wikipedia is to share information that has already been published elsewhere in a reliable source. There are other websites, some of which are listed here, that would be happy to help you share his story with the world. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bee, please don't missinterpret my pleading with you to bother someone else, not yelling. There are plenty of other people on wikipedia that deserve this more than I. This is not a story I concocted. As much as the wikipedia page of other filmmakers is a story of their lives this one follows the same format. These are facts that I have done my best to reference but because there is little content online this article becomes irrelevant. I have references so lets see are there a minimum number of references required per article? If not then I have them. And I will continue to add them accordingly and I will see to it that this article works one way or another. In my opinion you have yet to concretely explain how this article violates Wikipedia policy and requirements.Johnart111 (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried, and I'll try one more time to maker it clear to you. A reliable source for an article like this would be an article in a reputable newspaper, magazine, or website, not a high school newspaper, a website whose content is generated by anonymous users, or a website that is promoting something. Also, these sources need to verify facts related to Mr. Pollara, not simply verify that the projects it is claimed he worked on existed at all. There is not a specific minimum number of references required, but there is a minimum standard of quality and relevance of sources required if the article is to be kept, and so far I'm not seeing such sources. If this gentlemen is such a player in the industry, surely such sources would exist online, but it is not actually required that they be online. If there is a book or print-only magazine or newspaper that has published significant, non-trivial content regarding Mr. Pollara that indicates his notability, that would be fine too. No one is claiming this is a story you made up, just that it does meet the minimum standards to be on Wikipedia regardless of the factual accuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it you win. I am exhausted with you and this impossible barrier. I guess it is up to Francis now. He just has to be a bigger "player". Then it will all be gravy. I will be back though. So I hope you enjoyed deleting another article.Johnart111 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not nice to have to go against such passionate pleas, and I do feel for someone having clearly spent a lot of time working on an article, but I really can't see anything here that's notable by Wikipedia rules. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, despite the protestations of the author. Only one GNews hit, from a minor, non-reliable source that appears to be a high school paper. No major awards. Being a worker or intern on a major film does not confer notability. (GregJackP (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: To address the life story approach, I would point out that there are many readers and researchers who would be interested the the life story of Stanley Kubrick. But the life story of the subject here is presented in lieu of notability. I don't mean to suggest that only a Kubrick deserves Wikipedia presence. But clearly, in the case of someone who is notable, the scenario can almost write itself based on the notable achievements themselves. Besides, this individual has production assistant credits listed under the cinematographer heading. I don't see a "key" crew listing anywhere. (Rudybowwow (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy back to impassioned author. The article definitely needs a rewrite to eliminate the inclusion of so much background on family and friends, and to make it feel less like a diary page, and the subject may merit inclusion in a year or so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added another article. [34]> Can someone verify if this is valid? Then if I find and add more of this to the article could it stay? Johnart111 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I can confirm that it is valid article about the filmmaker in the La Canada Valley Sun, and that it can even be found online. No doubts. But with respects Johnart111, the article is seen as overly long and for the most part improperly sourced. That perception is a big problem, as oftentimes, less is more. If you'd ask to have the article userfied/moved to a user workspace at User:Johnart111/workspace/Francis Pollara, I'd be glad to work with you on triming it, cleaning it up, and working toward giving it its best chance of survival in mainspace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your response Michael. Unfortunately I am still learning all the wiki editor terms userfy and user space I am not sure their meaning. I assume you mean that within my user talk page I can post the article until it is appropriate and trimmed for mainspace? Thanks again. Johnart111 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially yes. A workspace can be created by editors as a place where they may create and work on articles until they are better ready to survive in mainspace. You create a page with a title "(Username)/sandbox(or workspace)/(article name)". As soon as you add something to the page and hit save, it will have been created. In this case here, keep track of it being closed and {likely) deleted. Then referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Pollara (2nd nomination), ask the closing administrator on his talk page if he would please userfy the article for you. He can then "undelete" it long enough to move the entire article and its editing history into the sandbox or workspace so it might be worked on. I also offer that you might take a look at a page I am myself developing as a primer for new editors at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. Its not complete, but it should help a bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't want to sound like a party-pooper, but that looks like a local newspaper - is that really sufficient? -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naw... not a party-pooper. Local individual written about in local news and article not picked up for reprinting in major papers. In determining its validity, I found that the La Canada Valley Sun is part of Tribune Publishing and that it could be pretty much be accepted a reliable in context to what is being sourced,[35] but yes... the article represents just one article from a few years back in a local edition paper with a small circulation. I'm still willing to work with User:Johnart111 is this gets userfied. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok thank you very much. I will make sure to do that so I can do all of the above to make this article survive.Johnart111 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Come back when he wins a cinematography Oscar. THF (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Butcher[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks in depth coverage in independent sources, misses WP:CREATIVE. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Henry Fry[edit]

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

Can find no significant coverage of this anthropologist/college professor. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darth skaro[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable fanfiction element. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, fanfic is almost invariably nn. Woogee (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but nn what is the problem. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Web content? Since it's more about the fic than the character? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Records[edit]

