Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 26

< 25 February	27 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Some clarity is needed but no valid reason to deleteMike Cline (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative district of Dasmariñas City[edit]

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

This article is misleading as this district is part of the representation of the province of Cavite, not a separate one as this article tends to imply. Reyrefran (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still not formatting the AFD right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article has basis for existence as Section 64 of Republic Act 9723 provides for it, which was successfully ratified in a plebiscite on November 25, 2009[1]--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even if there's basis as we could present it, it doesn't make it a district independent from the representation of Cavite -- hence it is also referred to as Cavite's 4th district. If this is independent as what Scorpion prinz would suggest esp. in previous debates, Cavite should only have six congressional districts. According to said law, the reason why it's named "Legislative district of Dasmariñas" is PRIMARILY because of its cityhood (thus the literal sense, but not yet the functional sense), BUT IT MEANS THAT IT IS STILL PART OF CAVITE'S REPRESENTATION. Reyrefran (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way I'd like to point this out -- "It was part of the representation of Cavite until 2010." CONTRADICTS with the enabling law which increases the districts of Cavite to seven. If Dasmariñas would be a lone district in which enabling law was literally due to its cityhood, then the numbering of Cavite's districts should only be up to six. San Jose Del Monte district in Bulacan is not called the 5th District of Bulacan while the districts of Antipolo City are not even called the 3rd & 4th Districts of Rizal. These are contrary to what Dasma should be, which is part of the representation of Cavite. Reyrefran (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavite's redistricting was passed 6 days prior to the ratification of Dasmariñas cityhood. Since Dasmariñas is the only local government unit that composed Cavite's 4th district, revising the law which redistricted Cavite wouldn't have made any impact at all to compromise its representation. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are we saying that Cavite only has six districts and Dasmariñas is no longer part of it? Reyrefran (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just relaying what the law provides. Republic Act 9723 took effect 33 days[2] after Republic Act 9727 and since Section 68 of RA 9723 provides that "All laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly."--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide on the article talk page whether the article should be called Legislative district of Dasmariñas City or 4th legislative district of Cavite or whatever. It's a well established principle for other countries that entities such as UK parliamentary constituencies or US congressional districts have separate articles, even if they only cover part of a municipality (for example I have lived in the Harrow West, Hammersmith North and Brent North constituencies, all of which cover(ed) only part of a municipality but all of which have articles). Let's get some kind of consistency and treat legislative districts in the Philippines the same way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Philippine legislative districts are consistent: they're grouped under the province/city they are a part of. With all of the information that is there yet, this is the best way of giving the information. When we have the party, and all other information, then we can consider splitting them into child articles. But as of now, no. –Howard the Duck 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an afterthought, what if I move that this be Merged back to the Legislative districts of Cavite article as technically this is still part of Cavite's representation (4th District)? Reyrefran (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the law provides, and let me reiterate, Republic Act 9723 has effectively amended/modified Republic Act 9727.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are of the position that Cavite in reality has six districts and that the 4th district of Cavite is inexistent then, using these bases? Reyrefran (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it provides, can we contradict that?--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.66.173 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!!!!!!! Dasmarinas City should be a lone district because Dasmarinas became a city which made it a lone district. Republic Act 9723 Section 64 states that the City of Dasmariñas shall have its own legislative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. Dasmarinas City will be voting 12 city councilors at large. Only lone districts who voted at large votes 12 city councilors. Cities that are not lone districts only votes 10.

Delete — There's no point in creating a separate Wikipedia page for a district that is completely identical to the fourth district of Cavite. A redirect should be enough, with a note that the fourth district is also alternatively known as the 'Lone district of Dasmariñas City.' Cavite is represented by seven districts, which cover its 19 towns and 4 component cities. Saying that Dasmariñas City is not part of the representation of Cavite is factually incorrect - Cavite exercises jurisdiction over Dasmariñas, and Dasmariñas is a component city of Cavite. It just so happens that when Dasmariñas became a city, the fourth district was renamed. This calls for the rewording of the leading sections of the articles for the districts of San Jose del Monte and Antipolo, which both imply that these cities are no longer part of the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal. --- isagani (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had Republic Act 9723 not taken effect 33 days after [3] Republic Act 9727, I would gladly rescind my position to keep this. However since and Section 68 of RA 9723 provides that "All laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." Representation in the House of Representatives has never implied that only independent cities are qualified to have their own representation. Cities regardless of their relation to their mother province only have to meet the population requirement. If you are gonna stick to that point of view, shouldn't Olongapo, Angeles, Naga, Santiago City should have their sole representation? And it's like saying Isabela City is not part of the Province of Basilan? --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get the point - more explanation please? But I'll still say something anyway: the cities you mentioned don't have their own representatives because they don't meet the population criterion (except for Angeles) and most importantly, Congress has not legislated for their own districts yet. The difference with the case of Dasmariñas is that the fourth district was created first, and even if the city charter called for a separate district, the district already existed when the city charter was ratified - it was just given a new (alternative) name. My stand does not deny the legality, appropriateness or existence of Dasmariñas's separate congressional district. My opinion is that creating another article which will contain the same exact information as what will be posted in the 'fourth district' section of the Cavite article is unnecessary and redundant. Dasma should appear on the districts template, and the article name should remain, but I believe that a redirect with proper labelling of the fourth district being alternatively called the 'Lone district of Dasmariñas City' should be enough. I personally cannot possibly think of any information that would be present in a separate 'legislative district of Dasmariñas City' article that would not be permitted to be included in the fourth district section anyway. Only when the Dasmariñas receives a second seat would it be appropriate to create a separate article. --- isagani (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! It is unfair for Dasmarinas City to not have an article about its Lone District. Dasmarinas City became a lone district after its cityhood took effect. IF we are going to delete or merge this article with the 7th districts of Cavite then we should also merge articles of component cities like San Jose Del Monte and Antipolo City to their respective provincial districts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antipolo and San Jose del Monte are different cases, in that they are not called "3rd and 4th districts of Rizal" or "5th district of Bulacan," unlike the case of Dasmariñas. Plus, due to the way these cities were given Congressional representation (which was done by piecemeal and did not involve province-wide redistricting), these cities do not have the same voting clout that Dasmariñas has in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Antipolo's two districts only send one representative each to the SP (as opposed to the normal of 2 each, along with 3 each from Rizal's 1st and 2nd districts, for a total of 10 SP members), and San Jose del Monte still forms part of the province's 4th SP district (as opposed to having a regular SP district of its own which will send 2 SP members, with the four other districts sending 2 each as well for a total of 10 SP members). The lone district of Dasmariñas serves a function no different from the fourth district of Cavite, occupies the same territory and represents the same people. Why fill a separate page with the same information as what will be in the 4th district section anyway? --- isagani (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter with the law is the newer one takes precedence, specially if it provides a repealing clause such was what the City Charter of Dasmariñas has.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of that and am not challenging the fact that the lone district exists in law, but what I'm concerned about is redundancy. We should either keep the lone district page and fully link the 4th district section from the districts of Cavite page to it (and remove all information there, which will be presented in the lone district page anyway), OR reduce the lone district page to a simple redirect that links to the 4th district section of the districts of Cavite page. --- isagani (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They earned the right, to have it under its own name. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 14:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed the first suggestion I mentioned above in order to end this. See what is now in Legislative districts of Cavite#4th District. There is now NO redundancy. Is anyone satisfied with the compromise? --- isagani (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP!~~ If we are going to merge this article with 7 districts of Cavite. I will now consider the deletion of Articles about component cities like San Jose in Bulacan and Antipolo City in Rizal. I will recommend to merge it also with articles of their provincial districts since they also vote for board members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just vendetta against perfectly fine articles. Stop messing with them please. --- isagani (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – I get your point Isagani, I just don't get the intent of Reyrefran, who endorsed to delete this, after he vigorously fought hard for the retention of Legislative districts of Bacoor and Imus, and even got blocked to edit anything after he resurrected those articles multiple times. It's just that Dasmariñas got for itself a piece of legislation to earn it a separate article. Had Dasmariñas' charter got approved before the redistricting of Cavite, I would have voted to delete this, since the latter shall take precedence, however it was the otherway around.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP IT!~~ Why not give the Lone district of Dasmarinas one page in wikipedia. Dasmarinas with a population of 556,000 deserves such a lone district article in wikipedia. It is only 1 page and why we don't give it to Dasmarinas City. Dasmarinas City have a hard time becoming a city. Dasmarinas is part of 4th district but its cityhood made it a lone district. If it is not lone the Republic Act 9723 sec 64 should states that city of Dasmarinas is still part of the 4th district of Cavite. But Republic Act 9723 states that Dasmarinas shall have its own legislative district. PLEASE KEEP IT! It is my first time to write an article in wikipedia yet you want to delete it. If you will delete it I will also nominate the deletion or merger of the districts of Antipolo and San Jose del Monte to theirerespective province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then merge. isagani has perfectly presented the arguments here;the Lone district of Dasmariñas is but an alternate name of the fourth district of Cavite. As such, I move that the contents of this article be merged back to the Legislative districts of Cavite under the article for the 4th district as it is NEVER separated from the representation of Cavite; only that it was given an alternate name by the city charter. Or do the other formula, a redirect.

And by the way, I do see a potential sockpuppet of Scorpion prinz on board here.Reyrefran (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I understand this now, the Dasma City charter superseded the Cavite redistricting law. So that means, there are only six districts in Cavite: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. What Isagani did as a compromise was the best way to handle this, under the "4th district" in the Cavite district article is a link to the Dasma City district. In the future, I'd also push for what Phil Bridger wants, a separate article for each district. We can easily do that, we only need the parties and the LGU where they came from to complete them. –Howard the Duck 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be careful of how you word it: "There are only six districts in Cavite" implies that somehow Dasmariñas is not under the provincial supervision of Cavite, which is my beef with the Antipolo and SJDM articles. Let's get it all straightened out: congressional districts are not part of the local government structure - they are merely groupings of LGUs used to represent a portion of the national population in the national legislature, be they a single province (district of Camiguin), independent city (district of Muntinlupa), component city (district of San Jose del Monte) or component municipality (3rd district of Cavite); a cluster of component municipalities and/or component cities within one province (5th district of Cebu); a cluster of component municipalities within one province plus an adjacent independent city (1st district of South Cotabato); a cluster of barangays within one city (2nd district of Cagayan de Oro); or a cluster of barangays from different higher-level LGUs (district of Taguig-Pateros, and arguably, the 2nd district of Makati which has territory under the jurisdiction of both Makati and Taguig). Congressional district groupings have no bearing on one member LGU's relationship to another: Pateros still operates independently from Taguig, South Cotabato still does not partake in any revenue sharing scheme with the city of General Santos (and vice-versa), the provincial government of Bulacan still has jurisdiction over the city of San Jose del Monte, and the Maguindanao provincial government still does not have any authority to meddle in the affairs of the government of Cotabato City. If one must insist, the proper wording should be there are six districts officially enumerated under the designation "Cavite," which is a superficial but nonetheless still correct way of putting the situation into words, seeing as clearly the lone district of Dasmariñas functions no differently from the 4th district, but officially operates under that (alternative) name. --- isagani (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do agree that it's high time to create separate pages for each congressional district, just like in the case of the United States. Not only will that be better for presenting election results within each district, including defunct ones, but also much better for when I upload maps that show the historical evolution of the territorial coverage of each district starting from 1916. I would also like to suggest that the titles of pages be changed to "Congressional district of xxx" in order to distinguish them from other existing legislative districts in local government, such as 1st Sangguniang Panlalawigan district of Agusan del Norte/Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts of Agusan del Norte or 2nd Sangguniang Panlungsod district of Taguig/Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts of Taguig City. --- isagani (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to both statements: Yes Isagani, that was my beef with the phrasing too. Check out the long off-topic discussion at the Bacoor district AFD. As for separate articles, we only need parties and place of residence, otherwise it is good to go. –Howard the Duck 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional representation DOES NOT in anyway suggest or implies that a city has become independent of the province, it's only a matter of attaning the population requirement and legislation to effect it. They are apples and oranges.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~VERY STRONG KEEP!~~ I have seen the 7 districts of Cavite and I'm satisfied with what Isagani have done in that article. I will be only satisfied if the nomination for the deletion of this article is removed. So please stop this argue and retain this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS: Can we now agree that the compromise that I executed (wherein the section about the 4th district of Cavite has been replaced with a link to the lone district of Dasmariñas) is adequate? If so, can someone move to close this issue, especially to stop Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) from constantly insisting on (vindictively) asking that the SJDM and Antipolo articles be deleted too? --- isagani (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pastellists[edit]

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

As far as I can make out from the sources (which are mainly by one author), this is a term used to describe a single show. It more or less asserts non-notability, with phrases such as "there aren't any known records of the member meetings". Guy (Help!) 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any viable reason to consider deleting this article and don't understand the nom. The fact that members didn't keep minutes of their meetings is not a pertinent matter, yet this is stated and The Evening Mail review of "progressive and gifted artists constituting this group"[4] is ignored. Having one show is not a reason to delete (cf Sensation) and is not even true. The article mentions four shows. The source alluded to in the nom (presumably Bolger) mentions the "second exhibition", which is visible in Google snippet view. Nom states, "sources mainly by one author": I'm not sure what the problem is there, as other sources are also used, particularly when the book by this author (I presume Bolger again) is American Pastels in the Metropolitan Museum of Art from a major publisher Harry N. Abrams or, according to the Google listing published by the Museum of Modern Art.[5] There could hardly be a more substantial source. Google Books also shows ample other sources.[6]. This group is part of the historical record of twentieth century art, and notability is far in excess of wikipedia requirements. Ty 12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is worthwhile placing in context some of the figures responsible for the Armory show. The article is sourced and can benefit from more work...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty and Modernist. Easily satisfies Wiki standards of notability, and as Ty states, surpasses what we normally accept. freshacconci talktalk 16:14, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dearden[edit]

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

BBC radio reporter with no evidence of notability. This was unsourced from May 2008 until very recently; I prodded it in its unsourced state, after which it was sourced and deprodded. But while the sources are enough to convince me that the article is factual, they aren't enough to convince me that we should have an article on this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't even really assert the subject's importance, and the given sources don't seem to indicate notability. I don't see any evidence that he is highly cited or has won any awards. Many of the sources in the article are associated with BBC and thus are not independent. One of the sources is a blog, and I don't think it's an expert blog that can be considered a reliable source. I'm not sure what this source is as I cannot access it. A Google search turns up mostly the sources already in the article, but nothing that indicates notability per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE in particular. PDCook (talk) 22:55, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PodSite[edit]

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

Non notable neologism which appears to be acting as a coatrack article for several non-notable podcasts. Artw (talk) 23:41, 26 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) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COAT. Google search doesn't bring up any relevant returns, which is weird for a web-centric term. "A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed." Per WP:GHITS. avs5221 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A coined term that hasn't achieved notability. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax as there is no real google results on this term. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only, a neoligism, but also the article looks more like a dictionary definition. -RobertMel (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 12:10, 5 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 Speedy non-admin close This is ARTICLES FOR DELETION not Articles for Merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative district of Dasmariñas City[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion. This article is utterly misleading as it is actually part of the representation of the province of Cavite (as its 4th congressional district) and not a separate one; although it is stipulated in the cityhood charter of Dasmariñas that it would be named "Legislative District of Dasmariñas", it does not necessarily mean that it would be separate and distinct from the representation of Cavite. Reyrefran (talk) 23:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Titus[edit]

This is a cool guy who is nonetheless a non-notable basketball player. I can not see the prior versions, but independent analysis of the extant version borders on notability by mentions in WP:RS. However, I don't think this is the way WP:N and especially WP:ATHLETE are suppose to be interpreted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article should not be WP:CSDed because of the recent media mentions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times and Pittsburgh Tribune consider him notable enough to be the subject of their articles. Who am I to argue? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO misguided nomination. He got his notoriety exactly because he turned his being mediocre player into an asset. Xuz (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty sure that the NY Times counts as significant coverage. Artw (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the Pittsburgh Tribune said, "Titus is famous for riding the pine". (emphasis added) --Griseum (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He got his notoriety exactly because he turned his being mediocre player into an asset, however he did get the notoriety.
Keep - All deletion discussion should have been finished even before the NYT article was published (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/sports/ncaabasketball/27blogger.html) back in December. I'm honestly dumbfounded people are so insistent on deleting it after so many major media outlets have covered his story. What more do you need exactly, a 60 Minutes feature on him? Ranatoro (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receives significant coverage in major media sources. I have no idea why this keeps getting nominated and deleted despite these. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable media personality, enough said Skalskal (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — college basketball players aren't notable for being college basketball players (he fails WP:ATHLETE), but the amount of coverage means that he passes the general notable guideline, so failing WP:ATHLETE really isn't relevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was also featured in a recent edition of Playboy, a magazine with millions of readers. Featured twice on ESPN's BS Report, a podcast with millions of subscribers. The fact is, the person is famous. When people google his name they should be able to see a wikipedia page that offers a comprehensive look at his playing career and notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.52.181 (talk) 04:48, 4 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) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Graham[edit]

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

This author is not notable per WP:N, WP:PEOPLE, or WP:AUTHOR. She has one award short listing, for Book to Talk About: World Book Day Award 2008, but the award itself is not notable. It's award is only mentioned on three Wikipedia pages^[7] and only seems to be reported in the media as part of book publisher's announcements.^[8] --Marc Kupper|talk 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —--Marc Kupper|talk 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:07, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Software[edit]

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

Non notable corporate sub-site. Artw (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It received a bit of coverage at launch [9], [10], but notability is not temporary, and I don't see any coverage since the launch. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 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 Speedy del obvious hoax. - Altenmann >t 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaju[edit]

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

Possible hoax, unencyclopedic tone RadManCF (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, together with Diaju empire - all evidence of hoax, in all other contributions of the author. Xuz (talk) 23:42, 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 speedy del SCD G3, A7, recreation. - Altenmann >t 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Dylan Tax[edit]

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

Possible hoax, if not that, its non notable and overly promotional. RadManCF (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the page Zachary Dylan Tax is a legitimate page and should be kept because it is an entry about a young man who overcame his irregularities, who is in fact important and recognized for his work.

Wxyz25 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the page Zachary Dylan Tax is a legitimate page and should be kept because it is an entry about a young man who overcame his irregularities, who is in fact important and recognized for his work.

Wxyz25 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pasted from a second nom that was created in error. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete , nonverifiable. Hoax likely. Xuz (talk) 23:48, 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 redirect to Divine grace. And delete first. Sandstein 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Grace[edit]

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

WP:SPAM, created by banned account. But if the tiny church magazines it cites count as RS, then perhaps it meets N, and just needs a serious scrubbing and watchful eye (beyond the anon IP editor removing tags). THF (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Find a reason to do it. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of this is significant coverage - the church is only mentioned in passing in relation to Richard Rossi, who does seem to be notable. Half the links are dead, and I can't find anything about it on either the http://www.charismamag.com or the http://www.house2house.com websites, both of which were mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would normally have suggested Merge with the place where the church is located, but it is far from clear precisely where that is, apart from its seeking to attract Hollywood actors. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Rossi. This church doesn't really seem notable in its own right - the sources provided focus on the founder instead, so it should be merged into his article. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 25 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) · @974 · 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to merge, those things which are worth saying are in the Richard Rossi article, and a redirect there for as common a Christian phrase as this would be inappropriate. Redirect to Divine grace. --Bejnar (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Good point. I'd second that. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 6 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) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad Pasha[edit]

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

While this man's health problems are definitely tragic, not every person in a persistent vegetative state is ipso facto notable. There is no evidence that this case is exceedingly controversial or otherwise well-known, in the manner of Terri Schiavo or Sunny Von Bulow. The claim to notability is that this man is among the "world's best maintained patients." Aside from the nebulous nature of this claim, the only sources appear to be blogs and discussion groups. I realize that a regional bias may be at play here; however, even given the relative difficulty of obtaining sources regarding Pakistan, I think more evidence is needed than is present here. Delete. Xoloz (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way notable Arjun ⁰²⁴ 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The two sources in the article aren't reliable. The first is a blog which makes it already dubious as a source, but the reference to Pasha is actually in the blog comments by somebody claiming to be Pasha's father. The second is internet forum postings by a person with the same name as the person leaving the comment in the blog. I also found more of teh same in my own searches for reliable sources. Accepting the claim that the person is the father, it seems all we have are a bunch of posts from the person's father with no notice of this being taken by reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 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 keep. It certainly looks as if some sort of notability has been asserted since the AfD started Black Kite 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Pizza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Happy's Pizza

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

Poorly written, lacking in sources. The only sources I found were incidental local coverage following the opening of one in Saginaw and one in Flint, absolutely nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might have tagged this as a non-notable company for speedy deletion but the impulse that brings this discussion to a wider audience is a good one. The references consist of one primary source and one blog, it seems; notability is neither asserted nor present. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have 65 locations, and do a lot of good charity work in the Metro Detroit area. I intended to put more work into the article over time but I decided to get some basics down after hearing about some of the charity work they did on the radio. Either way marking this as non-notable sets a pretty unreasonable threshold on notability. PeRshGo (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:IKNOWIT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's that unreasonable notability standard that's the problem. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there is scant press on the subject, a 65-store chain is notable as a low importance subject in Food and Drink's Foodservice task force. I would like to see some better sources that are reliable, and am willing to wait 90 days or so to see what the author can do about establishing notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references. I think that together they amount to sufficient coverage to establish notability. There is apparently a chain with the same or a very similar name in Mexico and the Southwest of the US, avoid confusion. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage is incidental: a murder at one location, a new one opening in Saginaw. That's not enough for notability, but the charitable efforts may be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the newly added "Service of unserved areas" section? DES ^(talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the one major issue with the murders that was brought up at the time was that people said that the only reason they happened is because Happy's chooses to deliver in areas that no other pizzerias will. At the time I read quite a few articles that drew that conclusion but it’s been some time and they are now hard to locate. The original article I put up made reference to that but didn’t draw the conclusion directly so I chose to wait until I could find one that addressed the issue specifically. The original article also references their charity work. PeRshGo (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a news story that references that, although not in connection with the murders, and added a section. DES ^(talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to me that a chain with 65 locations (or "65+" as the article says) has enough regional notability to satisfy WP:CORP. It seems reasonable to assume it could be sourced to newspapers that cover the four states the chain operates in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "keep" votes are irresponsible votes by some possible fans of the pizza served by this restaurant chain. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that notability is not established, fine. Make your case. There is no need to attack the motives of other editors, Please WP:AGF. I for one have never heard of this chain until I saw the Wikipedia article, and live in a state not served by it. What constitutes "significant" coverage is a judgment call on which there is not universal agreement. I feel that when there is a comparatively large number of mentions, individual mentions can be in less depth and still establish notability. DES ^(talk) 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at my wp namespace contributions and my deletion log to see if I am comparatively inexperienced at AfD, a relentless inclusionist, or unwilling to delete articles when there is reason to do so. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's look at the depth of coverage:

[11] is a story in a significant local paper of roughly 250 words, entirely devoted to the chain and one of its branches.
[12] is a story in a regional online news source of 470 words devoted entirely to the chain and one of its branches.
[13] is a story in an industry publication, sourced to a local TV broadcast, and clearly implying the existence of multiple local news stories, now probably not available online. It deals with a crime of which company employees were victims as a result of their employment.
[14] is a 301 word ironic story in a major regional newspaper, with a delivery of the company's at its center.
[15] is a story in a major regional newspaper of 170 words entirely devoted to a charitable action of the company.
[16] is a story in a major regional newspaper which devotes a paragraph to that same charitable action.

Not the most through coverage on record, no. But I think plenty of fine wikipedia articles are routinely retained on no more. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this is not an article about a charitable organization but a pizza chain, suggestions that notability accrues because of its charitable activities are extremely dubious to me; activities of that nature are a form of advertising. Similarly, suggesting that notability accrues because of a murder that took place at a specific location has nothing to do with any definition of notability that makes any sense to me; murders occur, regrettably, at a myriad of locations all over the United States every day and very, very few of those places become notable as a result. Unless you are suggesting, and I don't for a moment think you are, that the quality of the pizza had anything to do with the murders, the location is irrelevant. I have seen very little associated with this organization presented here that has anything to do with its notability as a company; something about it as a company that makes it special or unusual and that is related to its business function, that of purveying pizza. This company's notability has absolutely nothing to do with murder, police smashing in a door, or H1N1 vaccine UNLESS it meets the general notability guideline as a result of those activities; that, to me, would require much, much more than the local coverage I see presented here. I'd suggest that arguments that assert notability connected with the company's business model are the only ones that will be of any use. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response The charitable actions are, at least in part, a form of advertising, but they are advertising that draw notice, and therefore notability. (I say in part because quoted statements from the business founder claim a sincere desire to assist the communities in which he operates, which there is no reason to disbelieve.) Indeed successful advertising is one of the main ways in which businesses become notable. The relevance of the murders is that they occurred because of employment with the company, and at least possibly, because of the company's documented policy of providing delivery service to inner city neighborhoods in which other companies will not provide service. Note that the story says that the killer attempted to get a different pizza parlor to deliver to the abandoned house, but they refused. That indicates a difference in conduct, indeed in business model, about this company which may contribute to notability. I will admit that the incident of the battering ram does not greatly contribute to nobility. Your premise seems to be that notability of the company must be centered, indeed must exclusively consist of, stories about its purely business activities, not stories that discuss it in other connections. I see no reason for such a view: coverage is coverage, notability is notability. For example, the "Crazy Eddy" chain of appliance and electronics stores was notable largely for the unusual tone and content of their advertisements, not for their actual businesses, which were fairly standard. I should also point out that at least one of the cited stories deals with the company's willingness to expand even during the recent economic hard times, in contrast to the contractive policy pursued by many businesses. That is surely about the company's buisness model. Perhaps you didn't notice this because it was in a story whose initial hook was the opening of a new store. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there have obviously been a lot of changes to the little article I half heartedly started. I honestly didn’t expect people to immediacy want to destroy it, nor take time to save it. And I would like to thank the people who did make efforts to improve it as opposed to just throwing it away. All that aside I think it is clear that this article has now become one of the best articles within the North America subheading in the Pizza Chains Template and I find it hard to believe that there would be any resistance in keeping it outside of someone’s personal vendetta. I’m not sure of the motivation behind so zealously opposing it at first but I think the article has now appropriately responded to the original criticism. PeRshGo (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this characterization. If you think that a discussion at WP:AfD about a topic that is conducted entirely in terms of whether or not the article in question meets Wikipedia policies is some sort of "vendetta", then you have completely misunderstood the purpose and function of this discussion and have lost sight of the relevant guideline that governs how we are supposed to view each other's efforts here. Frankly, you should be pleased that so many knowledgeable users have spent their time testing this article against policy statements. If you think this is somehow a question of personal ego, I suggest you re-examine the reasons you're here in the first place. This is not about zealotry, this is about contribution. I'm here volunteering my time to improve Wikipedia by contributing to discussions like this to the best of my knowledge and ability, and I suggest you need to retract some of your characterizations above. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so. Now I do greatly appreciate those who helped to improve the article, and have already expressed my gratitude to at least one contributor I do not have the same respect for those who only wanted to delete it without even attempting improvement. The fact is you and user:TenPoundHammer sift through newly created articles specifically looking for articles to delete. And while I understand this is a necessary service you go about it with such zealotry and distain going as far as to flame my first attempt to defend it my natural response is anything but gratitude. The fact is when you push this hard to see an article deleted people are going to assume you have a vendetta whether it be in reference to the article’s subject or just new articles in general. PeRshGo (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The detroit metro area papers are not as easily accessible as some other metro areas, but every indication tells me that this chain is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Having a tough time thinking of any chain of similar size that wouldn't naturally have sufficient coverage, and i know much smaller chains have been kept, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets.--Milowent (talk) 06:56, 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 to James_Wesley_Rawles. Despite the protestations, the article still has no indepedent third-party sources apart from blogs and interviews with the author. Whilst there is clearly no consensus to delete, our policies suggest that a merge to the author would be best until the book itself can support a policy-compliant article. Black Kite 12:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It[edit]

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

This book has received no significant coverage in secondary sourcing, and the primary editor of the article is identified as "an old friend" of the author of the book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - If the author is notable, then his books are notable. This one (his latest book) peaked at #7 in Amazon.com's overall rankings. Currently, six months after its publication, it is still ranked as follows on Amazon:

No.191 in Books, overall (out of 4 million+ titles.) And as follows in these categories: No. 1 in Books > Computers & Internet > Business & Culture > Future of Computing No. 4 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Survival Skills No. 14 in Books > Reference

The author's blog mentioned that there is a review published in The Futurist magazine: "...the March-April 2010 Books in Brief section of The Futurist magazine, under the headline: Alarmingly Practical Advice For Doomsday. You can look for it on pages 60 and 61 of the March-April issue."

It certainly meets inclusion policy. Trasel (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment It must be noted that Trasel is described as "my old friend"[17] by the author of this book, so consider WP:COI here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree. Amazon ranking (which is arbitrary and dynamic) has nothing to do with notability, and one solitary review isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author is notable and has been cited in mainstream publications (e.g. Popular Mechanics). The book has been the subject of multiple reviews, though most are blogs. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep what is it with Rawles and the WP:IDontKnowIt crowd? The book peaked at #4 on Amazon, was in the top 10 for several WEEKS (which is not that "arbitrary"), has 70K copies in print, and is in multiple reprints. It's been mentioned in major press on TV and in print. Of course it's notable. Is there a WP:ShiftingTheGoalPosts critique? "Just because it's outsold Ann Coulter doesn't make it notable." The last time, it was argued that just because Rawles had been interviewed several hundred times by AP, NYT, CNN, CNN Europe, several dozen major city newspapers, managed a magazine and had 50K weekly hits, he wasn't "notable." Can we get a consistent standard and apply it? (ETA and before anyone "points it out," yes, I know Jim Rawles slightly, and have submitted content to his works, for which I was compensated materially. You'll also find I'm considered "notable" in some circles.)Mzmadmike (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda: I forgot to mention, that in addition to US print edition, there is a British print edition--(With a slightly different cover with "The International Bestseller" across the top) --three audio book editions (multi-CD, Mp3, and online), and the book is available on Kindle. So this in not some little crackpot missive that was cranked out by a vanity press, It is published by Penguin! I've seen it at both Barnes and Nobel and Borders brick and mortar book stores, the BX at Ramstein AFB, and also at Sam's Club, of all places. Its a mainstream book, and still selling very well. A book doesn't stay in Amazon's top 200 for six months if it is non-notable schlock. Trasel (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I must call attention to the AfD canvassing[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] by Trasel here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was neutrally requesting comments on an open AFD. You will note that in every instance, I asked that "..comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated." I DID NOT ask anyone to vote against deletion! Trasel (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trasel canvassed just the editors he knew were sympathetic to his Survivalist movement and they responded here voting 'keep'. One is an associate of the book author and the other has the name 'Surv1v4l1st', a fellow survivalist. Also note that Trasel also canvasses Survivalist blogs[27] for AfD votes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKeep author is notable, this is his most notable work (a major trade publisher). content may be debated: is it too extensive considering its notability, is it well written, well sourced? but the book easily qualifies for an article.unfortunately, reliable sources are not being provided, per nominator. And i wouldnt want to disappoint anyone here who expects liberals to be fascist/communist bullies. hey, i tried to give this article a chance, so others might find references, not engage in mean spirited partisan ad hominem attacks. thanks a lot for assuming im an idiot. you dont even know who i am, but i am capable of thinking about WP articles on subjects im not personally interested in. just because i gave this an initial "keep" doesnt mean im one of "you" (or even one of "them" if i change my vote).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It - The writer is very notable, and his books are too. I am totaly amazed that a best-seller book would be AFD-ed. The liberal, anti-gun bias at WP just plain reeks! Some of the leftist editors have agendas that are sooooo transparent.

No comment on the AfD (I would think that a best seller would have more media coverage, but apparently not) ... however the canvasing at other venues is a matter of concern. people have been banned from the project for doing things like that ... it should be brought to the attention of an admin. Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum... The more I look into this, the more I lean towards a merger with the article on the author. I noticed that most of the statements that go towards establishing the notability of this book (sales figures, claims of being on a best seller list, etc.) were cited to the author's blog. This is improper sourcing. WP:NOTE calls for notability to be established in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have removed these citations as being unreliable for the this sort of information... And I note tht we seem to have this problem at all the articles relating to this author and his works. An improper over-reliance on the Author's own blog. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped contacting people outside of Wikipedia when I was told that it was against policy. But FWIW, its my personal opinion when the SUBJECT of a wiki article who is a living person has an article about them slated for deletion, or an wiki article about a book, movie, or play that someone created becomes slated for deletion, I think they should be told. And for that matter, whenever, a NEW article is created about a living person or their work, I think that we should tell them about it. This should be considered a matter of public trust in the Internet age. Trasel (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ceased this behavior, then there is no need to push it further. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, looking above I see several editors who argue that because the author is notable, then it follows that all his books are notable too. When I look, I see essentially no book reviews about the book which is the topic of this article. They only book review cited in the article is by Weyrich Consulting[28], which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We are looking for significant coverage in secondary sourcing. What I see above is several keep votes by friends and fans of the author, and no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sourcing. And, I notice that the sourcing of claims of 'best seller' come from the author's blog, perhaps there might be some independent sourcing of this claim? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I can't say that I'm a friend of the author, because I don't know him personally. I also can't really say a fan either, as I haven't read any of his books and am only somewhat familiar with his blog, so would say I'm neutral at the moment. So, I personally disagree with the characterization above.

Also, the 'Reception' section cites some coverage in secondary sources. A mainstream periodical and two syndicated radio programs are listed at the present.

The Weyrich Consulting site does look more than a little suspect and appears to be self-published, so agree with you on that point. Also agree that some kind of independent sourcing for the 'best seller' claim is badly needed.

All and all, I would just like to see deletion process slowed down enough to let the article be fleshed out.Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The phrase "The International Bestseller" is printed right at the top of front cover of the later edition published by Penguin - England. (Search on the book title at www.amazon.co.uk/ ) That edition was released after the success of the US edition. The FAZ newspaper in Germany called Rawles's novel "Patriots" am American Bestseller (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub48A3E114E72543C4938ADBB2DCEE2108/Doc~E340491DBEDE94C4E9DF01F07365C1827~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html), but I haven't seen any similar second party sources on his non-fiction book. I'll do some digging, as time permits. Trasel (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Just thought I'd provide the URL to the UK copy that Trasel referenced. [29] Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It makes a lot of sense to merge and combine this book article into the existing article about the author. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you think that merging the articles "makes a lot of sense"? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this author has published this book is well sourced in secondary sourcing, therefore the book description pertains to be included, (merged into) the author's article. The fact that this book has not received "significant coverage in reliable sourcing" (the standard needed for a stand alone article) has not been disputed here. Therefore this article does not meet the WP:Notability threshold for inclusion as a stand alone article, but it does meet the threshold for inclusion as a sub-section of the author's article. The material doesn't need to be deleted, it just needs to be moved. This article page would then be replaced with a redirect to the sub-section of the author's article. Problem solved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The "significant coverage" issue remains an open discussion. In fact, look up a few lines and you will see that very topic addressed (e.g. print and radio reviews, best seller status, etc.). I, for one, would really like to see some more sources, but there appears to be enough for a start. Any way, I am staying with the 'keep' for now as it appears to be a notable book and has been the subject in secondary sources. Merging, while better than a wholesale delete would, imho, just serve to clutter up the author's article. That's all I have to say on the topic and it will of course have to be left to consensus. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact, irregardless of double-talk, there has actually not been shown significant coverage in secondary sourcing. Notice that Surv1v4l1st does not point to specific examples of such coverage. None appears to exist. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Irregardless" eh? ;) As mentioned above, the article, as it is now, references a review in The Futurist magazine as well as radio interviews. There is at least one reference to the text being a "International Bestseller". As to accusations of double-talk, I would invite you to review the policy on civility. Goodness knows this AfD appears to be positively littered with violations of such from both sides of the conversation. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in specifics instead of generality, I apologize for mistaking your generality for double talk. The Futurist so called review, is actually only a brief mention in their "books in brief" feature. This is not a significant book review. The two interviews you mentioned are part of the author's book tour, and book tours are quite mundane occurring for essentially every published book. Book tour interviews also fail to meet the standard here for notability which is instead "significant coverage in secondary sourcing". The "International Bestseller" reference to which you refer to comes from the cover of the book, which is not a secondary source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Definately notable. I can't believe that this was ever nominated in the first place, I see where the nominator has changed his vote to Merge. Mebbe he should have suggestsed that right off the bat, rather than wasting everyone's time. WTF??? And now, people, I see where he frustrated a editor so badly that he went into retirement [30], with all his sheenanigans! 204.9.111.118 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Piling on my dittoes, here. This is a very noteable book by an extreamly noteable writer. James "Comma" Rawles is not as good a writer as Mel Tappan, but he's' way, way up there on the list. The book has a lot of great survival tips, and it is sold all over the place. They even got it at Sams Club. BobbieCharlton (talk) 03:17, 5 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. Black Kite 12:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cain (historian of science)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC; "Joe Cain" and "Joseph Cain" returns 77 and 27 hits on Google Scholar, self-referenced WP:Autobiography. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails at academic notability. JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article seems to be autobiographical, fails WP:Prof, h-index of 5, 9 citations for most-cited work ("Woodger, positivism, and the evolutionary synthesis"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~Google Scholar~~ WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GoogleScholar is well known to provide inadequate data for citations in humanities (WP:PROF explicitly mentions this point). I am not saying that the article should be kept (I have not had time to look at the case carefully), but for a historian one would have to check notability using different tools (googlebooks, worldcat, reviews of his writings, book and journal editorships (if any), awards etc). Such a check is harder to make but I would not necessarily interpret goglescholar data in this case as a significant indication that the subject is not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, Google Scholar definitely can't be the only measure of notability used, and the broader criteria defined in WP:ACADEMIC must be used for editors assessing notability here. MuffledThud (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree also, and I accept that this is an insufficient rationale. Even with the new references, though, he still doesn't meet WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does have two academic awards, at least one of them fairly significant[31]. He is also on editorial boards of three journals and is an editor of a book series. There are additional examples of biographical coverage, such as this one[32], for instance. Looks enough to me for passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. Ray^Talk 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs more independent references or data on Awards/Prizes --Rirunmot 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep Hazen Prize is sourcable, appears to meet WP:PROF criteria #2. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not often we keep an article on an academic based on their educational accomplishments rather than their research accomplishments but the Hazen Prize and the description of his work in the prize announcement are enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 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. JForget 00:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding in the 21st century[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An illegitimate fork of Waterboarding. It is at least 90% overlapped with the main article. Why double our trouble by having two articles. Prior nomination was withdrawn after the creators asked for a month to fix it. It's been about 9 months and there's still no progress, because such progress is not possible. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far to similar to main article, too much overlap. Splitting should be agreed by consensus first in this area due to the controversial nature, and this probably isn't a good topic for a split should one be needed. Verbal chat 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates content from original article - not necessary to keep. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Once there is an agreed structure for the main article we can consider forking if necessary.--LexCorp (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- My contribution to this article is recent, and I was unaware of previous {{afd}}. My contribution to this article is "legitimate" thank you very much, and does not duplicate anything in Waterboarding. I read Talk:Waterboarding in the 21st century. There is zero sign on the talk page that the article was under a deadline, and needed to be fixed, and would be deleted if it weren't fixed. There is zero sign the article was previously nominated for deletion. Neither are there any top-matter tags, indicating that some editors have concerns over the article. While I am not unsympathetic to anyone who thought a promise was made nine months ago, and feel impatient that the promises wasn't kept. However, no offense, I think those who think a promise was made to them had a responsibility to indicate to contributors to the article who didn't participate in the discussion nine months ago that they thought the article had issues. Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the contributor who requested time to work on the article has retired from the project. Since he or she seems to be the only person who was aware some other contributors thought the article was under a deadline I suggest the impatience expressed above should be curbed.

Comment No one questions the legitimacy of your contributions to the article. What we question is the legitimacy of the article itself given that it mostly overlaps "waterboardimg".--LexCorp (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then why shouldn't we simply move most of the material on the recent use of the technique from that article to this one? Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because policy tell us that content fork must have a compelling reason before implementing it. The "waterboarding" article quality is awful. Content forking before an article is mature and stable only serves to split the editorial contributions and thus diminishing the quality of both articles. Why not concentrate in cleaning up the main article and then, after that work is done, if the length is deem to large we can implement the forking with no problems.--LexCorp (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WRT the concern that articles have considerable overlap... this is a legitimate concern... overlap is a maintenance burden, and can lead to divergence where related articles contradict one another. But I strongly suggest that an immediate jump to a nomination for deletion is overly hasty. Four years ago both the articles Military Commission and Military Tribunal overlapped, in an uncontrolled manner, both contained a lot of material related to Guantanamo. The concern that the articles overlapped was a legitimate concern -- but it was resolved following a talk page discussion. A couple of us decided that the military commissions should be renamed to Guantanamo military commissions, and barring a paragraph or two of context all content related to the commissions should go there -- while all general discussion of the general history military tribunals and commissions should go in the military tribunal article. Could a similar agreement resolve the overlap problem here? I don't know. However, I think it is clear that no one has tried suggesting an agreement over how to divide up the overlapping material, so it no longer overlaps. The nomination says: "...there's still no progress, because such progress is not possible..." as if this were an established fact. I don't question that this is a legitimate concern, but I will not agree that it is an intractable problem. And I repeat that I am disappointed that no one seems to have even tried to discuss this concern. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't care whether this is a content fork or a premature attempt at splitting the article, but it's definitely not helpful. Hans Adler 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LexCorp. --John (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Here is a strong argument for continuing to have two separate articles -- the log page for "Waterboarding". Waterboarding is such a controversial topic the waterboarding article has been protected over a dozen times. Claims above that "90% of the articles overlap" is an instance of 90% of statistics being unreliable. Forty percent of the Waterboarding article concerns the use of the technique prior to the 21st Century -- so not an overlap. The 40% pre-21st Century material is not controversial. The waterboarding article has been a frequent target of vandalism, and the site of uncontrolled edit-warring. We should anticipate similar problems in the future. If and when the controversial material triggers further edit-warring, good faith contributors can continue to work on the pre-21st-Century material without interruptions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above -- If the articles remain separate readers can choose to place one article on their watchlist and not the other. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 4 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 speedy delete. G6, category created in article space, now recreated in category name space —SpacemanSpiff 04:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:Prisoners in the Tower of London[edit]

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

speedy delete. Not an article. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:04, 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) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Carter[edit]

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

Seems to be entirely self promotion. Why did you do it (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I see are references to his own website, unedited forums, and standard product reviews of the knives he sells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinfools[edit]

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

Not even a neologism, looks like something made up one day as "twinfool definition" didn't bring up anything on Google [33]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like obvious WP:MADEUP nonsense - Google only finds usernames on Twitter, Flickr etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:15, 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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick whichever you want. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Issue 1. WP:COI Violation article ~~was created by~~ edited by IP editor registered to the organization that the article is about strongly suggesting that this is a promotional article that otherwise wouldn't have been created. Issue 2. The Seminary fails WP:GNG, none of the sources cited nor none that I could find while doing a google test of the name are independent of the organization or it's affiliated body thus failing the "Sources" clause of GNG as well as the "Independent of the subject" clause. Issue 3. Organization's accreditation isn't nationally recognized, they have a staff of 3 people (none of which pass WP:N from what I can gather) Issue 4. Per WP:SOAP Wikipedia isn't for advertising and as such the policy clearly states "Article topics must be third-party verifiable" which this article is not. Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion either. Wikipedia is not a mirror of links or information which this article appears to be (cites own website, copies information from own website, references own websites). Issue 5. Sources on article and those readily available on the web fail WP:RS Nefariousski I withdraw this AFD nomination. The article has undergone major work and I would like to thank all those who have put effort into finding reliable sources that establish notability, adding content and fixing primary sourcing issues. Nefariousski (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Google News archive search shows many references in reliable sources. This states that it has been granted accreditation by the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That group is a small group of churches that was formed for the sole purpose of creating a handful of seminaries. Not saying it's not accredited at all, it's just not accredited by any accreditation body that is recognized outside of that small group. Anyone can form an accreditation body. Would you mind pointing out some sources that are independent of the subject that actually meet WP:RS?? Nefariousski (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see all the sources are self published, questionable, affiliated with the organization, have no editorial oversight etc... all of which make them fail WP:RS Nefariousski (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe some sources that are in English? The only source that is currently listed (aside from the school's own website) looks to be a dutch religious blog that is used to source that the place exists and is located in Michigan. Nefariousski (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though the User who brought this claim for deletion changed their original claim that this wiki article was created by an IP registered to the organization, (now it says that it has been "edited by IP editor registered to the organization") -- they are still incorrect. I am not sure why these claims are being put forward because they are so easy to check, yet these false claims can have the effect of creating doubt already in a person's mind as to the legitimacy of this article. Here is the correct date: There are 4 IP's that have edited this page, three of them only once each, and the other 4 times. The first IP edit was almost a year after the article was created in March of 2007. Running a geolocate on these 4 IP's, not a single one of them has any known connection to the organization in the article, and certainly none of them are "registered to the organization that the article is about" (as the current claim stands) (see IP's locations: [34], [35], [36], and, [37]). Please, if you are going to make an accusation, do your work first and confirm that what you are saying is correct. Thank-you, SAE (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mike Cline (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1st, The nomination for deletion (as it is stated) is invalid. User Nefariousski claims a violation, that the "article was created by IP editor registered to the organization that the article is about" This is not true. A registered user created the sight, "17:16, March 6, 2007 Anton14 (talk | contribs)." 2nd, a quick search finds plenty of independent sources. 3rd, the staff is more than 3 people, but what does that have to do with it? Finally, I question User Nefariousski's motives. I believe this User is re-acting to another debate on Creation according to Genesis, and has come here to now to agitate a user ip that he/she is having a disagreement with in that article. SAE (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the independent sources (meaning they aren't affiliated with the seminary or the organization that created it)? Maybe we executed different searches but I'm pretty sure there's no news coverage or other source that has editorial review or the other criteria in WP:RS that provides valuable information? The article itself says there are three fulltime staff as do the sources. As for my motives, how does an AFD for a seminary have anything to do with a debate on replacing the phrase "creation myth"? I'm hoping you'll assume good faith on this one and discuss the article on its own merits and not jump to some silly conclusion of bad faith since I could just as easily jump to some conclusion that you came here from the same debate to agitate me (keeping in mind that I don't make any such claim nor do I personally feel that is the case). Nefariousski (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Swift and the fact that I find most WP:COI claims as objectionable hip shots that are making very serious allegations usually without an iota of rationale evidence.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:01, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapbooker[edit]