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

The label is simply not notable.. Musiclover212 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Nine series[edit]

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

Article about three recently uploaded amateur web videos, each 10-14 minutes long. Many references and external links, but none to reliable sources or to evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (web)). HaeB (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No third-party reliable sources, not notable. —Mike Allen 07:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: I have explored the links and found a page with over 1300 fans. Another "Not by creator" page with over 200. It does appear this is a new thing but with the amount of people who view the program it is unlikely to be duped. Actor reference pages seem valid as does the site and program itself. I'm new to this entire thing but think this page was written by a third party and sticks to the facts. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickyfeature (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Stickyfeature (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Above is the third edit by the article's creator. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Can't find anything to establish notability. No news or book results. Google web just comes up with a myspace and facebook page and of course a bazillion hits for phrases like "(...) was cancelled after nine series". If "a page with over 1300 fans" would be a reason to keep an article, we might as well start writing biographies for everyone who takes facebook too seriously. Smocking (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First: I am not this page's creator. Just a fan from the page. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickyfeature (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • You're right about one thing: the article was created by single-purpose account William James Arthur; you only seems to have become the primary contributor later. Still don't see any evidence of notability though. Please see WP:GNG and WP:WEB and see if you can come up with some reliable evidence of notability (not popularity). We've already done our best to find it, but were unsuccessful and without it this article has about as much chance as a snowball in hell to be around next week. Smocking (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SarekOfVulcan with rationale of "Attack page created in violation of solemn pledge not to make controversial edits on Jewish issues." Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish sex abuse cases[edit]