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

Band with no released EPs much less LPs, for which i can find no on-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Only claim to notability seem to be that it includes two former members of the Mark Birtles Project, a band that is itself only slightly notable IMO. (A7 declined for this reason). But WP:MUSIC says "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" and these members do not seem to be independently notable. I see no indication that any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC are fulfilled. DES ^(talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless reliable sources establishing notability are found and presented. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (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 no consensus. no consensus on whether it passes WP:MUSIC JForget 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline (band)[edit]

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

A cover band that has had about 5 gigs and no releases. WP:BAND states that bands that meet at least one of the criterias may be notable; it doesn't say that they automatically are. Nymf _talk/contr. 18:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC there are countless numbers of non-notable cover bands just like this one. JBsupreme (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes 1 of WP:MUS. This group has been mentioned in articles for MTV and also in books like Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History by Bob Gulla and New Wave of American Heavy Metal by Garry Sharpe-Young. RG (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And the group also passes 6 of WP:MUS, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. " Both Vinnie Paul and Dimebag Darrell have been in the band. RG (talk)19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reference are about the band specifically. They are about Vinnie Paul, the drummer of Pantera, and what he is doing now. Nymf _talk/contr. 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete et move le words to le page Dimebag. 68.171.235.139 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this meets multiple criteria for WP:MUSIC. RFerreira (talk) 02:13, 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its minimal coverage, it is considered a "side project."[38]--Pink Bull 02:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As discussed, satisfies several requirements of WP:MUSIC, including having notable members (i.e. it is a supergroup) and getting some coverage in media. WP:MUSIC 6 is there because, if this article were NOT to exist, we would have to put all material pertaining to this band in the articles of all of its members (several members have articles), which is a waste of efforts, allows for conflicting information on wikipedia, and causes all sorts of other problems. Thus it makes sense to have this article. Luminifer (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a supergroup, but a thing that two brothers put together to play at New Year's Eves. As I have already stated, they had 5 gigs - top. It's worth maybe 1 or 2 lines in each of the two biographies. (Which is very unlikely to cause any contradiction.) Also, as one of the brothers are now dead, the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. Nymf _hideliho! 03:35, 5 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. Editors may create a redirect at their discretion. Sandstein 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing move[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef. No sources since July 2007. I just removed a huge example farm and trivia list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, or perhaps redirect to Coup de grâce, the real-life version of the same concept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't played Mortal Kombat, have you? Finishing moves of video gaming are anything but coups de grâce. — Rankiri (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't go beyond WP:DICDEF. Contains WP:OR. — Rankiri (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary as a dicdef. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finish him!!! – at least not in its current form. However, perhaps a possible redirect to Endgame (Chess) or something similar (i.e. used in different contexts beside video gaming)? Any suggestions? –MuZemike 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - redirect to Coup de grace or endgame Satu Suro 09:45, 4 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) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Island[edit]

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

None notable island. Some piece of land given a nick name by campers. Might be more information out there, but since I'm sure this is the wrong made up name there is no way to fix this Ridernyc (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that this is any sort of official name for the island, or even that it has a name. No mention of this anywhere besides this article and mirrors thereof. Unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find that the lake is a privately owned lake called Lake Of The Two Islands, and I can find sources for that but this island no luck. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not seeing any actual evidence of notability here — or, as noted, any evidence that the island has actually been named as such by whatever body would actually determine the official names of islands in Ontario. (I live in Ontario and I don't even know.) It seems like this is just a summer camp's own nickname for an island that doesn't actually have a real one, and that's not particularly notable at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 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) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAULEHAULE Magazine[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. I removed a prod on this article due to my misinterpreting WP:CONTESTED (the prod was initially removed as part of vandalism/page blanking). Original prod rationale by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) was "No evidence of notability, either in article or found on searching."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find evidence that such a magazine exists, much less is notable and verifiable. Official website literally looks slapped together in 5 minutes. Haule Haule just means "slowly" in Hindi, so it gets lots of hits primarily song titles and lyrics. Haule Haule +magazine finds nothing relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per WP:N. Completely unknown in Bangladesh, even in Bangladeshi sources. This is a possible hoax. Also, the word does not mean anything in Bengali. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Probably part of a click pirate’s scheme. --Griseum (talk) 06:35, 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 delete. Black Kite 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King's Lynn in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of random references, almost entirely unsourced. Every entry amounts only to "King's Lynn was name dropped here." and nothing else. Not even worth the merge. Last AFD suggested everything from merge, redirect, keep or delete without anyone agreeing on anything after two weeks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TRIVIA, or perhaps a very selective merge into the main article. I suspect all but the tiniest communities could come up with similar lists of random 'mentioned here and there' type stuff. No reason for a seperate article that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. There are some "X in popular culture" articles that are worth keeping. This isn't one of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge any material to parent article. Some references will be notable, but not as a coherent subject. Sourcing will definitely help. The last AfD seemed to have a consensus for merge more than anything else. I hadn't followed what happened afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks notability and the content consists of nothing but trivial details. (this is my same opinion as before since the article hasn't become less of a trivia farm nor has the subject gained any notability). Them From Space 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't require its own article - the content could be included in the main King's Lynn article as a 'In popular culture' section maybe. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Starblind and DitzyNizzy. I am well known as an advocate of notable Pop-culture articles, but this is not one of them. The only problem is if King's Lynn becomes too long, so I would edit it down before merger and eventual deletion. A merger would make the parent article stronger, too. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and this. Deor (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was surprised that this was still unresolved. Ten Pound Hammer hit the nail on the head. --Bejnar (talk) 04:55, 6 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) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Lucas[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC ttonyb (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Perhaps on the cusp of notability, but what 'net presence this person has (in English and Portuguese) seems like self-promotion. --Griseum (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chanticleer Community Theater[edit]

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

By all appearances, this is another run-of-the-mill community theater, the sort of which exists in just about every medium sized community in the nation. I don't see anything notable or significant about it. Basically a promo piece. R. fiend (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Nothing in the article suggests this is in some way more notable than all the other community theater groups, of which every little town has at least one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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. No one is actually arguing for deletion here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Khan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Article was proposed for deletion on 13 February by User:Newt Winkler with the concern, "BLP, no sources, non-notable". This was contested by User:Standard Operating Procedure with the edit summary, "undo edit by sock of banned user". Prod was again added by User:Gene Omission on 25 February with the concern, "unsourced BLP, no references, previous PROD deleted by banned user".

Both Newt Winkler and Standard Operating Procedure are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets.

I am neutral to deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have now rewritten the article with references. She is a popular TV actress. About 90 gnews hits in a couple of years. (use the string Sara Khan + Bidaai searching)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with kudos to Sodabottle. The rewrite and sourcing show notability, with her career meeting WP:ENT, coverage in RS meeting WP:GNG, and the Parivaar Award all showing notability... and notability in India is just fine for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another example of why blind nomination for deletion without looking for sources makes no sense whatever. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gene Omission has now been blocked, too. This appears to have been an ad hominem battle that had little to do with the quality of the article. Glad I removed the PROD. I join M.Q. Schmidt in thanking Sodabottle for improving it. Cnilep (talk) 17:22, 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 to List of billionaires. The List of billionaires article has copyright issues as Forbes own the research and limit reprint rights to their material. However, the title is an acceptable one, and the material contained in List of non-Forbes billionaires can be merged into List of billionaires as consensus suggests. SilkTork *^YES! 15:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Forbes billionaires[edit]

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

We already have List of billionaires; this odd sub-category is not encyclopedic and unhelpful. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge into List of billionaires - Is some WP guideline against such an article? The proposer's remarks do not seem too compelling. The List of billionaires article explicitely gives the list of billionaires as reported by Forbes, so this is not a sub-category of that article: it is as if we had (have we?) an article about nations not in the United Nations Organization, in addition to a list of those belonging to UNO. (Actually, we have at least an article on observer nations.) Goochelaar (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is some WP guideline against such an article?" - Not precisely that I know of, other than WP:GNG. There's discussion of similar problems on WP:OVERCAT, although this is not a wp:category, so I did not invoke it above. Why not a List of redheaded billionaires with names shorter than 5 letters? It's a pretty arbitrary sub-categorization. What is special about not being on Forbes? Is there some implied controversy here that I am missing? Who cares about this? Is there discussion in reliable sources about this idea of billionaires not in Forbes? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The List of billionaires article explicitely gives the list of billionaires as reported by Forbes" - I noticed that, and that is obviously kind of a ridiculous constraint on an article entitled List of billionaires. I wonder if this precipitated the non-forbes list? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wrt. UN nations: Being in the UN is _way_ more interesting/significant/notable than being in Forbes magazine, so this analogy isn't getting of the ground. In any case, we have List_of_sovereign_states and List of United Nations member states; I think nonmembers are noted in the latter. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimately, yeah, verifiable data here should be merged into List of billionaires. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary fork of dubious veracity. According the list, Vladimir Putin has more wealth than Warren Buffett. The first six sources are fake or not WP:RS. — Rankiri (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of billionaires There is nothing inherently wrong with this articles but I think the topics would be better served as a "notable absences" to the Forbes list of billionaires rather than an articles on its own. -- RA (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with ErikHaugen. Not noteable. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and because it is a content fork. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of billionaires -- Agree with Rannpháirtí anaithnid. There is nothing inherently wrong with this articles but I think the topics would be better served as a "notable absences" to the Forbes list of billionaires rather than an articles on its own.--Bugnot (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that the grounds cited for the nomination are incorrect. The whole premise of List of billionaires is that it is the Forbes magazine list of billionaires ("This list of billionaires is based on the annual ranking of the world's wealthiest people compiled and published by Forbes magazine on March 11, 2009"). The basis for the nomination-- "We already have List of billionaires" or that this list is somehow a "sub-category" or that article-- indicates to me that the nominator hasn't looked at the other article. Unless one assumes that there are no other sources in the world besides Forbes magazine that may list billionaires, then this list can hardly be called "not encyclopedic and unhelpful". Although the reasons advanced for a delete are easily rejected, the discussion does raise an interesting point -- neither the title of "List of billionaires", nor the title of any of the redirects to it, mentions Forbes magazine, even though Forbes is the source. Should we have a section of that article about the "non-Forbes billionaires" referred to in other sources? Or should we move the title of that article to something with the word "Forbes" in it? I suspect that the proprietors of the List of billionaires don't want this article merged into theirs, but until that issue is addressed, this list of "non-Forbes billionaires" should continue to exist. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with most of the remarks by Mandsford, I am puzzled about what an article's "proprietor" means. Goochelaar (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, please see what I wrote above about list of billionaires being forbes-only. It is very strange to give a source so much prominence that the page is defined as only the things verified by that one source. The correct solution to this problem is not to make a non-forbes list. "indicates to me that the nominator hasn't looked at the other article" - let's be nice. Or at least read everything I wrote first, please. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:14, 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) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Neurosurgical Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage (3 GNews hits, all minor and none on the core business), is possibly in violation of WP:COI (authored by same name as article), no references to establish notability. GregJackP (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Prod. (GregJackP (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. This appears to be a typical medical practice without notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry at this point in time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the COI/NPOV concerns were able to be addressed, what was left was an article with no clear assertion of notability. Accordingly, the article about this small medical practice (i.e., company) should be deleted for lack of notability, either specific or general. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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 delete. The "keep" comments mostly do not address the WP:V / WP:NOR sourcing problem. Sandstein 06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (2010s subculture)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by IllaZilla (talk · contribs) with the rationale "subject is a neologism for which insufficient reliable sources exist to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The acceptability of "scene" as an article topic has been discussed before here and here, and previous "Scene subculture" articles were deleted here and here. The only sources previously cited in this article were thoroughly unreliable." Article history since nomination as well as talk page comments indicate that deletion is not uncontroversial, so I'm re-listing here.

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i added reliable sources. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (begrudgingly) At first glance, this seemed like a no-brainer neologism. But with the Sidney Morning Herald article (and a few others that seem to be behind pay barriers), and from many other mentions as a real subculture, I will admit this deserves an entry on WP. However, a lot of work needs to be done to this article in order to bring it up to standards. Angryapathy (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2 sources added are still insufficient and of questionable reliability. The Sydney Morning Herald article was already discussed in the previous AfD and found to be a very poor source, woefully insufficient to support an encyclopedic article on the topic (one glance at the source shows why...). The second source (VideoJug) appears to be some kind of "how to" blog...a glance at the site's home page indicates to me that it likely doesn't pass WP:RS. AbbaIdea2010's previous "sources" for the article were blogs and last.fm user profiles; also clearly unreliable, and he claimed they were "the best I could find." WP:V requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I've seen no sources in this or any of the past incarnations of "scene" articles that approach this threshold. I would be satisfied with 2 or 3 sources giving substantial coverage to the topic of "scene" in reliable mainstream press (ie. nationally distributed music or style magazines), but none seem to exist at this time. Given the poor quality of the 1 or 2 tenuous sources that have been found, I'm still unconvinced that this is anything more than a neologism, and I would not expect an article on it to be able to reach even a C-level of quality given the lack of available sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: The "article history and talk page comments since prodding" consisted of AbbaIkea2010 reverting my removal of the unreliable blog sources, and making this talk page comment. How these amount to "deletion is not uncontroversial" is a bit beyond me, as the author's keep rationale is "ever heard the saying 'scene kids wet the bed'?" I think that speaks for itself about this article's merits, really. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't mean to insult scene, but the fact there is such a saying proves i didn't make the whole thing up. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether you made "scene" up, it's whether it is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Random internet insults towards "scene kids" don't demonstrate that this is a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I know for a fact it's notable, it's just unfortunately there is not a lot of things professionally written about it. do a google search and a TON of things come up, but for some reason very little that would be considered encyclopedic. however the term has been used since at least 2006. so it is hardly a neologism. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the central issue: "It's notable, I just know it is" is not a sufficient reason to have an encyclopedia article on it. Notability is shown through substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. If no such coverage exists, then the topic simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Look, I get it: you like "scene", you've read about it on the internet, whatever... that doesn't mean it's a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. If you're scraping the bottom of the internet blogosphere barrel to find even the most tenuous source around which to base the article, then I'm sorry but it's just not notable. "Scene" is plainly a neologism: a term recently coined, not appearing in dictionaries, but used widely or within certain communities (2006 is still pretty recent, BtW). Unfortunately neologisms are simply not good topics for encyclopedia articles, because reliable sources rarely devote any significant coverage to them, and for that reason we generally do not keep articles about them. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:PROD the proposed deletion process is for articles where an article is "uncontestably deletable" (original emphasis). The article creator is quite opposed to the deletion. Whether his/her reasoning behind that is in good faith or within policy is irrelevant; the mere fact that someone has objected to the deletion means this article fails the primary criteria for deletion via prod. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a moot point since we're here at AfD now, but I accept your explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the fact that 1990-2009 in fashion has a picture of "scene kids" in its gallery? AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:OTHERCRAP — the 1990-2009 in fashion article is rather poorly referenced anyway (I note references to blogs, retailers, urbandictionary, and many others sources of the random "i findz it on the internetz" variety) and cites no sources in reference to "scene" fashion or culture. A picture of 3 random kids standing on an airstrip does not support the claim that this is an actual subculture, or that sufficient sources about it exist around which to write an encyclopedia article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing sources are in one case not reliable and in the other case do not seem to support contention that it is a significant sub-culture (no explanation of geographical extent or popularity). Incidentally, the article was written in 2008, so is problematic as sole evidence for a 2010s sub-culture. I continue searches for more WP:RS but none found yet.--SabreBD (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although rename as it was also present in the 2000s. This has alos been around as scene kid Scene (community) Scene (youth subculture) Scene (style) Scene fashion Scene (type of people). I will copy over my references from User:Graeme Bartlett/sandbox3. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the references you added and weeded out most as either unuseful, passing mentions, mirrors of the already-used Sydney Morning Herald ref, etc. We are left with this which lumps "scene kids" in with goths, "emos", "moshers", etc. and derives its definition of "scene kid" from urbandictionary.com, which is a thoroughly unreliable wiki. I don't see anything here that would serve to substantially improve this article or raise it above the status of neologism. I think the fact that various forms of "scene", "scene kid", and "scene subculture" articles have been previously deleted over a half dozen times speaks volumes: it doesn't appear that any more reliable sources have appeared since any of those deletions took place. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Graeme Bartlett's comment, I've had a look through past AfDs. Seems we've been deleting variants of "scene subculture/music/fashion" articles every few months for over 4 years:
- Scene kid – speedied 8 times since Dec. '05
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene points – Aug. 2006
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (subculture) – Nov. 2006
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (subculture) (second nomination) – Nov. 2006
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene kids – Jan. 2007
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenes (sociology) – Mar. 2007
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion trends) – Feb. 2008
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (style) – Mar. 2008 (previously speedied Dec. 2007)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion) – May 2008
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene fashion – Jul. 2008 (re-deleted by PROD Feb. 2009)
- Scene (type of people) – deleted following deletion of Scene (subculture) in Jul. 2008
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (youth subculture) – Oct. 2008
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion) (2nd nomination) – Nov. 2008
- Scene (community) – G4'd in Dec. 2008, G1'd in Jan. 2009
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene music – Dec. 2009
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene queen – Feb. 2010

As I stated above, I don't see anything in the current Scene (2010s subculture) article that is an improvement over anything we've deleted before, and the fact that we've deleted articles on the neologism "scene" at least 15 times already speaks volumes to me. Editors who create these articles and insist on keeping them have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for sources, usually turning up only passing mentions, Tiger Beat-type "scene kid" profiles, blogs, and messageboard forums; none or very few of which would pass WP:RS. It seems to me that "scene", whether a neologism or a trend, is simply not notable enough for Wikipdia, as evidenced by the lack of decent sources found over these many AfDs. Given the high number of recrations over the years, it may be time to start applying some salt to some of these variant titles. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all the more reason to keep the article and to create redirects so that there will not be a proliferation of things that need to be merged. The fact that it has been created so many times indicates that this is not just an unknown neologism. One of those references that IllaZilla deleted was a book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't list it as a reference, you listed it as an external link. If it's a link, then it needs a url. If there's no url for it, then you need to actually use it to cite something in the text. Otherwise we have no way of knowing that it covers "scene" in any detail at all. And my opinion is clearly contrary to yours: we don't just decide to keep an article because it's something that keeps getting recreated. I could create and re-create articles on neologisms and non-notable persons ad nauseum if I wanted to...repetition doesn't equal notability or verifiability. Either there exists substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability and to verify information about the topic, or there doesn't. In all the iterations of "scene" articles above there clearly weren't, and this case appears to be no different. Sources presented have all been of the bottom-of-the-barrel, random-internet, passing-mention, blog/forum variety. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doomed to OR synthesis. Sourcing for this article will always be a problem. Ridernyc (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The fact that it has been created so many times indicates that this is not just an unknown neologism." Why not use the time you've wasted putting this up and processing the entry for deletion for finding reliable sources. They're are many. Try NME/Kerrang/Metro as at least a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.23.45 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got the sources, why don't you present them? A number of editors have searched for sources that meet our reliability standards and come up with very little. My searches of NME and Kerrang turn up...surprise: nothing useful. It does little good to say "sources exist"; you've got to actually show them. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many good arguments made above by IllaZilla. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IllaZilla. It's not necessarily the case that sources will always be a problem, if this is in fact a phenomenon that is at all wide-spread. But at the moment the sources just aren't there, and almost everything in the article is original research. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and RENAME. it is a real thing that someone could plausibly look up and expect an article, but it's older than 2010. badmachine (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It matters little if it is "a real thing that someone could plausibly look up". There are insufficient reliable sources available to verify contents of an encyclopedia article about it. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles creator just tried to close this as no consensus. I have reverted his changes. Ridernyc (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He also went ahead and created Scene queen, Scene kids, Scene points, and Scene fashion as redirects to Scene (2010s subculture). Note that articles at all of those titles have been previously deleted. Obviously if this article is deleted then these redirects should be too, and IMO all except "scene fashion" should be deleted either way as they are ridiculous and implausible search terms. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the article survives I think that Scene queen, Scene kid would be OK as redirects, but not the plurals. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 5 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 Speedy keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs)

Nancy Taira[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER; only bit parts in three notable shows, prod contested without comment VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is referenced, and no, they they were not only bit parts in three notable shows. For example, her roles in Corazones al límite and El Pantera were as one of the supporting characters. Also, just because the article mentions three shows, it does not mean that is all she's done. Lancini87 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never said it wasn't referenced as that has no relevance as to whether she's notable or not. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the status of her roles as I haven't seen any of them, but WP:ENTERTAINER calls for "significant roles", which I still believe she hasn't had. I am aware that she has done more work than just those roles, but I was trying to focus on what I understood to be her biggest roles, and thus most likely to qualify her for notability. Obviously we disagree, but hopefully you can understand my reasoning. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The roles do seem more than "bit parts" and she has had some significant independent source coverage from Esmas.com. [39]--Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability in Spanish is just fine for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:28, 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.

Sue May[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though people agree that the article needs improvement. Sandstein 06:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City car[edit]

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

Incomplete AfD process. No reason given by the nominator, User:Guyonthesubway. I am completing the AfD process for this user and am officially neutral, but I would suggest that an "unreferenced" tag be added to the article before deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Apparently the macro didn't complete correctly.

Anyhow, this article represent an undocumented neologism. The term 'City Car' is unreferenced and doesnt exist. Unless some sources can be provided that anyone refers to this class of vehicle as a 'City Car' the article should be removed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose — agree entirely that an unreferenced tag should be added, and the article improved with references. But the article is clearly about a "real thing", i.e. a category which is mentioned all over the motoring media, and if deleted would be an unhelpful omission since there are articles about many other car classification categories. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So find some of these mentions in the motoring media. Especially if they define what it means. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the article is about a "real thing" does not justify keeping it: I am quite surprised to see that anyone who has been editing Wikipedia for over two years can fail to realise that. On the other hand if the category is "mentioned all over the motoring media" then it should be easy to find examples from reliable sources as references. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please refrain from getting personal... As regards a "real thing", the point there is that this phrase is not a neologism, but rather a classification which is used to signify cars of a certain size/capability and for a certain market. I am highly confident sources can easily be linked and it's simply a matter of nobody having spent the time on it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About that, can anyone at least verify the article's first sentence ("A city car (or urban car) is an European classification for automobiles equal to or smaller than superminis")? I'm having trouble finding any sources for this statement. — Rankiri (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason to delete this, as it covers the well established A-segment below North American subcompacts and European superminis. However, it does need references. --Vossanova ^o< 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find some source that defines the 'A-segment' and refers to it as a 'City Car'. Otherwise the article should be removed as a neologism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no need to delete it we can just rename it if thats big problem to you. --Typ932 ^T·C 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any source that even suggest that the A-segment exists... except a couple of casual mentions..... Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here is one possible reference [40] Polargeo (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V - seems to be a term observed in community of interest with no attribution as claims and no reliable secondary sources. Article also cross references other articles that have the same problem and the references supplied are contradictory (This article states "A city car (or urban car) is an European classification" and Car classification shows the Euro NCAP as "Supermini". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While city cars exist, the article is unreferenced and make it seem as there really is such a standardized category. From what I understand that's not true, and the definition of a city car has changed over the years, recently it means a small car which has limited engine power or is electric propulsed and is green. The concept of what is a city car is what a bicycle is in China. -RobertMel (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to Deletion; Just because sources for classification for this class of car can't be found, doesn't mean this article should be deleted (Regushee (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually... according to wikipedia's standards, it does. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But due to the fact you don't have consensus, so far, it isn't going to happen. (Regushee (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

How about finding any WP:RS sources that discuss the subject directly and in a non-trivial manner? — Rankiri (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What may happen, maybe by me, is someone taking a WP:BRD axe to the article and knocking it back to a stub. Its totally unreferenced and seems to be pure WP:OR. It could then be expanded from there, if possible. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is one of car classifications main group --Typ932 ^T·C 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? — Rankiri (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google?? --Typ932 ^T·C 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get sarcastic. Didn't you see people asking questions about the accuracy of that statement? I spent half an hour trying to find WP:RS sources for the subject without any luck. As a European car enthusiast, perhaps you could provide us with some further information about it? — Rankiri (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent five minutes and got these. You must be rubbish at searching: NY Times article in 2005 (defines it, suggests first city car, notes that it is a well known concept in Europe) - Auto Express award category - Top Gear award category - BusinessCar award category - 10 Best City Cars feature in The Independent - 5 Best City Cars feature on Yahoo - Fiat says that the 1959 Fiat 600 was "our first true city car" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.37.186.98 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) — 174.37.186.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Talk about rubbish. THe NYT article initially puts the term in quotation marks and has no clear definition of the subject. Auto Express uses its own definition: "Our definition of a top-class urban runabout is a model that fits in perfectly with a daily commute, is designed to slot into the tightest city spots and doesn’t make too many demands on your budget." TopGear call Toyota Prius the City Car of the Year. I'm not a car expert, but I'm pretty sure that Toyota Prius is a mid-size sedan that doesn't exactly fit any of the given definitions. As for BusinessCar, Independent, Yahoo and Fiat, none of these sources discuss the subject in any significant detail. — Rankiri (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres not clear definitions for supercars, luxury cars, family cars, Pony cars, grand tourers, sports cars, either. Doesn't mean the terms dont exist, or that we should pretend they dont exist by deleting the articles about them. The NYT and Fiat links show that, at 50+ years old, "city car" isnt a neologism. The other sources dont discuss them in any particular detail because its such a common term that they dont have to. The OP claimed it was an undocumented neologism and doesnt exist. I showed otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.37.186.98 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussed claim, however, is that it is a European classification for automobiles equal to or smaller than superminis. The problem with the article is that it meticulously describes the comparative proportions, sizes, history and various crossovers of "standard city cars" without citing any sources. If most of its information is WP:OR and the term itself doesn't have a clear definition, it really doesn't make any sense to keep an article that claims that it does. If "city car" is not an actual classification in European auto circles, the article can either be turned into a redirect or be trimmed of all unverifiable material and made into a stub according to Fountains of Bryn Mawr's earlier suggestion. — Rankiri (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term has been around for decades, & is no less "loose" than "pony car", "muscle car". or "supercar", which all seem to vary depending on who's talking. It's a valid topic, even if ill-defined. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as it is 'ill-defined' it is not wikipedias place to define it. Thats why its a neologism. Thats why it should be deleted or turned into a redirect to somewhere else. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this ideology we should delete almost whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_classifications category --Typ932 ^T·C 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ideology" happens to be WP:V, and yeah a category such as category Car_classifications which only has one (mostly ignored) reliable reference and a so-so reference, nither of which mention "City Car" BTW, has big problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dont even seem to understand whats the difference between category or article... --Typ932 ^T·C 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is "strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception". WP:CAT "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" ......any questions? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you dont understand that I was speaking the category not the article , clear? --Typ932 ^T·C 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"clear" is achieved through putting forward suggestions based on reliable sources, staying on the subject per WP:TALK, and NOT making negative comments about other editors per WP:CIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you started the negative comments btw, dont try to be too clever... --Typ932 ^T·C 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP174.37.186.98, Type932, et al. There are plenty of Reliable sources, and while not every source will define the term, they all discuss it. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great! Go find us some. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One minute search http://fwd.five.tv/fifth-gear/best-in-class/top-3-city-cars --Typ932 ^T·C 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep searching "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: firstly, as you've just said we're looking for sources about the term; we're not looking specifically for a dictionary definition of the term. Or are we/you? And a second point: let's not jump to any conclusions just because Google doesn't come up with anything. Personally I don't have time to go trawling through magazines and books just now, but as others have alluded to, the term definitely comes up in tables and lists of sizes and classes in magazines (which aren't freely online because they're commercial products of course), particularly I remember seeing it in an article which discussed the interesting phenomenon of size-creep, where model ranges get bigger over time for mostly marketing/competition reasons (e.g. the original Ford Cortina being more like the size of a late Ford Escort.) I'll look it up at some point... and yes, these articles are reliable secondary sources, because the motoring press pretty much defines these segments. (The manufacturers doing so wouldn't be a secondary source anyway, right?) So in the meantime let's not get carried away with deletion, and go with the trimming of the article idea. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, We are looking for a definition, if it does not have a reliably sourced definition, then it is not encyclopedic. Even with a definition this term may only belong in the Wiktionary i.e. there is nothing more you can reliably say about the term than "it is used and seems to mean this". Google can find allot and miss allot, but when Google searches come up with zero reliable sources that says something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No matter how horrible I find the article -despite having written a considerable part of it-, it should be kept because the term exists. EuroNCAP doen't distinguish between A-segment (city cars) and B-segment (supermini) cars, but that doesn't mean European press and manufacturers ignore the difference. Delete the unreferenced content if you like, but the concept is as real as supercar or leisure activity vehicle. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. so what exactly -is- the concept? There's no distinquishing features between a supermini and a 'city car'. The Smart is considered a supermini.... its very amorphous and we shouldn't go around defining tersm. If anything this should be a redirect to a compact car article and a paragraph there. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the others. This should've been marked as unreferenced FIRST and then Afd. Go thru the process folks.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you click the Google news search, and Google book search at the top of the AFD, you can find plenty of times a vehicle was referred to as a city car. What European countries specifically refer to it as this? Is it just the UK? If its called this in any non-English speaking nations, then you'd have to search for it in there to find any references. Dream Focus 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In German is called Stadtauto. Here is one of many news articles calling it that, as a type of car. [41] "The Smart city car will debut in the U.S. with an electric motor." Plenty of stuff to find out there if anyone is sincerely not convinced this is a type of car classification. Dream Focus 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be a source. Piero Casucci, in Northey (ed) World of Automobiles (1974, Vol 4, pp.383-6) describes city cars & claims for a distinction from the microcars of postwar Europe. It's not the best source, but... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start again The problem with this article and with all the other articles about car classification is that we're dealing with marketing terms as precise and specific as big and little. City Car isn't a neologism, but it isn't a precise quantitative measure either, its just a common noun. City car was originally used as a term to describe any car used in the city, the size of the car wasn't an issue. By the 1960's magazines and newspapers used it to refer to small cars like the Mini or this type of thing [42]. However, as this 1970 ad for a 1971 Buick Centurion shows [43] there was no agreed definition. It's only in the last 10-15 years that magazines and individual manfacturers have needed to move beyond compact, midsize and large as comparative standards for size, but it's all guesstimates. In my view the current article is not worth salvaging because it refers to other things like A-segment as if this also had some agreed, universally understood standard. It doesn't, it's just smaller than B-segment. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this article defines a term with no backup. Most of the so-called references that people have cited in this discussion refer to cars that NCAP referes to as supermini's with no reference to a category called 'city car'. If you'd care to distinguish between cars that can be used in the city and those that can't.... well lets not even go there. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that since the last time I visited the NCAP site that as of 2009, they now only use four specific car classification terms: passenger car, MPV, off-roader, roadster and pickup. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more examples of the term's accepted use in at reliable secondary sources:

Fifth Gear television programme reviews the city car segment
Auto Express magazine chooses the best city car
Autocar magazine presents Vauxhall's "city car"
CAR magazine presents Aston Martin's "city car"

81.178.67.229 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with citing examples of "usage" is that it is not an acceptable method to verify a topic since it is creating an article by analysis, synthesis and original research (i.e. I saw these examples of the word being used and I therefore determine this is the definition). What is needed is a published source defining the concept, not using the word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its easier to try find source for segments than this city car term, here is some urls using segments name, only need to find better source for segment classification and then rename this page http://www.jato.com/PressReleases/Small%20car%20segment%20dominates%20europe%27s%20biggest%20markets%2016.11.2007.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1109&format=HTML&aged=&language=null&guiLanguage=en --Typ932 ^T·C 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find sources for both, the question is do the terms mean anything specific? Mighty Antar (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VERY Strong Keep. It may not be well sourced in it's current version, but my review of news sources shows that the term is in use in the media. Here, the London Times says (in 2009) that Aston Martin is creating a city car. Here the term is used by asiaone.com to describe a Mitsubishi electric car. And here the Sydney Morning Herald says in 2008 that Toyota is unveiling one. Here the Independent uses (AND DEFINES) the term way back in 1998. That's worldwide use of the term for more than one decade. Not a neologism, a real term is widespread use. 'Nuff said. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Although the article is a complete mess, I'll agree that there is a chance that it can be improved. MSN Encarta has a dictionary definition of the term ("U.K. small economical car: a small economical car suitable for driving in a congested city environment" [44]) and the mentioned NYT article ([45]) isn't all that bad... I guess it's a start. — Rankiri (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral — the only thing I can account for being part of North-American market is that here both European city cars and superminis are refered to as subcompact cars. Whether you'd like to keep the article as is, or merge it into another one, I guess as long as that referral is kept, I won't mind. Shadiac (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator has no position and afd goes on yet for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (3rd nomination) afd is closed when nominator has no positions. i just want to point that hypocracy out. thank you and have nice day. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may possibly be inconsistency, but I don't see any evidence of hypocrisy. In fact I don't even see it as inconsistency: in both of those cases nobody put forward any serious reason for deletion. This case is quite different. The person trying to nominate it made a mistake, and another editor helped him/her out, and then the original nominator did argue for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Delete. references do not use term as defined here. Misterdiscreet (talk)

Comment — If this article were deleted, what would the comparable article about the same topic (i.e., very small automobiles targeted for urban drivers) be named? Does subcompact car cover the topic already or not? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I wish it did but I really don't think it does, for two reasons: firstly it's a U.S. English term (Canadian too perhaps) and I expect it'd be unclear (to the point of being meaningless) to U.K. (and Australian, and so on) readers; sure, there could be redirects and carefully worded links from other articles, but it's just a not a word in use. Secondly, it's not actually precise enough to match the smaller segments (perhaps because traditionally the U.S. wasn't so interested in smaller segments?) But there is a difference between superminis and, er, minis. Pretty obviously. Hence the term super-mini – obviously, "bigger/better than an [original] Mini" – and so the smaller-than-a-supermini, a.k.a. city car segment needs to be distinguished from superminis in a way that subcompact doesn't clarify. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:12, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babur habib[edit]

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

"A new stealth start-up" in silicon valley. One source given. The source startup itself has a prod on it (appropriately). Not notable Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7-bio of a person with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No serious claim of significance in the article. In fact I don't know why it wasn't nominated for speedy deletion immediately instead of being brought here. Only one source is cited. Not only does that source not confirm notability, it virtually denies notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A non-notable biography with one reference. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:12, 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) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness magazine[edit]

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

Relatively new magazine with no indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no signs of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. When looking for sources, be sure not to mistake it with Health Consciousness Magazine, Sage of Consciousness Magazine, Light of Consciousness Magazine, Super Consciousness Magazine, Anthropology Of Consciousness Magazine, Christ Consciousness Magazine, Collective Consciousness Magazine, Awaken Consciousness Magazine or Journal of Awakening Consciousness. — Rankiri (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly promotional in tone as well: The editorial is community orientated, embracing ethnicity and diversity, in hopes of bringing different cultures together in peace and friendship. Consciousness is also a diverse and testimonial publication that address many social issues. Besides, I prefer Unconsciousness Magazine, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been through the references present as I post. The motivational whatsit one is a story by a founder of the mag. PRLog is a press release (and says so). Anthro21 is a blog. A classic how-not-to, especially as the reference point for Nos 1 and 3 seems to have evaporated leaving them hanging. As for the celebrities (I must say I'd not heard of three of them before - and am unlikely to remember them - while the fourth was a name only), notability doesn't cascade down. They've been 'highlighted'. OK. So? Like Smerdis, I dislike 'embracing' when it occurs in articles, but give them credit for not having 'solutions'. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. I had PRODded this as a non-notable magazine lacking significant coverage elsewhere, and remain of that view. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and promotional in nature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 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 speedy delete (A7). –MuZemike 00:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Buswell[edit]

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

The subject of the article is clearly non-notable. A quick glance through the sources show that only one refer to him at all, on which he is simply named as a teacher. It is my belief that the article utterly fails notability guidelines, as a teacher is not famous enough to be covered. Additionally, as he is a teacher, it is likely that the creation of the article is a joke from a student. Either way, it is difficult to see why the article should be included, it is both unnecessary and inaccurate Insdel (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There is no claim to notability made for the subject in this article. The references to a baronetcy are irrelevant to this article; the baronetcy went extinct (for lack of male-line descendants) over 300 years ago, and so there is no clear connection between the baronetcy and this subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 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) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris Digital[edit]

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

Article on an apparently non-notable company, created by an account purporting to belong to that company. Psychonaut (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete This organisation no longer exists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarisdigital (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: a small web development and post production company... who provide full service web hosting... specialise in producing accessible web sites, using current best practices... Oonh, it's "full service" and "best practices", is it? Verra nice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 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 redirect to Outta Here (album). JForget 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Dealer (song)[edit]

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

Does anything say "non-notable" better than "rumored third single"? -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. We aren't here to predict the future. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'rumored third single' aren't my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrixl (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not your words, but the current article does indeed say "rumored third single". ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its album, Outta Here, as there is no independent notability for this song. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no confirmation. only one source which doesn't even mention this song. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outta Here (album). Perhaps the song will become notable at some point, but it fails WP:NSONGS at this time as I can find no significant coverage for it. Gongshow ^Talk 20:06, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet music notability or general notability guidelines. The sources given do not appear to be reliable sources. A search of google news archive brings up nothing. Recently closed as no consensus but had very little participation. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Only claims of notability are by association with other very marginal bands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marginal. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project StreetLight[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews [46]. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not cite any references or sources. :Majen27 · talk 11:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Apparently just got off the ground and has no media attention yet, at least none that I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Harvery[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is no reliable sources, which are needed for basic notability. :Majen27 · talk 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being a Call of Duty fan. SGGH ^ping! 10:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete bio of a person with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way he passes WP:ATH or any notability guideline.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per G10 as an attack article. RGTraynor 05:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it's certainly not an attack article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You don't fancy that an article with a misspelled name, a fake photo and much of the text being "Game of choice is Call of Duty, while online with young immature children. His ultimate goal in life is to reach a death/kill ratio of 0.65" is an attack article? RGTraynor 03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:N. To be fair RGTraynor, while I agree with you, it could be correct that the subject could be someone who very well may have the loftiest goal in life to excel on Call of Duty. Some people do play cards with half a deck. Just sayin'. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Terrific, and when that's been heavily and reliably sourced, an issue can be made of it. WP:BLP still applies, and it's mandated to wipe clear unsourced negative comments on sight. RGTraynor 12:53, 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) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle (Gmail Labs feature)[edit]

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

Gmail google lab features are not individually notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is no reliable sources, which are needed for basic notability. :Majen27 · talk 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sources, but the feature is removed anyways, and one line of info hardly means anything. It's not something that people will even notice as the feature is gone, and it wasn't famous/martyred. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources that don't discuss the feature in the context of its removal. Even if the code is recycled or resurrected as something different down the line (as can happen with discarded Google Labs projects), mention would be more appropriate in that article rather than here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 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. for now, the main article appears to be notable and if the sub-articles aren't they can be nominated separately or merged without an AFD discussion. Black Kite 13:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society[edit]

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

Article continues to be without independent verification (WP:V) or assertion of notability (WP:N). Web search shows a few commercial web sites, nothing that looks usable. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for various productions of this organization, as they also continue to be without verification or notability.

Delete Unless someone comes up with some WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. At the very least, the HPLHS passes WP:CREATIVE as an entity. I will find some sourcing in the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example Google news archive finds three (presumably, although one looks like it might not be...) reliable sources for A Shoggoth on the Roof.
- Google Books shows two explicit mentions.
- Nothing on ASotR in Google Scholar, but there is a thesis on HPLHS.

I've tagged HPLHS and ASotR for rescue. Quite possibly some of the other articles could reasonably be merged, but I haven't looked into them yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Silly me--just about everything I found is available with the search tools on top of the page. It's clear that the efforts to source the content didn't extend to any of those tools. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most, but suggest the nom speedy-close this and relist seperately, as it's apparent these aren't all of equal (non)notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will consider splitting off the additional nominations tomorrow morning. Marasmusine (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is perhaps some scope for merger but that's not deletion. The aggregate topic is notable and I have added some citations to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, merge case can be made later. Very well known organisation creating well respeceted works within it's field. Artw (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as said above this is a very well known group within its field and its creations are well known and available on mainstream places such as Amazon and Netflix, and there is precedent for both fan clubs and audio dramas. For example, the Dark Adventure articles have more information on them than most of the various Doctor Who Big Finish audio dramas, of which there are hundreds of articles and not one has ever been nominated for merger/deletion. Kuralyov (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge others into the main - While I don't object to combined nominations when all of the pages are roughly the same, this is a bad set to be combining. While the main troupe may meet notability, I find it very hard to believe that every work they've performed somehow is entitled to a page. As for the merge, these other pages are nearly stubs as well, and it would make a lot more sense to have these all in one place, both for readers and for consistency. I see no upside to all of these being separate. Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge others into the main one robust article is better than fragments. If I have time I will help out with sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy with the new sourcing, therefore the main article makes a valid target for merging/redirecting any associated articles that don't have enough coverage, per WP:PRODUCT. Thanks everyone, Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I'd like to further advocate that A Shoggoth on the Roof be kept as a separate article. It's unique among these works in that its parody of a major work (Fiddler) has created enough independent coverage to merit a separate article. Failing that, a merge is certainly better than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows plenty of mention of this society, including an interview with one of its founders in Wired magazine. [47] Dream Focus 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the Colonel and Dream Focus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the article has grown substantially since nominated for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep main, but merge others into the main, as suggested above. --Bejnar (talk) 02:00, 6 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) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explorations (journal)[edit]

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

Student-run journal, no third-party sources, apparently not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Has been prodded before, hence I am taking this to AfD. Crusio (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely zero reliable sources, which are needed for basic notability. :Majen27 · talk 11:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a notable journal, and one wouldn't expect it, given its scope and background. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 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. Consensus appears to be that this doesn't pass WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_Hoh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Matthew Hoh

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

Non Notable nor lasting importanceBevin bell 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The refs given are to good sources - Washington post [48], US Dept of State [49], Christian Science Monitor [50]. My reservation is that this might violate WP:NOTNEWS, but it does look as if people are picking up his resignation as a notable event in the history of the war in Afghanistan, with Hoh apparently being the first official to resign over the issue - [51], [52], [53] -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a diplomatic position that we would normally judge by WP:Politician or similar standards. And on those it's absolutely not even a question. The fact that an internal diplomatic issue has come up is hardly an indication of notability, but rather a news event. If you think this is a newsworth event that warrants inclusion then that's one thing, but there's absolutely nothing about this article as is that suggests the most basic notability criteria are met. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I definitely see significant coverage by reliable sources ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], etc.) but it looks like all that coverage falls under WP:BLP1E. — Rankiri (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well sourced article for a U.S political figure that made news. The Scythian 04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him "a U.S political figure" is a bit of an overstatement though, don't you think? From what I can tell, Matthew Hoh only had a limited, non-career appointment as a contract employee of the Department of State and all the coverage of this person is in some way related to his resignation from that position. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a foreign service official at one point as well. He definitely made news, and the article is well sourced. I question the need to delete this article, repeatedly. One researching the topic might find use with a sourced stub of Matthew Hoh as a jumping point to the said sources. I sure did. The Scythian 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually not a foreign service official (see his employment status here http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/mideastdigest/130971.htm) but was a contract employee who resigned four weeks before he was to lose his contract. I originally nominated for non-notable, but I think WP:NOTNEWS applies as well. Bevinbell 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Sources indicate his notability pretty much stems from one event.--Pink Bull 03:42, 5 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 to John Moore (broadcaster). JForget 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moore in the Morning[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show CTJF83 GoUSA 08:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the basics into CFRB and reference with this page; remove anything that doesn't fit. SMC (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason why this should be mentioned separately from John Moore (broadcaster), the article about the show's host. One article is enough, we don't need moore of the same. Mandsford (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Moore (broadcaster), easily condensed to a single paragraph in the "Career" section of his biography. Leave as redirect to CFRB. - Dravecky (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Moore (broadcaster), per the above sentiments. --Pink Bull 03:43, 5 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. —SpacemanSpiff 19:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed hanif[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. Claims to be the Nawab of Rampur but according to that article, the current (titular) Nawab is Muhammad Kazim Ali Khan Bahadur. An article of this name and by the same author was speedily deleted as non-notable a few hours before this one was created, but if memory serves, that biography was somewhat different. Maybe this one is a placeholder? Favonian (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possibly not a hoax. L Nawob may be different from Nawob. But~~ No evidence of notability and nothing obvious on a search. Probably a hoax. See RAMPUR (Princely State) for a plausible genealogy. No mention of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:06, 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, CTJF83 GoUSA 09:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Sole Soul (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax - born 25 years after his supposed father died. Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 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.