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

Delete - Unlike the Catholic case, which was treated as a single issue concerning the reaction of the Catholic church to various accusations, this article is a collection of various unrelated cases lumped together for what seems to be prurient and provactive purposes. Notable cases are already discussed in the articles of the people involved. Wikipedia is NOT theawarenesscenter, which has in the past been considered a non-reliable source, and this can be a BLP disaster to boot. Individual cases, if notable, should be handled as they are now, in the articles about their protagonists, and non-notable cases should be removed forthwith. The implication that there is a relationship between the cases is incorrect, unlike the other article, mentioned as "somewhat" similar. Avi (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. If anything, this article shows how rare sexual abuse is in the Jewish community. The parallel article about the Catholic church discusses an endemic phenomenon; this article is just a shopping list of isolated cases, which is unencyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. (I'll preface my remarks by saying that this is a topic that can easily be a case of "I don't like it" or "I do like it" so I am consciously trying to avoid such arguments.) As pointed out in the nom, there is no commonality tying these people together other than their ethnic identity as Jews. The article also does not establish "Jewish sexual abuse" as different from any other type of sexual abuse.
    This seems to be a violation of WP:FORK by trying to create an image of a large phenomenon where there is only individual actions. This impression is reinforced by closing the list of offenders with a list of watchdog organizations.
    Any information that is here should be in the individual articles. At most there should be a category of "Sex offenders" and a category of "Sex crimes watchdog groups". Joe407 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be a list of cases of sexual abuse by people who just happen to be Jewish, which doesn't seem any more notable to me than, say, "Sex abuse cases by tall people" would be. The Catholic church article, by contrast, is about alleged systemic cover-up by the church hierarchy, which makes it more than the sum of the individual cases. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The commonality is not simply that the abusers were Jewish, but that they were teachers, school officials or Rabbis, who were convicted of or pled guilty to having while in positions of trust, authority and responsibility, sexually abused children. The incidents are referenced in reliable and independent newspapers. The article also notes organizations set up to deal with the problem. Edison (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For teachers and school officials, I don't think it's their religion that is the notable issue though - I would have thought the fact they happen to be Jewish teachers and school officials is incidental -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the Delete votes are by Jewish partisans and zealots, therefore they have a conflict of interest and their votes should be discounted. This has been in the public domain for a long time, it is widely acknowledged in respective communities themselves and should absolutely not be censored for biased motives. By the way, I did not add any original content and was just borrowing from earlier material that was already in Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the above editor's (also the architect of the article in question) comments speak for themselves regarding his/her POV and intent when framing said article. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was refering to was your inappropariate use of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. I maintain in all honesty that this page allows for partisans to gang-up on a subject and purposefully bias the result of a deletion vote. ADM (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject talk pages and notice boards are the preferred way to inform participants in projects about issues that may interest them. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with that notion, especially when it involves controversial subjects tied to politics and/or religion. You can't have an objective discussion about a controversial issue when people who have vested interests all want to intervene at the same time during a critical moment. ADM (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sections of the article, per nom, except for the sections on Mark Dratch and The Awareness Center; those sections seem salvageable to me and should be spun out into their own articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheAwarenessCenter has, in the past, been ruled a NON-reliable source, as it is Vicki Polins personal hatchet site, and is not even remotely neutral, and thus cannot be considered accurate. At least a newspaper/magazine ostensibly has journalistic integrity. Whether one agrees with Polin or not, she is not an acceptabel source for anything other than herself, and using theawarenesscenter as a source for anything about a living person would be a gross violation of BLP. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, articles already exist at The Awareness Center, Inc. and Mark Dratch, so am I correct that you agree that there is nothing worth keeping in this article? -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing the AC as a source, but rather as a party in a dispute. That's an importance difference and it should be taken into account as entirely legitimate. ADM (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's quite fair to label the creator (User: ADM) as being a "SPA" dedicated solely to bashing Jews. I myself have had only one interaction with this user in the past, and it was a discussion concerning the article Mandingo Theory, which has nothing to do with Jews. Also, isn't it a violation of WP: NPA to call another user antisemitic? Even if it isn't, I don't think it's fair to label this user a SPA. However, I'm certainly not defending ADM's "Jewish partisans" comment above (which was definitely over the line and itself a violation of WP: NPA) nor am I defending this article. After all, I, too, voted Delete. Having an article about "Jewish sex abuse cases" makes no more sense than having an article about so-called "Black crime"; when the only thing the cases have in common is the religion and/or ethnicity of the perpetrators, and there is no evidence that the crimes themselves were motivated by religion and/or ethnicity, what purpose can the article have other than to stir up prejudice at the group in question? That's another reason why I think this article should be deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I do think the sections on The Awareness Center and Mark Dratch are salvageable. Those two sections should probably be spun out into their own articles when the rest of the article is deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cases all involve pedophile rabbis who abused underaged males. It has destroyed entire communities in and around Brooklyn. Therefore it is appropriate to call them Jewish sex abuse cases. You should change your vote when taking into account the evidence that these are real abuses, not made-up abuses. ADM (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were "made up"...I just think that grouping them all together here pushes the boundaries of WP:SYNTH. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesis involved, since most of the content comes from reputable media sources such as the Baltimore Jewish Times and the New York Times. [37][38] ADM (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please review WP:SYNTH; putting together true statements in an original way to make a point NOT made elsewhere in a reliable/verifiable source is a violation of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should accept that the Baltimore Jewish Times is a reliable source. For you not to accept this is a great moral failure. ADM (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the BJT/NYT make the connection between all the cases you brought and discuss the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases"? Or did it just discuss one case, perhaps already on wikipedia under the name of the protagonist, and it was you who decided to start weaving a thread of original research to combine these disparate cases? Reading the articles demonstrates the latter answer to my question, or a SYNTH violation. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. They're not stupid, and they know what they're talking about, especially since it involve dozens of articles over an extended period of time (many years). ADM (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles to which you linked each discuss one specific case. It is you who created the concept "Jewish sex abuse cases" and are bringing the laundry list in the article. You may have a wonderful paper to publish in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere, but wikipedia is not the place to create relationships as such, it is called original research/synthesis and goes against our core policies, even if it is true. Once again, this article is a violation and needs to be removed. -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of making it all up, which is blatantly false. Of course, I could mount a counter-accusation about you trying to cover all of this up, and protect the reputations of noted child abusers, but I won't, because I'm kind of tired right now. ADM (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please 'carefully read both wikipedia policy, the articles in question, and the comments above. You are being accused of creating the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases" within wikipedia. None of the sources you bring discuss a larger scheme, the way the sources discussed the Catholic sex abuse cases as being all one interconnected phenomenon. Despite even if each and every case you bring is true, the fact that you created a thread linking them is original research/synthesis and forbidden. Simple. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, we have articles on Dratch, Gafni, Lanner, the awareness center, so your implication of a cover-up, despite being an unfounded personal attack of a rather disgusting sort, which is, I guess, in line with your comments about partisans and zealots, is also completely false. If anything, I've protected various articles from being whitewashed. The difference is that I am acting in accordance with policy and guideline, and you are not. That is forbidden. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of other relibale/verifable sources and NOT used as a platform to create either smears or whitewashing of people. However, as your unfounded accusations clearly indicate, you are not interested in furthering the project, but your own agenda. There are plenty of places on the web for that; wikipedia, however, is not one of them. -- Avi (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to your strange logic, even if 6 million Jews did really die in the Holocaust, this does not mean that the Holocaust happened, only that 6 million murders occured on an individual basis. This is a grave logical fallacy, one that can ruin the lives of millions of people. ADM (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being a classic response of those interested in their own agendas (bringing in Nazis/the Holocaust when it does not apply) I fail to follow ANY thread of logic connecting the above statement with the total discussion. I hope the closing admin reads ADM's comments; they are rather clarifying. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ADM, in appealing his indefinite block which he received for inappropriate advocacy, made a pledge, promising "to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews". On account of this pledge, ADM was unblocked, and the unblocking admin issued this admonition: "You get one more chance per WP:AGF. One, and no more.". One year later ADM is at it again on an AfD over a controversial article about the Jews, which he created, (as per nomination for prurient and provactive purposes), calling other editors Jewish partisans and zealots. I therefore call upon administrators to check whether ADM is guilty of breaking the pledge he made. Amsaim (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ADM violating the terms of his unblock from_indef?. The user has been informed. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerika&oldid=341293620
  2. ^ http://twitter.com/wikiworks
  3. ^ http://wikiworks.com/blog/2010/02/09/welcome-to-the-wikiworks-blog/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_23&oldid=1142641877"