Nominator withdrawn - result is keep. I relied too much on the title. Lesson learned. No delete !votes other than mine. Non-admin close. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Soudas[edit]

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

Individual who fails WP:Politician. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this at all similar to the White House Press Secretary? CTJF83 GoUSA 09:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but just judging by the title, I'd say the better comparison would be Associate White House Press Secretary, of which we do not have an article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll wait to weigh in until someone informs me better what Soudas does. CTJF83 GoUSA 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's the Prime Minister's Press Secretary. The Associate Director of Communication title is a different position. --Smashville^talk 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Smashville clarifying he is similar to the White House press secretary. CTJF83 GoUSA 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Funny enough, the Washington Post has a piece on Mr. Soudas and his American counterpart wagering on yesterday's Women's Hockey Final at Vancouver. The article is here. His american counterpart? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. On that basis, I think we have notability - but we do need to expand the article, which might be a project for this afternoon. For now, though, Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Press Secretary of the Canadian Prime Minister is clearly notable. The article needs work, though. --Smashville^talk 16:01, 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 speedily deleted (G7, author request) by JamieS93. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Folk Festival[edit]

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

It doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor does it seem to pass WP:EVENT (I can't find any sources that are not purely trying to promote the event in a local sense) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if it was deleted or not. I created the article a long time ago. If you want you can move it to my userspace and tag this page for speedy deletion.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the part about "There are no auditions for the acts as anyone can apply" combined with the fact that it's held in a school auditorium that seats 900 people max indates that this is a pretty non-notable event. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. The general outcome at AfD has been that non-competitive music festivals, open mics, "Route 66 Days", and the like, are deleted or merged into the city's culture section. This does not even seem to merit merger. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied it to User:Coldplay Expert/Anchorage so that he can work on it. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion per {{db-author}}. This AFD is now over (I think).--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:01, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louella Hollington[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. a non notable local politician. hardly anything in gnews [59]. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 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) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby G Music[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No sources cited to show notability of this agency (as opposed to its clients). No GHits or GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on this one. I'm with the nom. The article seems to be largely for promotional purposes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited, and web search produced only MySpace, YouTube, music download sites, Wikipedia, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder for same reasons. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG and the page itself doesn't look to provide any useful information. FaceMash (talk) 16:28, 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. Black Kite 13:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Pipeline[edit]

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

Really not sure about this one. I'm sure it's a real pipeline but dose it really need it's own article. It's been here basically unchanged and an orphan for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, a minor pipeline isn't notable - especially if it's just moving from one part of a state to another. If there is another reason that this small pipeline is notable, please enlighten the lot of us. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idea / Neutral - I would probably tend towards delete on something this old with this little expansion, but it feels like a ripe topic for merging into a large article or list of pipelines. Are you aware of some other similar articles? If so I might do some of the merging. Shadowjams (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out [Category:Pipeline_stubs] most of them are pretty much the same as this one. I was planning on figuring out what to with them after we see what happens here. It's one of those things that even if we do make a massive list, I don't see any use for it. It would just be a directory of pretty useless information. Ridernyc (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I'm fighting a similar battle on some football/soccer pages that have substantially less content than this. I think merging is a pretty fair compromise in most of those cases. Some of the trans-oceanic data cable articles are similar, and yet I've found them incredibly useful, and I think they probably meet the criteria. So I'm inclined to think pipelines are similar. But for practicality concerns having lots of disparate articles is a logistical nightmare, and if they're small then merging them together has little downside. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not cite any 3rd party references or sources. :Majen27 · talk 11:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - (having created it) - I just created articles on all of the interstate pipelines years ago with the hopes to add things like major pricing points and maps, but the maps are not really available, and this pipeline is not particularly important. Scatter some seeds, sometimes they grow but in this case it didn't. Ignignot (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as first option, if a suitable target exists - such an article would seem to be non-controversial, and there may be sources to assist in its creation/expansion. Otherwise, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if logical. Maybe pipelines by state or region would make sense? Not knowing much about pipeline infrastructure, I don't know if there is a way to classify them by regional network, or just by which states they're in, or what. --Closeapple (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- but not sure where: it seems to have two owners so that one merge to its owner will not help. I looked that the page on one owner, and its pipelines and other fixed assets are not listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the top priority pipeline, but every pipeline with capacity of more than 1 billion cubic meter per year is quite notable. I expanded the article and added some third party sources. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beagel's expansion and additional cites. Real and verifiable; has reliable sources; significant part of the energy infrastructure for the upper midwest. Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate to say it, but it's a combination of press releases, governmental information, and lists of pipelines. Those don't seem to meet muster on WP:RS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still neutral on the article - but EIA information is about as reliable as you can get for US Energy. Ignignot (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, true. If anything, my !vote is also relying heavily on the same precedent of keeping Alaska Pipeline, as well as, say, Short Street in Yorba Linda, California. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article improvements since AFD commenced. Now includes secondary sources.--Pink Bull 03:48, 5 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 all. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Harry Potter[edit]

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

An article that is basically an indiscriminate collection of in-universe material and it is unlikely to change. In the end the article has turned into a mixture of WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#FANSITE Sin Harvest (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all largely suffering from the same problem and unlikely to be rescued:

Keep One of the greatest phenomena in both literature and film. 500-1000 page hits per day suggests the page is popular with a lot of people. Emilysusanclark (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this is the articles for deletion page for all these articles. The Keep applies to all of them, although I note that some of them appear to be even more popular at 1000+ views per day.Emilysusanclark (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it should be kept. No matter how popular an article it still doesn't change the fact that it is "a mixture of WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#FANSITE. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Magic, Universe, Places, Spells; Weak Keep on Objects, Creatures: Just because an article has some cruft doesn't mean it still isn't notable. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it notable? Even if it is notable does that mean it isn't WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#FANSITE --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I just said it's notable. And it's unnecessary to repeat "not fansite" time and time again to people who disagree with you Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to keep repeating "not fansite" time and time again because it seems people keep ignoring the point that the reason for deletion is primarily focused on that (and the other points in the list) and not on verifiability or notability. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I went to some trouble to rewrite {{AfD footer (multiple)}} to get people to avoid bundled nominations such as this one. Abductive (reasoning) 06:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 5 other articles you've nominated into this one main article, and keep the main one (and then redirect the others). The topic is probably big enough for its own, but there's no reason for distinctions between "objects", "creatures", "places" and "spells", when all would fit much better under one topic. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Now, take a single header within one of these articles: "Parseltongue". A Google Books search reveals:

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter‎ Page 187 Tere Stouffer Literary Criticism 2007 249 pages Traditionally, the ability to speak Parseltongue has been the mark of a Dark Wizard. In fact, the ability has been associated with Salazar ...

Wizards, Wardrobes and Wookiees: Navigating Good and Evil in Harry Potter ...‎ Page 167 Connie Neal Religion 2007 229 pages Everyone thought / was Slytherin's heir for a while . . . because I can speak Parseltongue. ..." "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore ...

The Harry Potter Companion‎ Page 185 Acascias Riphouse Literary Criticism 2004 540 pages If speaking Parseltongue, the speaker believes she or he is speaking in a human language but observers hear it as hissing ...

Muggles and magic: J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter phenomenon‎ Page 273 George W. Beahm Literary Criticism 2004 393 pages Reparo: A charm used to repair a broken object. Reptile House: At the London zoo Harry Potter unknowingly speaks Parseltongue for the ...

Reading Harry Potter: critical essays‎ Page 169 Giselle Liza Anatol Literary Criticism 2003 217 pages Harry, able to speak Parseltongue, has a link to the natural world, and, ... The word "Parseltongue" closely resembles the word "Parsee," the name of a ...

Ultimate unofficial guide to the mysteries of Harry Potter, Book 5‎ Page 134 Galadriel Waters, Astre Mithrandir Literary Criticism 2003 412 pages Since Dumbledore usually is correct, we will have to strongly consider his statement in determining why Harry can speak Parseltongue. ...

Re-Read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Today! an Unauthorized Guide‎ Page 42 Graeme Davis Juvenile Fiction 2008 112 pages As for the “murmurs” this seems totally inappropriate to describe the loud Parseltongue hissing of the basilisk, which is what Harry hears. ...

The J.K. Rowling encyclopedia‎ Page 233 Connie Ann Kirk Literary Criticism 2006 374 pages ... the snake language itself, which makes a hissing sound, is called Parseltongue. The ability is rare and is often associated with those involved in the ...

Note that this is just the first page of the Google Books return, and it has given us a source for "reparo" as well. The nominator should also note that there is a "The J.K. Rowling encyclopedia‎" that is 374 pages long. Perhaps it contains sourcing for everything in these articles? Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the stuff couldn't be verified but just because the material is verifiable doesn't mean that the content is notable or it isn't WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#FANSITE, etc. It was never my intention to say that the article was not verifiable as I think there is a whole host of other problems with it. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JK Rowling encyclopedia is hardly an indication of notability for every possible fork of the primary article. When we're talking about notable primary articles, and their forks, simply indicating that a primary source (in this case the primary source) has mentioned all of the possible forks, is hardly useful for an encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are collections of topics; Magic in Harry Potter is a redirect target for Animagus, Unforgivable curses, Occlumency, Legilimency, Dark Mark, Parseltongue, Apparating, Phineas Nigellus, Portraits in Hogwarts, The Fat Lady, Metamorphmagus, Parselmouth, Squib (wizard), Disapparate, Apparate, Priori Incantatem, Dilys Derwent, Unbreakable Vow, Armando Dippet, Phineas Nigellus Black, Inferius, Unforgivable Curses, Magical portrait (Harry Potter), Disapparation, Inferi (Harry Potter), Dark arts (Harry Potter), Dark Arts (Harry Potter), Portrait (Harry Potter), Wandlore (Harry Potter), Magic (Harry Potter), and a number of others that don't have incoming links. Many of these articles once were stand-alones, and many could be sourced and stand alone once again. So these articles are anti-forks. Abductive (reasoning) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, or whatever other sci-fi fancruft that's gotten short treatment at AfD. I'm curious why this one is different? I do appreciate the anti-fork point though. I think it could go further too. Shadowjams (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has many secondary sources it should not be deleted. I have no doubt the every subtopic in all these articles has sources. This AfD is unlikely to generate any consensus on particulars of merging, and I fail to understand the nominator's interest in this well sourced corpus of work. Why not nominate some of the unsourced articles linked to in {{Shannara books}}. This template even has links to Wikiproject space! Or look at the unsourced articles in Category:David Brin. Abductive (reasoning) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Giving a definition on a major phenomenon in any fiction is in my honest opinion, very important. Say the Star Wars universe, would an "exaustive" definition of the Force be non notable? The nominated articles are clearly improvable in regards of citations and sources... Would a blanket deletion help in this case? 130.238.56.208 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep especially on the first three. People do search and continue to use these articles as part of the largest literary phenomenon. The list of redirects above shows that they also keep dozens of splinter articles at bay. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not so much of a "strong" keep argument as it is a strong redirect argument. Any thoughts about a possible merge? I'm not sure that you've indicated how those pages show notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Those article are already full of content and a merge would only bring up a article too big. Most of the articles in question are well kept clean by creating a sort of "canon law" which brings up only verifiable fact from the book of from source. I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here is a good example : would you all agree to delete all similar article from other series? I know Wikipedia is not Wikia, but those article still are about notable subject and are already used and read by a lot of people. Harry Potter is a strong phenomenon and I personnaly think that those "side" article deserve a place here. --Stroppolo^talk 02:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in universe material that doesn't deserve it. Cynof Gavuf 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear Sir, please elaborate why the material does not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Do you also possibly endorse a deletion of other definitions of major fictional phenomenon in a similar quality? Gsmgm (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe, completely source-free, was not deleted in January 2010. Where were you then, Sin Harvest, Shadowjams and CynofGavuf? Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as valid break-out articles (with the undeniable prospect for adequate standalone sourcing) from a major fictional franchise. Merging these back into HP would create an overlong mess; they belong as separate topics. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all You would be mad to delete any of these pages! They are extremely informative in my opinion. Jammy (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, all of them, especially the Universe, have recieved deep coverage and compromise lots of elements that have individually recieved coverage too but that are betterv organized in common articles: Hogsmeade/Diagon Alley/Platform 9 3/4 in the Places, the Marauders Map or the Knight Bus in Objects, Dobby the Elf or the Dementors in Creatures, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All It is important to the Harry Potter series of articles. Rearden9 (talk)

Consolidated Reply:

"...The Sword of Truth universe, completely source-free, was not deleted in January 2010. Where were you then, Sin Harvest, Shadowjams and CynofGavuf?..."

Doing other things. I haven't spent a huge amount of time in Afd in a while unfortunately, why do you ask?

"...I fail to understand the nominator's interest in this well sourced corpus of work...."

My problem with it is that the articles clearly doesn't fit with several Wikipedia rules and I mentioned them several times already and they are in the nomination but another one would be that it violates WP:PLOT.

"Giving a definition on a major phenomenon in any fiction is in my honest opinion, very important. Say the Star Wars universe, would an "exaustive" definition of the Force be non notable? The nominated articles are clearly improvable in regards of citations and sources... Would a blanket deletion help in this case? "
&
"...I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here is a good example : would you all agree to delete all similar article from other series?..."

I agree the Force is an important article and a blanket deletion on all these types of would be stupid. I also hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well but this is what it is for because frankly although the Force should exist I think it needs to be fixed and in it's current state it is a poor article. To put into perspective look at Lightsaber it is an article like the ones we are discussing but it is written well and is basically about a plot element of a film/story/fictional piece but what sets it apart from being a poor article like the Force and the unrescuable articles listed here is that it contains information on how the the plot element is relevant to the "real world" aka how the light effect was created what the original prop was made with, it's "real world" origins in early drafts, etc. Now some of the topics within the nomiated articles could be changed into something reflecting like the Lightsaber particulary some of the Magical creatures (Harry Potter) because I know for a fact that there are pages out there detailing where the design origin of these creatures come from (usually from real life mythology). But as the little to none (and I'm leaning more towards the none) of the topics in the article even contains this information or any information pertaining to how the topic is related to the "real world". It is justifiable to say that the article be deleted and be recreated if an article which relates to the "real world" is made. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to delete an article and then recreate it if we already know there is real world content out there. That real world content, whether or not in the Wikipedia article, makes the subject notable. Perhaps the addition of a tag for the lack of real-world content or a tag stating that the article is written in an in-universe style is necessary, but not a deletion. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:44, 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 Speedy Delete per G3 by DaGizza. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shantz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like a hoax. A google search gives no indication this show exists. All links and references in the article links to pages associated with the show "The Hills". TheFreeloader (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (1) G3 as hoax (2) because it has no coverage in reliable secondary sources, as the two sources provided are unrelated to the topic. --Bejnar (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's been copied from The Hills, which is why it has those refs -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging for G3 as above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 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. While there are still many citation needed tags, the consensus is clear in the later half of the discussion to keep mostly because of the sources according to many JForget 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar film references[edit]

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

Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually very cautious when falling on the side of "delete" on an article of as long standing and with as many contributions as this, but the reference situation is both absurd and unsolvable. The one caveat I will offer is this: if the list can be pared to verifiable Pixar references, then I see no reason to delete. But... a) that will probably leave us with a very short list and b) that will inevitably be a list which is realistically incomplete. Uhm. I'm babbling. In short, yeah, a lot of work has been done on this article but it's pure, uncut original research at this point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this belongs on the IMDB.com trivia pages, not here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will refrain from siding on the "Keep" or "Delete" side of the fence -- I have been quite active in maintaining this page and would prefer "Keep", but I also trust TenPoundHammer's opinion and agree with his "Delete" criteria. That said, I would like to turn you to this week's entry in discovering Pixar easter eggs over at /film, and to Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich's Twitter feed from this week where he explictly talks about easter eggs in the upcoming film and recently released trailer here, here, and here for starters. I mention this as a response to TenPoundHammer's question about whether these are intentional references by the filmmaker or not. As for the references being the film itself, I point out that the timecodes in the article references are used to pinpoint the specific moment in the films the occurrence exists, as opposed to simply saying "it's in the film, trust us" and using a generic film ref. SpikeJones (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that's much help. The Twitters are primary sources, and citing the film itself is original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have a secondary article from an oft-cited site (/film, for example) that quotes the filmmaker (via twitter or otherwise directly) saying that they intentionally place these references in their films. That should count, yes? SpikeJones (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one secondary source though. Everything else is primary or OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's widely published and discussed that Pixar films often reference one another. You can listen to commentaries by the creators and artists on the discs, visit sites like slashfilm and others to see where easter eggs are discussed, etc. The main reason for citations of the films themselves is that other editors have asked for documentation of where the reference occurs in the original film. So of course the page would have multiple listings of citations from the original works. I've contributed many to the article.

A list of secondary sources that could be/are used:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/12/09/a-special-where-s-wall-e-edition-of-why-for.aspx##
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/27/wall-e-easter-eggs/
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/
http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/06/01/check-this-out-all-the-hidden-easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/
http://www.theanimationblog.com/2007/12/09/list-of-easter-eggs-in-pixar-movies/
http://www.themovieblog.com/2010/02/easter-eggs-found-in-toy-story-3-trailer
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/01/25/pixar-easter-eggs-and-self-referential-inside-jokes/
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21776
http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEr09tuzsIQEuz
http://www.pixartalk.com/easter-eggs/toy-story-monsters-inc/
http://www.notcoming.com/features/inpraiseofpixar/
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/22405
Additionally, there are tons of lists on forums and blogs, whether specific to one film or several.

Your entire supposition "Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers." is indeed false and is easily proven so by references within the article itself to slashfilm, Pixar blogs, JimHillMedia, the LA Times, etc. that you conveniently overlook. Additionally, you dismiss the tweets by the creator of one such film as "not much help" when you are claiming that there are no outside sources when it specifically addresses your claim that it's not verifying whether the references are intentional. I'd offer that if the creator of a work is discussing pertinent material - regardless of media - that it is a secondary source considering it is NOT the film itself and is referring to the film. (Is that not the definition of a secondary source?) Referencing the family of Pixar films in subsequent or earlier films is a noted part of the Pixar culture and is identified with the brand itself - e.g. with ever new Pixar release there are multiple sites and blogs that hunt for such references.

Perhaps more sources away from the films need to be included, but the grounds for deletion are dubious at best.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding some of the more reputable sources, but forums are to be avoided. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm just citing other locations of this information. But given the prevalence of coverage on review sites and in other media, the topic is notable and is part of Pixar itself. It also serves as a useful tool and the page is ranked highly in Google searches so it's providing somewhat useful information. Therefore it shouldn't be deleted. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interview with Pixar's John Lassetter by MTV has John specifically addressing putting references into Pixar films: We do little homages in our films... unbiased 3rd-party? Check. Pixar staff explicitly stating including references in films? Check. Me, beating a dead horse? Check. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 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, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a collection of trivia without proper context. Whatever useful information there is is best merged into the individual film articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing all references in the specific films would create pages that are overlong and would presumably inspire another individual to recreate this page. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No to the former, and the latter is pure conjecture. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was broken out from the primary Pixar page because that page was getting overly long. By having a central location of all references, it also keeps each individual film article from having a references (or as some have called it, "trivia") section of their own. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would think that this article needs to stay, it's an attempt to collect all the PIXAR references into one article, the page also has over 32,000 bytes of information, it's very useful. Furthermore, I'm pretty shocked that this has been nominated for deletion, because of the reasons I explained above. Admittely, I haven't learnt wikipedia's original research rules, but I still think this article is worth keeping. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, deleting the page may result in someone in near furture re-creating the page, since it's needed for several purposes. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the dismissive note that this is purely original research, which is shown to be false, it seems the consensus so far is to keep the page and include more third-party sources, including the original poster. Can the Delete note be removed and replaced with a need more resources note regarding third party pages? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is still forming. Let the AfD take its course. There's nothing to stop you from improving the page with third party sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like pure trivia to me. I guess that sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it's hard to give a more precise rationale; despite the references given above, I'm just not convinced this is an encyclopaedic subject for an article. Perhaps it could be cut down and merged somewhere? Robofish (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On page 297 of the Disney-Pixar published book, ISBN 978-0756654320 Pixarpedia, the introductory text for that section says Learn the significance of "A-113" and how it appears in every Disney-Pixar feature. Take a closer look at each film and spot all the secret cross references.... If this content is important enough for Disney to include in a Pixar-specific encyclopedia of their own, one would think it would qualify here. On the bright side, that book section would qualify for references in addition to the help timecodes that we've been using so far. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are "help timecodes"? --Bejnar (talk) 05:57, 26 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) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party sources are a bit thin on the ground, but there are certainly enough secondary sources to make this not OR. Unfortunately, I think that the claim this is "pure trivia" is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many topics seem trivial to many, or even most, readers but as long as they are covered in specialty encyclopedias like Pixarpedia there seems little reason to exclude them from Wikipedia (WP:NOTPAPER etc.). Note that if once the OR is trimmed out of the article it ends up being quite short, I don't have an issue with a merge, I am just not sure where would be a good target though. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources, ADD. THEM. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and focus on improving refs. While I hestitated in expressing an opinion earlier, the subsequent discussion with TenPoundHammer identified what the issues in the article were that can be overcome by keeping the piece. Recommend keeping the article and improving the references contained therein as repeated by those above. We'll need to better identify what others are calling WP:OR vs the citable items, but that falls under "article improvement" and the talk page. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as a random intersect between two concepts. The concept of a Pixar film reference is not an independently notable one so a list of such, especially one so thinly sourced, is not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. What two concepts? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Eluchil404, but continue to work on sourcing. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a no-brainer. Lots of good citable info, that many readers are interested in. Will somebody please think of the children.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 4 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bosteels[edit]

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

I am not at all convinced that this person passes WP:N and/or WP:PROF. Yes, he has a job (but it's not a named position, for instance) and he is the editor of a notable journal, but I see (and can find) no evidence of his acknowledged contribution to his field or his importance as a teacher of a scholar. Remember, simply having published, while that may assure tenure, is not a guarantee for notability on WP. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical keep on basis of WP:Prof #8 if journal is a well-established one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Again, the language of WP:PROF is ambiguous, probably rightly so. Is Diacritics a "major well-established journal"? Well it's certainly well-established - 40 years old, and connected to two universities. But the circulation of 851 worries me. I don't have much to compare it to - most literary journals don't list their circulation, but I notice SEL: Studies in English Literature has a circulation of 1391. Browsing the list of literary journals, it looks on par with them. Hence, as editor, Bosteels passes the notability test. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should have read WP:PROF more carefully--yes, I believe diacritics is plenty notable. Without looking at the policy, I figured that we'd need more than just one such thing for notability, and I wish that we did, but we don't. So, any passing admin, feel free to close this as nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 06:52, 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) 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for Our Future (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NB Does not meet any of the four, and the references never cite the book: they just cite breast cancer as a disease. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Breast cancer in younger women was recently merged to Fighting for Our Future (book) and now redirects to that page. I am neutral to deletion, but suggest that attention should be given to the former page if the latter is deleted following this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please advise me how to better cite the information? All of the information in the summary is taken from the book, except for what is also from Young Survival Coalition. I have cited short excerpts from the book in references but I'm not sure how to better meet the wikipedia criteria. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissC16 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations aren't a problem, but the book doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria under WP:BN. If you find anything that makes it meet that just leave a message here :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content summary and I am instead leaving a brief stub about the book itself. MissC16 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still fails WP:BK. I should also note that the corresponding movie Fighting for our future also appears to fail WP:MOVIE. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:58, 25 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) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability under WP:BK. --Bejnar (talk) 06:08, 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) 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Koreen[edit]

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

Long term unreferenced and unloved biographical article about a sports journalist. I have searched and while I can find news articles with his name, the name is simply the byline. Nothing seems to be written of significance about him and he does not seem to pass the WP:BIO standards. Peripitus (Talk) 05:32, 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, Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 05:43, 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) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smallen[edit]

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

I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources to show he meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. JD554 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find any sign of notability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 20 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) 03:55, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARESA[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. I can find coverage for an organisation called ARESA that researches landmines [60]. this search reveals 1 hit for a Danish biotech company of the same name. [61]. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I clicked on the Google news link and found several good sources for the Danish biotech firm. Bearian (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has received significant coverage in Time and USA Today as well as some local coverage on its efforts to develop plants to assist in land mine detection RadioFan (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not claim that. are you talking about the same company. please list the actual articles you are talking about. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 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, Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are different organizations but Aresa is often referred to as Aresa Biodetection in the press rather that the ARESA used here, that may be what is holding up others finding sources like this:

Watercress engineered to detect land mines (USA Today)
Biotech to help clear the curse of landmines (The Hindu)
Land-Mine-Detecting Plants (New York Times)
Saving Lives And Limbs With a Weed (Time)
GM cress could seek out landmines (BBC)
GM plant tracks land mines (The Gaurdian)
New weed may flag land mines (Christian Science Monitor)
Animal Heros (PBS)

The above list doesn't include the AP and Reuters stories that picked up in a number of languages around the world. The article didn't make this claim of notability and might be talking about something different. I've updated the article to reflect this use of the name and agree that whatever was there before, likely wasn't notable. I'd recommend keeping the article in the form I just edited and moving to Aresa Biodetection.

Delete. I'm with LibStar on this one, I've found bopkes. RadioFan, Bearian, could you please link to your findings? I may be doing it wrong.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per Bearian's findings. Thanks, man. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see above cites, which is pretty much what I found. It has three good sources now from major international periodicals. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, good enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:23, 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) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LilyMu Towers[edit]

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

Unsourced since March freaking 2007. Fictional element, no out-of-universe relevance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability, does not fulfill WP Notability requirements. --Volbeatfan (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and not enough notability to merge into the article on the show itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sources that provide notability Cynof Gavuf 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 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 redirect to Geo News. This is a tricky one. Whilst being completely aware of WP:CSB, the fact remains that the article has no independent third party sources at all. That doesn't mean they don't exist, of course. Therefore I suggest redirecting the article to Geo News for the time being, keeping the edit history, so that it can be quickly recreated if suitable sources are found Black Kite 13:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nida Sameer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Searches do not yield reliable, significant coverage. I can only find two mentions on Google News, one mentioning that she is a presenter on a programme called "51%" and the other in a list of names "Some renowned figures including ... Nida Sameer". Insufficient evidence of notability. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the person who contested the PROD, and I noted at Talk:Nida Sameer that the person is clearly a TV presenter. Numerous links provided at Talk demonstrate that. Also, I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan asking for others to add to the article. I don't see any evidence the AFD nominator considered those facts, or saw the Talk. The AFD nom statement appears to be cut and pasted from the PROD nomination, without updating for additional info provided. AFD seems inappropriate, even if article is not well developed and remains as a stub for a while, as the person appears notable. --doncram (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in both the PROD and on the talk page, I did look for reliable sources. I have never said that she is a TV presenter - one of the 2 news links I found said that. However, without reliable sources showing her notability, we have no way of knowing how notable she is. "Appears notable" is not listed at Wikipedia:Notability or WP:ENTERTAINER as a reason for keeping an article! The criteria is significant coverage in general - and for ENTERTAINER, the person: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions., Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I could find no evidence of any of these - and if you can find evidence at reliable sources, then add them to the article. The article has been lying around unsourced for almost 3 years - if there are sources, they need to be added. If not, this article needs to be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any evidence of the popularity of Geo News as stated but not referenced in its article? Furthermore, is there a notable controversity serounding Nida Sameer, positions she took about things which made the news? Did anyone write her biography? Has she been published in any magazines? Had she won any notable prize for her presentations in the Geo News be it in Pakistan or elsewhere? As it is, there is no evidence from the way the article is presented that she is significantly notable. -RobertMel (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't frankly know. I tend to doubt that there are many Pakistani news presenters having Wikipedia articles, relative to Americans or Brits, and I expect there are very few female Urdu-speaking news presenters covered. Checking List of news presenters, my guess is that she is one of the most important people in that area. I don't like the general idea of deleting off a positive mention of a female Pakistani who actually does have some prominence as a presenter, and even some apparent fan following. I think it is enough to leave. The issue here, really for all the people present I believe, is that there is a big push on BLP unsourced. This article was the one oldest in the current list of about 42,000 in the category. Now I have removed it from category BLP unsourced by removing the tag. SO, now, please everyone should let this go, wait for Urdu-speaking people to show up in their good time, to develop this article. It seems unhelpful / unfriendly / American-centric / whatever to go after a perfectly nice, non-offensive article that raises no BLP issues. --doncram (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While her article has certainly come to light due to the recent BLP focus, I don't see how that affects the question of whether or not she is notable now that it has been posed. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will happily admit that I came across this article as it was one of the oldest unreferenced BLPs - but my aim was to try to find sources to save it. If you look at my other BLP contributions in the last week, you'll see:

Found references: Yasuro_Kikuchi, Mantra (actress), Michel Murat, Lee Sedol, Mayumi Ozaki, Alfredo J. Ramos Campos, Michał Tomala, Scott leckie, Derwich Ferho (also contested PROD)
Contested PROD: Justin Lanning (musician)
Supported PROD: Yevgeni Mokhorev, T. W. Hard, Temorshah Hassan, Klovis Herboso
Proposed for deletion, as no sources found: Nida Sameer, Naoki Sano, Scott Hudson (announcer), Herman José

Total this week: 10 articles "saved", 8 articles either proposed for deletion (or supported PROD). If reliable sources can be found, I will add them (I'm not sure how reliable Geo.tv is, but I agree with removing the BLP unref tag, but I have added the BLP refimprove tag).

I am not a deletionist, but if sources are not available (and all those articles I've listed here have been unsourced for 35-36 months) then I feel they should not be on Wikipedia. YMMV -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After searching all mentions I can find appear to be in passing or on forums, nothing WP:RELIABLE about her, so she fails WP:GNG. From what I can get from machine translations there doesn't seem to be an article on her at Urdu Wiki or the corresponding Geo News article either...for whatever that's worth. It sounds like she may have a cult following but without a source, she doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 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, Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. 'Weak' because (a) systemic bias is an issue here - it's always going to be harder finding English-language sources for an article like this, and (b) a major host of a major TV network 'should' be notable. However, I can't argue with the lack of reliable sources here, and if no significant third-party coverage can be found we must conclude she is non-notable and delete the article. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While finding sources is difficult, I'm not convinced that she isn't notable, and am inclined to believe otherwise just by the mass of adoring comments about her online.--Milowent (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are any of this "mass of adoring comments" at reliable sources? Are any of them from professional journalists or radio/tv presenters? The comments I saw were all from fans, and so would not be covered by WP:RS -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to the lack of coverage.--Pink Bull 13:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know there isn't coverage, it's just that a few Americans using the U.S.-based version of Google (which differs from version in Europe i know, and probably from any Urdu version) haven't been able to find good reliable sources easily. I expect there is plenty of mention of this person in Urdu language newspapers and other sources, not immediately available to us. The basic facts that this person is a presenter is proven vividly by videos available from fan-sites. I voted Keep above, but to repeat, I think this should be left for dual speakers of both Urdu and English to develop, when they find their way here, rather than deleted as part of the rush to address BLP unsourced article category (which this was previously in). --doncram (talk) 17:13, 5 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. (X! · talk) · @980 · 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Jordan, Financial Adviser[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion ostensibly on grounds on notability (though the tone and content could use some work).

Put simply, being quoted by newspapers is insufficient to achieve notability. We need reliable sources that talk about William Jordan, not mention him is passing. It worries me that for all the "emminence" that is being claimed in the article, not a single meaty source has yet been provided. If several could be found, then obviously we ought to keep the article. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. William Jordan is a notable, contemporary in his field of financial planning. 23 national media programs and periodicals have used him as an expert and/or reference for programs and articles. The periodicals listed are not JUST newspapers, though the Wall Street Journal is one of the most well respected current financial publications of this day. Nor is FORBES a newspaper, nor Kiplinger's Retirement Report, nor TIME, nor BusinessWeek. These are national current media with more than a million readers and viewers each. In the industry of financial planning, these are most of the most prominent publications. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for The Wall Street Journal not once, but three times--by Jane Kim in April of 2008 and Shelly Banjo in June and January 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source by FORBES twice by Ashlea Ebling in June and January of 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for Kiplinger's publications four times: March of 2008 by Jeffery R. Kosnett and David Landis, April 2008 by Kathryn Walson and three times by Mary Beth Franklin, September and April 2008, and in January 2010.

CNBC's Wall Street Journal Report, Closing Bell and Power Lunch are programs where William Jordan was asked to talk as an authority in the field of personal finance. (Visit williamjordanassociates.com for clips and pdf's of articles.) Why do they like him? Because he is an independent expert in his field. He is not tied to AIG or Charles Schwab or Fidelity. Jordan is not just referenced in passing, he is the reference for these articles, programs and publications. Heath224 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are plenty of reliable sources quoting him, their only mentions of him appear to be that he's the president of a financial services company and a short quote. I have been unable to find any independent mention of him that "address[es] the subject directly in detail", so I feel that he fails to pass WP:GNG. 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being quoted by RS is not enough to make you notable. Sole Soul (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From Forbes January 2008, The Great 401K Escape by Ashlea Ebling, here is pointed direct advice in what the subject of the article should do with funds per William Jordan's advice: Jordan plans to increase Wright's fixed-income allocation and construct a ladder of individual bonds with different maturity dates. In his 401(k), which doesn't let him buy individual securities, Wright's only choice would be a bond fund, whose maturity structure cannot be customized.

And again direct advice from William Jordan on the subject of creating a retirement paycheck from Kiplinger June 25, 2008 article, Creating a Retirement Paycheck, by Kathryn Walson: Try not to tap principal in the early years of retirement. One way to generate income without tapping principal is to shift more of the stock portfolio into dividend payers. "Dividend-paying stocks allow retirees to take income no matter whether stocks go up or down," says William Jordan, president of the Sentinel Group, in Laguna Hills, Cal. If your mutual funds pay dividends on a quarterly basis, take the cash for your reserve fund rather than reinvesting.

Angie Rust, 67, who lives in Orange, Cal., retired last June from her job as a manager with an engineering firm. With Jordan's help, she set up a withdrawal strategy that will enable her to take a cruise every other year. Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Consistently being quoted by reliable secondary sources does, according to Wikipedia Notability in a Nutshell, make one notable: Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

At the same time, in two of the four Kiplinger's articles Jordan's clients are profiled through the entire article. They are the article. The writer takes these individuals as a case study -- per Jordan's strategies as to what to do: 1) when one is facing retirement (Kiplinger June 25, 2008, Kathryn Walson) 2) when one is self-employed around at tax time(Kiplinger, March 2008 by Jeffery Kosnett and David Landis). This is also the case in the January FORBES article, The Great 401(k) Escape. This article is about Jordan's client and the strategies he is employing to help his client invest money from his 401(k) into other investment opportunities, since the client is 59 years old or over. Jordan's advice "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 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 Redirected all, far too fancrufty to merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Switch (Kappa Mikey episode)[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon episodes. No sources. Laden with fanwank and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Just merge the plot summaries into List of Kappa Mikey episodes and redirect. No deletion required. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to merge because of the qualifiers in the titles, but eh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Davies[edit]

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

Former chairman of Darlington FC, although I am unaware of any guideline that says chairpersons and directors of professional sports clubs are inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (news articles generally contain only passing mentions) means that this person fails the general notability guideline. -- Big Dom 19:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per nom. Like Dom, I'm unaware of any guideline for chairpersons, but Mr. Davies clearly fails the WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added enough sources to pass WP:BIO,in my opinion anyway :-) Davies' personal notability comes from his chairing Darlington, which has at least the usual amount of media coverage for a "small" club's chairman because of the club's crises of ownership; this is a decent-length interview from The Northern Echo, a major regional newspaper, and there's plenty more. But what strengthens it, is the amount of national coverage of the activities of the Sterling Consortium, which mention Davies equally with the other two members; this from The Independent is a particularly in-depth investigative piece. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant sourcing. But you're right in that we ought perhaps look at a general guideline for chairmen. matt91486 (talk) 02:47, 26 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) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing is good and he is the chair of a notable club. --Volbeatfan (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the sources provided by Struway, I'm inclined to change my mind and say that he does pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 4 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) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Robinson[edit]

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

This article was deleted under prod and then restored.

On checking through it I removed parts of it as gross BLP violations - accusing him of various criminal activity [62]

But I'm really not sure about the rest of it. The article presents him as a notable author and journalist with a colourful life - but I'm not sure how much of this is promotional spin.

There look like a lot of sources, but many don't mention him, or link to fairly dubious bookselling websites.

If someone wants to fix this up and establish notability with reliable sources, fine. Otherwise it probably needs to go. (Happy to be proved wrong here) Scott Mac (Doc) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I pretty much doubt anyone could fix and establish any notability. Pay careful look at the bibliography. Adoro Books is a pay per print and not a real editor. And check the other books..., if him being an author, as suggested in the intro is what is supposed to make him notable, no one become notable by simply publishing a booklet on Mexican Slang and some other vanities. To add, much of the article is a biography with internal information which could only be comming from the subject himself. -RobertMel (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big deal? - Just off the top, the prison business is not contentious, is very much a part of the journalistic role Robinson played in San Diego, and essential to much of his writing. He's seen it, has no problem with it. It's not an "accusation", it's a fact easily verifiable...just not linkable to.

Adoro Books is NOT, as a matter of fact, a "pay for print" and wonder why somebody would say that with no evidence behind the accusation. Send an email to them and offer them money to publish you and see what happens, perhaps? There are no "other vanities" involved. The Mexican Slang book is one of the three best selling books in English in Mexico as is constantly cited as a major guide to understanding Mexican culture. Try reading some of the references on the website from some of the most noted names in "gringo Mexico books". Robinson's role in Mazatlan journalism was major: probably the most significant foreign journalist in the region. We tried to link to some of that: articles that challenged and changed laws, altered the status of foreigners in that region. We checked it out with the editor of the English paper in that town and the Ameican consul. Maybe Mexico isn't a real place to wikipedia? Is that the problem? His work with Seattle publications and in the catalog industry was highly influential, but before everything got put online. Is there somebody we can arrange to communicate with people about this, or is the only that counts things that are linkable to? Is the catalog industry not a real field? When every slightest name or acronym in the computer field is enshrined? Actually, whatever "internal information" is, such things can ONLY come from an author itself. Think. You read something about the childhood of Steven King...where'd they get the information? We contacted Mr. Robinson and finally wheedled information for him (and from his website and few others about him) Naturally. We have had less luck with Seattle poets Steve Bernstein and Ed Wilsun, because they're dead. Therefore not a problem because they arent' BLP's anymore? Sorry if this sounds a little cynical, but it's hard to make sense of all this. This man has published quite a few books, has had social impact in several areas. There are authors on wiki with much less going for them. The accusations of "vanity" and "pay for it" are unfounded and untrue and there is no attempt to substatiate them. We'd suggest ignoring them. If having a dozen books out and changing Mexican laws to allow foreigners more investmemt security and rewriting mail-order approach isn't enough, fine. We'll wait until fall when his TV series airs and put this stuff up again. It just seems like a nuisance, though. Since it's apparently all right to call for deletion based on things that are silly like "you got this boyhood stuff from the author" or flat-out untrue like the "vanity" crack, can we ask what sort of stuff we have to do to make this thing okay? It's gone beyond trying to memorialize Seattle poetry, by now. Into trying to figure this place out and work with it constructively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All info on wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable third-party sources. We don't use stuff "weedled out of people". If the chap is a noted author then there will be reviews of his books etc published either online or in mainstream journals and newspapers. Are there?--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer to only one point here. This page here write: Print their own paper books in low numbers at low costs. No real editor require the author to pay for the printing. -RobertMel (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your only point, there seems to be little problem. That's not Adoro Books, that's a special line for ebook manuals for writers. Featuring manuals to be worked with on computers...a paper book would be ridiculous. I own the video manual and it's great. And, again, you are talking about authors paying for printing without one single shred of evidence or citation to back up your insinuation. Why are you doing that? Also, there are reviews. Just read the sources. It's hard to understand why bio details would be of such importance here. Surely the important thing is the books themselves: which are all linked to and available from about 4 different presses. None of them vanity presses. Is this a discussion or some weird witch-hunt. And there are plenty of writers listed on wiki with less substantiation. But let's see what turns up.

Just out of curiosity, what is this mania for chopping off bios of the living. Does dying make one more significant or something. A serious question, asked sincerely. Why would Olympic Gold athletes and published writers be axed because they're alive? Also...why is the word "promotion" cropping up? What could possibly be considered promotional about this, even before the prison stuff got hacked out?-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 10:29PM, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.216.68 (talk)

That's its faq, and the special like you claim viewed when pressing on Works home at the left side. As for the book section, I was wrong, but it says about the publisher: Adoro is a "moonlighting" project created by industry professionals--writers, editors, designers, artists, publicists--as a "labor of love" to attempt to transcend the restrictions and drawbacks of the traditional publishing model. It represents, at several levels, a decentralized approach to publication. Whatever that means. This sort of project there are now plenty, here one in French (at the middle range between vanity and an editor). The whole point here is that the info in the main article is internal info comming from the author and can not be sourced. Can you? -RobertMel (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says they're considering a manual telling authors how to print books...be self-publishers, in other words...not that they are vanity publishers or charge authors or any of the other terms you drop in here, like "other vanity" etc. You have made charges with no grounds...ironically in a discusstion that mentions not having contentious material. Odd. The differences between people self-pulishing and people charging others to publish for pay are so distinct it's hard to believe that anybody would have trouble with it. But it certainly would not imply the charges of vanity publishing you made earlier on and if you're so interested in not having uncited accusations on wiki, you should consider editing your comments.The French thing you cite has absolutely nothing to do with Adoro Books' approach, which you admit you don't understand. Write them and ask them, rather than jump to conclusions and call them a vanity press. Okay?

Of course there is no way to verify with links early bio material, anymore than posting a link to something Steven King said he heard from his parents. The fact that these books are on sale, that these articles appeared, would seem proven by mere clicking. Why are you doing this? Give us a little time on the citations. But don't be silly about being able to back up bio material with "facts" or try to pretend that it is a criterion that exists for other wikipedia persons or the academic world in general. And please observe your own rules about tossing around words like "promotion" and "vanity", will you? -Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 11:45AM, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, all this is irrelevant, I said I was mistaken. As for the French publisher, it is actually the same thing. Both are locals, which publish what generally others would turn down, they're both decentralized new kinds. But all this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the article is written by internal info and it is silly to ask more time after admitting it is internal info. If you are gonna answer anything be ready to provide the published material which back the article. -RobertMel (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no you are mistaken again, and continuing to make statements that YOU can't back up, making snide insinuations about things you demonstrably and admittedly know nothing about whatsoever. Adoro is not "local"...they are net based. If you think they are "local", what is their locale? They don't necessarily "publish what others turn down" and you have absolutely nothing to back that up, yet post it here as fact. In FACT, they commissioned two of their books by contacting people and asking them to collect their material as books to be published. I know this because, unlike you, I looked into it. Yet you continue to make invalid statements while whining about "citations". If anything here is "internal" it's your stuff: not gotten from author websites or public records, but just your own unsupported hunch about things you are ignorant of. How about you just hold your horses and quit making untrue statements, see what goes down. Is that unreasonable? Less reasonable than continuing to post fallacious assertations?

-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 9:13PM, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant it only publish local stuff, not that they only publish in their locality. Taken from a catalogue on publisher's (on Adora books), it says regional, I won't argue with you more, you can keep accusing me or continue calling me an ignorant for all I care or pulling my legs. Fact remains that you have yet to show from where the info comes from, unless you provide that there is really nothing to debate... you have to tango alone. I rest my case. -RobertMel (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a third party "catalogue, not the "publisher's catalog". Ironically, in terms of this discussion... the third party reference is innacurate. Running through the actual catalog on their site you quickly find authors from Great Britain, New Mexico, Mexico, Wyoming. You keep saying there is nothing to debate, then posting gratuitous fallacious statements. The "accusations" don't come from me: they come from you saying this is a vanity press, running rejected material for pay, etc. etc. The only "ignorance" mentioned comes from others saying things they admit they know nothing about.

If this is some sort of weird hit job, there is no reason to continue. If it's some legitimate attempt a versimilitude, could you respond to a frequent and pertinent question: WHAT citations of WHAT? Are you saying that no detail of childhood, etc can be presented here unless it comes from a third party? You do realize that few bios or wiki entries meet that criterion? Are you saying that any work listed here needs to have something other than a link to the publisher? If so what? Please be more specific. PLEASE stop publishing untrue statements. Tell the truth, we're at the point of losing interest in this entire project and have notified the author that if he gives a damn about this to get involved himself. But this discussion itself has become interestesting (frustrating, revealing, etc).

Are you saying that no wikipedia bio can have anything in it that is not verified by some reference to something linkable on the net? Are you saying this applies to all bios, or all living bios? Could you spell this out a little? Without making more innacurate accusations?

We've added some references we scraped up. There's a disavantage here due to the recent advent of online material from magazines, but we're trying to work with wikipedia, while trying to figure out what exactly is expected. If you'll chill until next month there will be more.-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 9:46AM, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.216.68 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I refer Dustry Joe to WP:BLP, which explains our guidelines on biographies of living persons. Rather than demanding the explanation here in the AFD project page, that link will answer the questions, as will a {{helpme}} template posted in his talk page. This said, Mr. Robinson does not quite seem to meet our [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines. He's an author. Great, so are many people - but getting published, unto itself, does not make an author notable, it means he's had his works published. This said, we still need something that we can verify from [[WP:RS|reliable sources - and Joe, you should check those out before asking further questions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:V, with a nod toward WP:COI as well. And yes, Dustry, that is how it works: if something cannot be sourced to reliable sources, it cannot be in Wikipedia. This applies to every type of article, but biographies of living people are especially important to source correctly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aether Shanties (Abney Park album)[edit]

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

Album which fails WP:GNG. Note that there are several more articles by this band which consist only of track listings and personnel listings. Previously redirected to band's article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NALBUMS: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." According to that criteria, since the band is considered notable - as it is considered the "premiere" steampunk band - and the album has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as shown by the various reviews linked in the references) the album is notable. keep --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abney Park is a notable band and Aether Shanties, their album, is notable in the steampunk subculture as can be found from a few minutes research or from the references placed at the bottom of the albums article. keep IzzyReal hunts idiots (talk) 05:34, 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, Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since WP:NALBUMS dictates that the album's generally have notability extending to a band if hte band is notable, since Abney Park is notable, I'm going to roll with this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:07, 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) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singarella[edit]

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

My db tag was removed on the grounds that this is an article just like Wilkins. The difference is, there are articles about people named Wilkins, that surname page is used as a disambiguation page. There are no articles about people named Singarella (and, based on the Username of the person who created the article, it was an attempt to get their name onto a Wikipedia article.) This is no more than a Wiktionary article disguised as a Wikipedia article. Woogee (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's clarify: the speedy was declined as it was a tagged as a non-notable person, which would not apply to this article. I then did a tiny bit of clean up to it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you will look at the status of the article at the time that I tagged it, it included the following:

List of people with the last name Singarella:

Nicholas Jack Singarella

Woogee (talk) 22:37, 20 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) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to just be an attempt by one individual to get their name in Wikipedia, as detailed above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 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. consensus that there is enough sources so that the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL and passes WP:NALBUMS JForget 00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo (album)[edit]

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

Not enough confirmed info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information provided for this article was sourced from Billboard, a music industry paper of record, meriting it a legitimate article for wikipedia. As the album is set to come out in the spring, which is only a few weeks away as of this posting, more information will be forthcoming soon. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can it wait until then? Spring could mean as late as May. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a title and a vague release frame, and sources. I don't see the point in deleting just to re-create in a few weeks. In the unlikely event that the album is cancelled or significantly postponed, deletion might be amore viable option. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I actually came here to create this article and was surprised to see it already here. But it has been confirmed by multiple sources and a track has even been officially released. Will try to add more sources.BillyJack193 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album will likely become notable when it gets closer to release, but at this time there is little info confirmed track listing and a "tentative" 2010 release date. Very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources; too much crystalballing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. The sentence in the band's page is more appropriate than this entire page. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in compliance with WP:NALBUMS. The article has reliable sources (Billboard, and Rolling Stone) and does not list any information that could be considered crystal balling as per WP:CRYSTAL. The album title is confirmed, has a release date (though admittedly, vague) and a few song titles for the album have all been confirmed per the Billboard and Rolling Stone references respectively. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding more independent sources to prove notability, as well as find more information on this article such as a tracklisting and perhaps a more defined release date. Until then it does crystalball because of the loose time frame as a release date, and there is very little confirmed about the article. I will do a brief search myself on your behalf. However, I do not think the article can be saved at this point, and as I stated maybe as we get closer to its release it will be notable and a page can be made to satisfy Wikipedia standards. --Volbeatfan (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already has several reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Most future albums are not notable, but that is because they don't have adequate coverage. This one does. Rlendog (talk) 16:31, 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 List of people from Assam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popular Assamese Brahmins[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Clear case of listcruft as this is just a list of names that this user considers "popular", thus constituting total original research. -- Big Dom 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people from Assam WorLD8115 (TalK) 11:33, 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) 02:38, 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) · @155 · 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. Sounds reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pill Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable awards for a non-notable public access show. ADD-TV is similarly nominated for deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but posssibly Merge with ADD-TV - To my surprise, LGBT publications across the US have written about these awards.[63] Also, the event itself seems to be a big deal in which nominees (some of whom are notable) actually show up and peform. --Griseum (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 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) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added 10 references to help editors decide whether or not this should be kept. If the person who created this article knew what they were doing I don't think it would have gone to AfD. --Griseum (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced of notability after Griseum's sourcing additions. Wine Guy~Talk 02:32, 26 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) · @155 · 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It would help if the article said what the Pill Awards were offered for, and if the recipients were listed by year, with their achievement, and a citation for each. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there are multiple, independent, secondary sources. Good enough. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:34, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Epley[edit]

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

Member of a couple of bands; could go under one or both of them; no independent notability Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N & WP:BIO no 3rd party coverage found of this individual. Disagree with proposed alternative merge into Shiner or other bands. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:17, 22 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) · @152 · 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. After deletion, perhaps redirect to Shiner (band), who are at least marginally notable. His other current band looks like it likely would not pass an AFD currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as per Andrew Lenahan, there are secondary sources that mention and quote him in the context of Shiner, e.g., [64], but I don't see sufficient sources for him as a standalone article. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:52, 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) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADD-TV[edit]

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

Local New York public access show that plays once a month. I cannot find any evidence that it is notable. Angryapathy (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also nominated the awards created by this program for deletion: WP:Articles for deletion/Pill Awards. Angryapathy (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this show. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pill Awards? - To my surprise, LGBT publications across the US have written about these awards.[65] and they seem to have become more notable than the show itself. --Griseum (talk) 15:30, 15 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) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no non-trivial third party coverage. 2 says you, says two 21:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added numerous refs to Pill Awards. A merger still makes sense to me. --Griseum (talk) 01:59, 25 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) · @152 · 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete public-access shows are non-notable essentially by definition. No opinion about a possible merge, but it definitely can't stand as its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Pill Awards, perhaps with a mention there. I'd say Merge into the Pill Awareds, but I can't find secondary source support for most of the content of this article, my point is just that there's very little sourced material to carry over to Pill. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:38, 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. NW (Talk) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Floyd[edit]

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

It's not clear from the article that the subject meets WP:BIO. As she's a journalist, there are many Google hits to coverage by her, but the article cites no independent third party coverage of her. She's reported to have received a number of professional awards, but I can't ascertain whether these are notable or significant awards. Oh, and the only reference in the article is a dead link. Sandstein 09:31, 12 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) 01:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a different bio link to the article (haven't used it as a source yet, but it's there for others to use), and there are a decent number of gbook hits mentioning her including this, but I'm still unsure as to whether she passes WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 25 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) · @151 · 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We've kept bios of people less notable, deleted bios of people more notable. THF (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hate to be harsh, but she's not a not a major media star, not a major legal analyst, and she has not won any major awards. This is attested by the lack of third-party coverage.--Pink Bull 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject does indeed have coverage by reliable 3rd part sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. That she is an opinion-maker and her views are sought show her as notable. That and her awards show she's "major" enough for Wikipedia. Article can be improved through normal editing and as such is no reason to delete Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at those sources, reliable many of them are, but the content is lacking. Mention in passing is not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 6 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. no consensus for deletion after three weeks of discussion JForget 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lindquist[edit]

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

Seem to fail WP:ATHLETE. I could be wrong, but most competitions she took part in seem local or similarly non-notable (none have an article here; compare with Cathy Priest for instance). All references are primary: her own website and her ModelMayem page. Pcap ping 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 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) 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any direct references to be found for the "other credits" section? If so, that could increase the article's notability... GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most fitness models appear in magazines. It's no different than academics publishing papers or books. The list is copied from her MM entry (like I said above). If you think she is notable as a model, the relevant guideline is WP:ENTERTAINER, which I don't think is met, but that guideline is rather subjective. Pcap ping 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. She may pass WP:ATH (competed at the fully professional level of a sport), but the article obviously needs better sourcing. Wine Guy~Talk 02:24, 26 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) · @151 · 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: She looks like she is probably notable, however, the sources of the page are just personal sites or profile pages. I am not an expert in body building or strong man/woman competitions, but it seems like she is professional. Perhaps this shows how silly the WP:athlete requirement is. For some sports we hold people to the requirement of competing in the Olympics, but for others a national professional league will due. Perhaps the WP:athlete needs to change, but as it is written, I think this person fits the description.MATThematical (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the intent of the Olympic part of the guideline is to expressly include all Olympians, particularly those for whom there is no notable "professional level" of their sport; not to exclude those who have not been in the Olympics. Wine Guy~Talk 02:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how someone participating only in obscure competitions qualifies as notable even when one of those competitions labels itself as "professional". Pcap ping 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good question to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I would agree that some "fully professional" sporting endeavors may be of questionable notability (i.e. is the sport ever written about in RS independent of the sport itself?). But the way the guideline reads now anyone who has competed at the fully professional level of a sport is notable, but there is no suggestion that one should consider the notability of the sport itself. Wine Guy~Talk 22:38, 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) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany's, dancehall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiffany's, dancehall

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

Declined WP:PROD. Non-notable venue; sources consist largely of web pages listing concerts that happened in the venue, but none from reliable sources. Frank | talk 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-ok. Let's go under the list. In article there are relevant references, but Frank so wishes to expose article on removal that prefers not to notice it.--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Little Richard - Other reference is not present, but in article too there is no such material. Probably, the information is the truth as Little Richard was born Edinburgh.--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Deep Purple - Sending on page In Rock World Tour is given. If the nominator has worked to look at least What links here would see it. There dates of rounds do not prove to be true in any way. Thus Tiffanys it is specified. Also it is specified on a deeppurpleliveindex.com site (It it is used in that article as a source). Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Elton John Here, there is still such page. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. John Otway Here, there is still [such poster. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wild Willy Barrett Here, there is still [such poster. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, unless "some big names played there" is sufficient for notability of a venue. If it should be kept, the horrible English needs a complete rewrite. Oh, and is the user above claiming that Little Richard was born in Scotland? That must be news to Little Richard...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above I have resulted five questions under references. Answer each of them, please.--Andrey! 09:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources give significant coverage of this venue. One is just a photograph of a poster stuck to a wall -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unpleasant to me that you could not answer points 2 and 3. You do not have objections?--Andrey! 22:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I answered all your points. I said that none of the sources presented give significant coverage of this venue. That covers all five points (two of which are the same source, anyway) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you were hooked for Litte Richard and have not seen Dire Straits and Deep Purple! Perfectly!--Andrey! 09:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I understand that you do not manage to think up arguments against sources on Dire Straits and Deep Purple.--Andrey! 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not understand what you were asking me to address. No offence intended, but your English is very hard to understand. I don't think there is anything to address related to those bands. The sources attached to their names, like all the others, do not give significant coverage of the venue itself. Nobody is denying that some big-name bands played gigs at the venue, but to have its own article, there need to be sources which give in-depth coverage of the venue itself, not simply mention its name on lists of gigs. Here, for example, is an article about a venue. It doesn't merely mention it in passing in an article about something else, it is actually about the venue. That's the sort of source we need here........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have such article, but I can confirm the fact of passage of the main part of concerts in it venue.--Andrey! 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As has been repeatedly pointed out in this AfD, nobody doubts that some well-known acts played at the venue, but that by itself does not make the venue notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You try to overpersuade me, but I do not see arguments. They would be good, if the performance fact was individual, but here it not so. I have written to participants of project Venue but they yet do not write to this discuss.--Andrey! 07:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not inherited. Some notable performers may have performed at Tiffany's, but that doesn't make Tiffany's notable. (Also, the Elton John link above notes that the appearance at Tiffany's was canceled, which would be even less reason to confer notability.) None of the sources in the article that I saw would be considered a reliable source. They are fan sites, blogs, simple lists, and primary sources (photos of posters, for example). Even if they were reliable sources, they still don't add up to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Finally, the fact that another page links to it doesn't make it notable; Wikipedia is not a source. Frank | talk 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to understand at first with sources. On five facts sources at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are above resulted.--Andrey! 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we will manage to confirm with sources that here in a current of 15 years high quality musical collectives we will return to a question notability acted--Andrey! 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:PROD here it is not applicable, as it is a question not of a single instance, and about more than hundred concerts--Andrey! 22:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as outlined above, no significant coverage of the venue in reliable sources. Notability is not conferred simply because major acts have appeared there. I found some items on the building in its earlier phases as a theatre [66] and cinema [67], but again not enough to demonstrate "significant coverage". Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:00, 24 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) · @148 · 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to add in article of data about theatre and about cinema.--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to have had substantial coverage in reliable sources, and the article is TERRIBLE, in some cases so confused-sounding that it's difficult to make out what the author is attempting to say. If kept, would require a 100% word-by-word rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above in discussion I tried to work this question (about reliable sources), but dialogue has turned to my monologue. You are ready to consider variants on each of them?--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not to overlook that this venue was a performance venue for many a notable act (see above), but the fact that Elton John, Deep Purple, and others performed there does not make a place notable. This doesn't give it a history. There are other things that make a place notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You write about all references as a whole. In article there is a few references to official sites of musicians. You challenge also their relevance including. Means it is impossible to give such reference which would satisfy you.--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to reposting with better evidence on notability. There may well be coverage of this venue, but it all looks pre-internet, and the onus is on the poster to prove notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not concern a theme: Here I created Disambiguation pages Rafter (disambiguation) and Rafter (name). I saw about hundred articles without a uniform source. And such articles do not cause tearing away in you.--Andrey! 15:47, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NanoLab Nijmegen[edit]

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

This organization does not appear to meet WP:N. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard scanning sources quickly as most of the hits come back in Dutch, but the article on nl.wiki appears to be identical to this one with even less sources and the creator seems to be the director and thus has a WP:COI. On the other hand, there are at least brief acknowledgments in gscholar, and gnews does appear to provide what claims to be national news about the center itself, I just have no idea if the sources are actually reliable papers or not. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 25 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 02:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 02:28, 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. COI is not a reason to delete an article, so we need to look at our company notability guideline - WP:COMPANY. Comments which deal with the points raised in that guideline are the most useful. The Keep !votes do not tackle the concerns raised about lack of independent coverage - also to be bourne in mind is the lack of involvement in Wikipedia by two of the keep !voters. Having looked at the sources used in the article, and those found on Google, I agree that the criteria in WP:COMPANY has not adequately been met. Some of the Google hits appear to be press releases, and some of the other sources only tangentially mention the Medinge Group. More substantial evidence of notability should be found before restoring the article. I will be willing to usefy on request, and advise on reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 14:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medinge Group[edit]

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

Non-notable think tank, lacking independent coverage. Fails WP:CORP. Article created by an editor who also created articles on its director Jack Yan, and the magazine Lucire owned by the same business person. Smacks of WP:COI. Kept at VfD, way back in 2004 before we had any clear guidelines for inclusion. Pcap ping 01:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:17, 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) · @143 · 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; this is an international think-tank of marketing and branding experts whose chief business is apparently to confer a non-notable marketing trade award. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously my word won’t mean much here given I am a director, and I have an inkling of who the editor was. To answer the press coverage point, I can think of this one by a Hindustan Times paper and Wall Street Journal affiliate (an interview with our CEO), and we got a two-page spread in Resumé (well respected Swedish trade paper) on August 22, 2002. There are a few others in the mainstream Indian press in 2007 or 2008, but from memory they were in Hindi. Happy to find these for you on request, as they are offline. Jack Yan (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Added a few references, viz. interviews with CEO Stanley Moss. Jack Yan (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original creator of this entry is listed as User:203.79.67.84 and quoting WP:COI because the same IP Address shortly after created the entry for Lucire is by no means proof that they where created by Jack Yan, I would ask Jack Yan when he was appointed as a director of Medinge Group. Dean(2bitwannabe) (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I was appointed a director in 2006, though I seem to recall the paperwork was not done till the following year. Jack Yan (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a member (but not a director) of the Medinge Group, so need to declare that interest. I question the phrase "smacks of COI". The article is not adulatory.
Keep. References in the article indicate notability. --Pink Bull 14:06, 5 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) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Fan Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously listed for deletion in 2007 because it was non-notable and had no sources. The result of the discussion was no consensus, which means that the deletion discussion can be revisited at a later date. Well, a later date has certainly arrived; it's now 2010 and the article still has no sources, doesn't provide proof of notability and reads like an advertisement (including touting the "safe sex message" of the company!!! Does this really belong on Wikipedia? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too promotional. Not spam, but seems to promote itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Rhomb (talk) 11:34, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Lijewski[edit]

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

Only interviews and trivial sources found. Tagged for sources since 2007, and as usual nobody can be arsed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Gongshow ^Talk 05:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing this is an anime and manga related discussion. This is an ordinary comic book creator. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I based it on the claims that she "specializes in manga" and that her "big break was Tokyopop's Rising Stars of Manga contest". Gongshow ^Talk 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OEL manga falls under the remit of the Comics Project, according to the AMP's definitions of what they cover. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Interviews and reviews are trivial sources? That's too bad, given how many of them there are: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Christy+Lijewski%22 --Gwern (contribs) 15:15 26 February 2010 (GMT)
Keep She's hardly a celebrity, but it seems like she's pretty accomplished in her field. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have had coverage elsewhere (and being a runner-up in RSOM is a big deal within the field of OEL manga), although those news, interviews and reviews should be moved over to the article. The writing might need looking at it is has the whiff of original research (making it sound like a press release). So a round of editing and sourcing should help. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When a reliable source interviews a person, that person is being given significant coverage by that source. Per others above.--Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 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) 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEnd Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization with penny-ante budget; article has a history of COI involvement, but I realize that is not itself grounds for deletion unless it was a blatant G11. Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 12 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) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added this reference: http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/article/389924--passing-on-holiday-gifts Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eastman. Sadly, that kind of passing mention doesn't really provide material from which we can write sourced encyclopedia articles.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notabilty not asserted, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 10:54, 25 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 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, and it looks like there have been long-running WP:COI/WP:SPAM problems here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article Eastman mentions is a wonderful story but doesn't really tell us anything about UEnd we can use to write an entry. I can't find significant (secondary, independent, reliable, notable) coverage either. --Joe Decker (talk) 05:55, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date with Destiny Adventure[edit]

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

Non-notable book series, "Date with Destiny Adventure" returns about 60 hits on Google. "Night of a Thousand Boyfriends" returns a little over 100. ""Escape From Fire Island"" returns 96. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 12 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) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it doesn't seem that popular, news results include (pay-walled) mentions in the Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times, so it appears to pass the first criteria of WP:BK — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 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 02:08, 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) 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaline (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. One download-only album on a notable label; perhaps tellingly, their subsequent album ~~is on~~ will be on a different (and non-notable) label. Very little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-notable" new label is what is considered the new Ferret Records; a label which sold millions of records and housed some of the largest hardcore bands in the world. This new label is owned by the same owners that started Ferret, is distributed by SONY, and has a roster complete with other well known artists in the industry. Furthermore, the label will be pressing physical albums of this artist's next record which will be distributed and sold everywhere in stores nationally through Sony Red Distribution, and overseas via Metal Blade Distribution. Once this new album is released, their media coverage will increase exponentially.

@TheJazzDalek you don't know much about the music industry, or at least must not keep up with it if you think this band's former label is something of more importance than their new one. You probably shouldn't be commenting on things you have little knowledge of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.3.41 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC) — 24.136.3.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Will be", huh? Well maybe once this new album is released (is there a release date from a reliable source?) and the media coverage "increases exponentially" (although 0⁵ is still 0) your group will meet WP:BAND. And you think Eulogy Recordings is less important than a new startup that hasn't put out a single release yet? Talk about delusional (or just wishful thinking). TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty ridiculous that someone is trying to delete this page. Rosaline is more "notable" even in the completely arbitrary way this website measures it, than 99.9% of other musical acts. Fans view this page as a resource to learn more about Rosaline, and deleting this page defeats the whole purpose of this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.93.20 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC) — 67.163.93.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google News hits on "Rosaline punk" or "Rosaline Chicago". First Google web hit is the bands MySpace page which is a very bad sign for notability. Remaining hits are from blogs and other sources of questionable reliability. Might be notable one day but that day doesnt appear to be here yet. RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the 4th result on a google search of "Rosaline Chicago" is a press release on absolutepunk.net about Rosaline's signing to Eulogy Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.93.20 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not considered reliable sources, because they're not independent of the subject. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 22 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 02:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:BAND at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial sources so far. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:48, 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 redirect to List of Cory in the House characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Paroom[edit]

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

Redlinky page, unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cory in the House characters, which has a section already with more (and better) info on the same character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Starblind. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 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 speedily deleted (G3, blatant hoax) by JoJan. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just 16[edit]

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

Seems to be the content of P.S. I Love You (film), copy/pasted to this new article, with a changed plot and cast section and the lead removed. I wanted to speedy delete it, but I am not sure it fits any of the categories there. TheFreeloader (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax/vandalism. No such movie exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and warn the creator about in appropriate copy-paste page creation. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fits WP:CSD criteria G3, and I have tagged the page for it. Acebulf (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's a blatant hoax, alright. Basically what the nom says it is: a fake film description created from the description of a real film. I can't find any reliable sources to prove the existence of any film with this title, let alone this particular alleged "film". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:51, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parkleigh[edit]

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

Delete: This Wikipedia entry comes across as a blatant advertisement for the Parkleigh store. The content reads just like an "About Us" page! Beteljuice (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and tagged accordingly. If that is declined my !vote will default to delete as advertisement for a non-notable business. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News search. Please remember Wikipedia:BEFORE. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Hmmm, I didn't think to check Google news, but they all look like pretty trivial mentions in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this one. Parkleigh certainly gets a lot of mentions, but the number of instances of significant coverage appears low. I wonder if an article on the Park Avenue neighborhood, to which this one could be merged, might not be more likely to pass muster. Powers ^T 15:34, 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, NW (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worth including in any article, even as a redirect. I'd have speedied it without hesitation DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like a zillion tiny shops all over the world, it's there and it exists but there's really nothing in an encyclopedic context to say about it. Arguably could have been an A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non Notable and clearly reads as advertisement. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{db-spam}}. Anna Lincoln 08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. This company has not "been the subject of [emphasis mine] significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 16:43, 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. Never mind the motives for creating this article or for filing this AfD, there is a clear consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of published lists[edit]

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

This article was created for a WP:POINTy reason. So I am going to AfD it for an equally WP:POINTless reason, as it fails to meet WP:TPA Martin451 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect to the above article:[reply]

List of for-fun lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin451 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the discussion that led to the creation of this list but please provide a valid argument for deletion. Considering WP:IMPERFECT and WP:POINT, I see no choice but to suggest a procedural keep. — Rankiri (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is not notable in itself, there are no published sources that lead to this list of lists. It is also original research. Martin451 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SALAT. An indiscriminate listcruft with no clearly defined inclusion criteria. — Rankiri (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a great idea. We have lots of list articles, and provided they are sourced, I see no problems. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need WP:SALAT to realize that lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value. The inclusion criteria of this article covers hundreds, if not thousands of lists that have very little in common. Take a look at [68], [69], Category:Top lists or Category:Lists. The list is clearly unmaintainable and serves little practical purpose. — Rankiri (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only counted 20 or so in the Category:Top Lists. If WP can handle one article on each I don't see a reason why a list of them, each being notable, would be unmaintainable.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check the subcategories and the rest of the given links? — Rankiri (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out Category:Lists a bit, not every subcat, and only saw WP lists, not published lists. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ignoring the reason for nomination, which can't be supported (Wikipedia would be rather bare if we removed everything that was not TPA), I'll provide a comment as I consider this one. Lists are always problematic when they become the subject of a deletion debate. My view is that they should be treated as encycopedic articles in their own right, so that they don't become a directory. This is consistent, I think, with WP:LIST. It's one thing to provide reliable verification for each individual entry in the list, but does the article's topic itself need to be verifiable? If so, do we need to verify (in this case) the concept of published lists, which after all is the article's subject? If so, how do we do that? Do we need to provide evidence that published lists are notable? I think the answer is "yes" to both questions and, accordingly, I'm leaning towards delete, but I'll need to give this one some more thought... Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rankiri. RFerreira (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete per clear consensus that this is a problem article. Yes there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of published lists. However what is wrong with a list of some of the most notable? And yes my original reason for starting the article was to make a WP:Point, in this case to protest against articles on these very lists which reprint the contents of the list (a questionable practice in terms of copyright issues -- although I am not a lawyer). Now that I got the article started, however, I am pleased with it and I think that some readers might find it interesting and could learn something about the practice of published lists as well as, perhaps, checking out some of the lists themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that these lists have nothing to do with WP:List, although the list of them does. This seems to have been a source of misunderstanding. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists get published every single day and many of them become quite notable. Governmental statistical reports, numerous "Top 20/40/100" ratings created by various periodicals, encyclopedic lists of statistics, various lists of people, places, actions, methods... According to your inclusion criteria, the list should include FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All Time, THES - QS World University Rankings, List of countries by population, List of Internet top-level domains, List of Nobel laureates, List of billionaires, List of designated terrorist organizations, Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, World Heritage List and who knows what else. What do all these published lists have in common? Nothing, except for an indiscriminate meta article created to demonstrate a point. Remember your words on WP:Articles for deletion/100 Worst Britons? "Article is lots of fun, but of no lasting notability." Well, you've had your fun. Now can you please stop fooling around and see WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT? — Rankiri (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lists that you mentioned that were published in notable publications, not just on WP, could be added to this article with no problems.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just summarize my point and move on. Considering that all Wikipedia's entries must be attributed to published sources, the inclusion criteria for the list ("published informative or entertaining lists") is practically meaningless. The list is potentially unlimited and unmaintainable and was created for the sake of having such a list. WP:SALAT specifically says that lists that are too broad in scope have little value. WP:NOTDIR expands on this, stating that Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics. Unless you can demonstrate a meaningful connection between such entries as The 50 Best Inventions of 2009, Seven deadly sins and America's Most Miserable Cities, the list looks like a direct violation of the above guidelines. — Rankiri (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here is the introduction of the article: "Various publications have published lists to inform and sometimes to entertain their readers. This is a list of some of the more well-known." By "well-known" I intended to imply WP:Notable (or at least notable enough so that the list is mentioned in the WP article on the publication, as is the case of Golf World's "100 Best American Golf Courses.") Of course the publication itself also has to be WP:Notable. The Seven Deadly Sins list, like the Seven Wonders of the World, has been around before the invention of printing and other mass media so was not introduced in a notable publication. The other two you mentioned could be included if they and their publications meet WP's notability standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open any textbook and you'll see dozens of lists (list of seas and oceans, list of chemical elements, etc.) that are published, notable and well-known. As for your objections, see [70] and [71] and please stop discussing every single example taken off the top of my head and address the bigger issue of indiscriminate selection criteria. — Rankiri (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to explicitly restricting the list to those lists that have WP articles, and the publication also having an article. Textbooks usually do not. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you though. I say List of oceans is a well-known list, informative and published[72]. According to the list's inclusion criteria, it has just as much right to be there as Fortune 500. — Rankiri (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source that shows where "List of oceans" was first published then include it by all means. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that WP does not have an article about "List of oceans" like it does about the Fortune 500. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the list is already filled with entries that have no WP articles. Second, the list's inclusion parameters don't support your personal views on what should and shouldn't be included. See WP:OR. Third, according to WP:TITLE, article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. And finally, this discussion is truly going nowhere as you deliberately avoid the question of indiscrimination. I'll let other contributors weigh in on the issue. Perhaps, the consensus will be formed without the approval of the article's sole author. — Rankiri (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of the article. I would welcome other people's contributions. On the other hand, if I remain the sole contributor there will be no danger of the list becoming indiscriminate and unmaintainable. :-)Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow keep - The silly pointy dance aside, the list can be absolutely worthwile if precise inclusion criteria are sorted for the list. Being "published" is clear but it seems to me a bit broad -however it can be OK if we then have sub-lists instead of individual entries. Maybe the original editor can help us understand what the scope should be. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I need help in the wording of the introduction. I kind of understand that, for instance, a "List of people from San Francisco" really means (on WP) a list of WP:Notable people whose origins in San Francisco have been documented in WP:Reliable sources. So what I intended to imply in my attempt at an intro was: "List of notable lists that were first published by notable publications." On the talk page I mentioned that I was limiting my entries to lists of over 100 items that have a useful life of at least a year. This would exclude the New York Times best seller list which changes every week. I said that if someone else added it I would not remove it, however, since it and the Times are clearly notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as the criteria of all lists -- notability -- is kept. Bearian (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. Interesting though this may be, "interestingness" is not a valid inclusion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone is smoking the good stuff today on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I restored my prior comment which Steve deleted in good faith. Its not a personal attack. If my humor wasn't clear enough, this is a RIDICULOUS discussion. Perhaps my opinion is worth little to some because I am not elaborating on it, but I can live with that.--Milowent (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please tell is if you think the idea of a list of published lists is ridiculous or if the idea that that list should be deleted from Wikipedia is ridiculous. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Steve, the idea of this article is ridiculous. Yes, sometimes we have to apply common sense. The list will have no value, especially if you delete my marijuana entry.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Published lists becomes an article in its own right. If published lists are not notable enough for a stand-alone article, then a list of them isn't either. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have its own article. There are dozens of articles about individual published lists. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If anyone still has doubts about the future of such a list, its latest two entries are "List of 10 Best Marijuana Strains" and "List of Tigers' Woods Mistresses". Ridiculous, indeed. — Rankiri (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them since they are not WP:Notable lists and not in notable publications. WP's notability policies govern every article and list on WP. I could have stated that in the first sentence of the article but I thought it was already implied. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, I have all rights to revert that edit: [73], [74]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added those two entries (sorry for the pointiness), but we could come up with thousands of lists that would pass "notability" as it seems to be defined for purposes of that article.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, let me also address some of the earlier points: even if such a list somehow passes WP:N, it doesn't change the fact that it still violates WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:TITLE. According to the deletion policy, articles that fundamentally conflict with WP:NOT are not suitable for the encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it fail WP:SALAT or WP:NOTDIR? The scope is huge, I agree, but we can have it as a collection of sub-lists, like Lists of people. Notable lists are indeed a notable subject, and they can (and should) be listed too. WP:TITLE is irrelevant because it can be dealt with moving the page to a more appropriate title, so it falls under WP:ATD. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What additional arguments do you require? As I said before, a complete lack of connection between such potential entries as "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives", "List of oceans" and "List of Tiger Woods' mistresses" clearly marks it as a repository of loosely associated topics. As for the scope of the article, it's not simply huge. With 7,280,000 Google results for "published the list of" alone, the list is going to be virtually infinite and impossible to maintain. I also don't see any similarities with Lists of people or Lists of topics. These lists are Wikipedia's organizational portals. Their scope and inclusion criteria are quite different from those of the discussed article. If you wish to see more appropriate examples, consider List of books with lists or List of published photographs. — Rankiri (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think List of notable photographs would be a problem.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting list. It maybe could be retitled and explained better in the intro so that it is made clear that it is a list of notable "published lists." Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the very definition of listcruft, appears to have been created as a joke arising from a feud on an AFD (specifically, this one). See also WP:POINT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with delete here. First off, this is not a list of lists, this is a list of publications, explaining their lists. Second, it is the broadness of this category that worries me here. I'm not opposed to seeing some cleanup, but I'm not seeing much effort in fixing it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is the most insane idea I've ever heard. If you want wikipedia to be a second patent office, then you should probably support. But I don't find that especially helpful to the encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's difficult to think of how this article would actually be useful to anyone. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, this article has a lot of potential if given the right scope and sourcing. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been trying to see some potential, but there's no apparent organization, and I'm not sure how this could be organized to be useful. Perhaps if it was limited to annual lists that are a feature of a magazine (Fortune 500, U.S. News's college list, People's sexiest persons, etc.) and it included the information about when the list comes out (i.e., Fortune 500 usually comes out in July), it would be worthwhile. Alternatively, if it was divided along the lines of "people, places and things" then it would have value as a reference. I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT in the comments above, but it really comes down to whether someone would consult the article and find out something that didn't already know. I can't say that it's "a great idea" or "the most insane idea I've ever heard". I've seen better ideas, and I've definitely seen or heard more insane ideas than this.Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandsford. I changed my "vote" to delete and will restart the article (when I get around to it) following your suggestion to restrict it to notable annual lists and include secondary sources for each item. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept I will move it to a new title, "List of major annual lists in popular magazines" or something like that, and remove the nonconforming items. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT as an indiscriminate list, at least as currently defined. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with many of those that commented above, that the creation of this list-page indeed does appear to be a WP:POINT violation. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a reason to delete it. Most of the debate here seems to be about the motivation of the author. The article itself is not so bad. It should be kept with a better name and some cleaning and straightening up. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also an indiscriminate list with seemingly no criteria. The name is inappropriate and too vague. It is unencyclopedic. It relies on and encourages WP:OR violation for its list population. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those are legitimate reasons to argue for deletion. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, agreed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. The overly broad criteria for inclusion makes it hard for the contents to meet policies such as WP:IINFO and WP:OR. Them From Space 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rankiri. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 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 speedily deleted (G11, promotion) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit, Mind & Body[edit]

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

Original synthesis on a non-encyclopedic topic, with no sources. A prod was removed. Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: the article was originally created with the title pneuma-psychosomatic, which became a redirect when the article was retitled at the same time the prod was removed. The redirect should also be deleted if the article is. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above, also delete pneuma-psychosomatic per nom.. There is an existing article without the above problems at Psychosomatic medicine. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original essay, shows no indication of notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

And here is good news: Pneuma-psychosomatic diseases are preventable and curable. This is especially true if those of us afflicted with them are willing to take personal responsibility for getting ourselves into the problem in the first place.
MORE GOOD NEWS: it is also possible for us--regardless of how we feel--to make good choices and, with the help of wise therapists--especially those who have been through it, themselves--to start the process which will help us break the cycle of pain and suffering and, using the power of love, open the way to total health. Ideally, this happens when, armed with the qualities of faith, hope and love, our spirits, minds and bodies integrate into one being similar to what Jesus had in mind when he said: "That all may be one."

Res ipsa loquitur. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as this appears to exist only to promote certain web sites. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbiotic[edit]

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

Contested PROD; fails WP:BAND. They may have released albums, but so have thousands of bands. They may have had some radio play, but not enough to meet our criteria. Rodhull andemu 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 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) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Potentially passes WP:BAND criterion 11 (music in rotation on a national station) but in any case fails WP:N (significant coverage in reliable independent sources) as although there's a bit of buzz on blogs and forums there's nothing (that I could find) which constitutes a "reliable source". - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:16, 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. Interesting discussion and development. It appears that the solution has been found, and relevant material has been included in Sukkot . The Feast of Tabernacles title is already a redirect to Sukkot, so the current title is an unlikely search term. Delete is the appropriate action, and what consensus calls for. There are some requests to userfy, and I would be willing to do that on request. SilkTork *^YES! 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)[edit]

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

Article was created as POV fork from the original article on the Jewish holiday. Much content has been added and deleted, but there's almost nothing in the current article state that's distinct from the parent article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Not only does the content mirror the Jewish Sukkot article, but it reads like WP:SYNTH, as the only references are appended to chapter and verse, not content. Someone should be able to write something about the Christian celebration of this holiday, but this page isn't it. Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further editing by Equazcion (see below), I change my vote to Keep. Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm a little confused about this article. Previous revisions seemed to be adequately separate from the Jewish holiday, ie. this one. Would a revert to that version handle the main concern here? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:46, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a total overhaul of the article, changing it from a Christian perspective to a Jewish one, was made over 14 edits in November 2009 by a one-time anonymous editor[75]. I would agree with Equazcion that going back to the version before this IP user started changing things would solve the problem. Yoninah (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the version prior to that IP's edits (the diff I referenced above), albeit with some copy editing. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:56, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The IP was likely simply confused and was unaware of the original article, about the Jewish version of this holiday. GlassCobra 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep. This holiday is NOT identical to Sukkot (the Jewish version of the holiday), even though it shares a common origin. Pentecost is not the same as the Jewish Shavuoth, either, and Easter is not the same as the Jewish Passover. Second of all, the Christian customs may be different. For example, the common Protestant belief in sola scriptura may lead to the adoption of practices based on the written Bible only, whereas many of the common Jewish practices are derived from the Oral Torah, the Talmud and Rabbinic literature. An article focusing on the Christian practice of the holiday and the history of its observance in Christianity is probably of interest to a different group than the Sukkot article, and would be a notable and helpful addition to Wikipedia's collection of Christianity-related articles. --AFriedman (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Several editors, including myself, have copied the entire contents of this article to Sukkot. The section Sukkot#Feast of Tabernacles in Christian tradition looks quite good over there, and is actually quite short in spite of the fact that it contains all the useful information in the article. No need to keep this as a separate article. I change my vote to Delete and support redirecting the page to "Sukkot". --AFriedman (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really have a position on this, but just pointing out that so far there aren't really any good sources for the Christian observance of this, at least as far as I've seen so far. There's just a reference to Jesus having observed it or commanded his disciples to observe it in a bible quote. Maybe someone can find actual reliable references to the Christian observance nowadays -- that would really solve the issue, I think, if such sources exist. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:49, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This article needs a lot of work and expansion, but it is a good addition to the other Christianity-related articles already in WP. As AFriedman stated above, it is not the same as Sukkot as it is celebrated by Christian groups, not by those within Judaism. I would like to see this article expanded and, if time permits, will work on doing so in the near future (if, of course, it is not deleted). Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The waiting period for deletion discussions is partially meant to allow time for addressing article issues. If you could at least show sources to show that this is indeed a holiday observed presently, that would really help; Right now it seems the article just makes an original claim based on a bible quote. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:24, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Here are some links to show that The Feast of Tabernacles is observed by Christians: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Is that enough? There are plenty more out there... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)I'm not sure if those can be considered reliable sources. I'm still abstaining from voting, like to see what others have to say on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:34, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    - Huh? Three of them are Christian organization websites that are announcing their upcoming celebration of FOT this year and are taking reservations for it. One of them, the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem[81], has Christian participants who come to that convocation from around the world (I know of a number of them from Tanzania personally who go annually). What about those sites and organizations keep them from being considered "reliable sources" by you? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You really need to start using that preview button SRQ. I'm bad with that myself, but just saying :) Anyway I'm not sure if an organization holding an event for money is necessarily reason to say it's a bona fide holiday. It's certainly not a secondary source, which is needed to show notability; I'm not even sure if it could be considered a valid primary one (but maybe it could, I'm not sure myself). Equazcion ^(talk) 18:44, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      - It actually is a valid primary source, sorry. Still, it's not secondary, so the notability issue still isn't addressed. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        Secondary sources(?): [82], [83], [84] (I added this last one as a link to the book at its reviews at Amazon because this is a discussion - not an article - I would ref it to the book differently for an article, of course). There are more available, do I need to post them here or is the above enough? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tangential discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(edit conflict) If holding an event, taking reservations for that event, and collecting money for expenses for that event isn't a reason to say it's a "bona fide holiday", then synagogues throughout the world have been holding their Seder observance as an "[UN]bona fide holiday" for a very long time. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passover is mentioned in secondary sources. The fact that Passover is held in synagogues isn't the reason it's considered notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:55, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

- You completely missed the point of my comment. I wasn't arguing that Passover is or isn't a bona fide celebration (which it is), I was pointing out that your rationale ("I'm not sure if an organization holding an event for money is necessarily reason to say it's a bona fide holiday") doesn't hold water because synagogues have been holding overservances and celebrations for $$ for a very long time. In modern Judaism, if you want to reserve a good seat at a Seder table in many congregations, you have to pay for it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then yes, I did miss the point of your comment, which was to argue with me over something that has no bearing on this process. Secondary sources are what matter. Sorry if I said "bona fide holiday" instead of "notable", but let's move on from that. For the purposes of AFD, secondary sources need to be shown, and they thus far haven't been. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:02, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    - I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was trying to help educate you on something you seem to not know much about. <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy Although the primary concern of the nominator seems to have been addressed, as the article now describes a separate concept from the Jewish holiday, notability hasn't been established yet through reliable secondary sources. The article thus far basically constitutes nothing more than an original interpretation of bible verses. I'll revise my vote if this changes. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:43, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - "Original interpretation"? No - you're now talking eisegesis, and that isn't the case at all. Jesus celebrated Sukkot because He was an observant Jew - that is provable through a simple exegesis of John 7 and 8 from the original Greek (as well simply reading as various New Testament translations). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original interpretation is that such evidence alone constitutes a Christian holiday. I don't see how showing Jesus celebrated something means we should have an article on it. If that were true we could have separate Christian articles for every Jewish holiday, since Jesus celebrated them all, being an observant Jew. Besides this still doesn't address the main problem, which is that no matter what, secondary sources need to be shown to back up this being an actual Christian holiday. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:50, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Userfy so SkagitRiverQueen can improve the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine with me. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:36, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Delete as not verifiable as a notable Christian feast, although Christian may observe it. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some references to the article. There are lots of others. Does anyone want to add more? --AFriedman (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any there yet that could be considered reliable secondary sources. Not to say there aren't any available, but I didn't find any in my cursory search, and none are currently in the article. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:08, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Reference #8 (Good News Magazine) looked like a reliable source to me. --AFriedman (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question that being considered a reliable secondary source, but even so, if you read the relevant section of that page, it too is just a description/interpretation of bible quotes, and says nothing about whether Christians do or should celebrate the holiday. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:43, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the additions, and I still think that Delete is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There isn't much separate content here. If it could be expanded, so as to not fail G10, then it definitely does qualify for inclusion. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - too much of a mess to stay in mainspace now. It reeks of undue synthesis. I'm not sure who celebrates this from the article or the sources, and whether it's so important. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge to Sukkot, since sources are cited for its existence. But make it clear that only a small number of Christians celebrate this holiday. An better option is to merge to the article on the Jewish holiday and mention there that some Christians also celebrate it. It is not at all clear that they are celebrating a distinct Christian holiday. Readers are better served by a merge, more people will read the information and it will be clear that what is happening is Christians celebrating a Jewish holiday, as the sources seem to indicate. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe the article needs some improvement. It appears that the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles is decidedly a minority position among Christians. That does not mean that Wikipedia should ignore it, but it does mean that the article needs to explain which Christian denominations celebrate this holiday, not just say that it is celebrated by "some Christians". It would also be helpful if there were sources provided from independent reliable sources, that is, sources written by scholars or journalists who discussed the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles by Christians from an independent point of view, as opposed to sources written only by people who are themselves trying to promote celebration of this holiday by Christians. Currently, the majority of the citations in this article are to Biblical verses about Sukkot/Tabernacles, but there need to be more references regarding who among Christians celebrate the holiday in the modern day and how they celebrate it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable secondary sources. It would be great to find an objective source which explains who widely (or not) this holiday is actually observed. I agree with Metropolitan90, but that leads me to vote to delete. Racepacket (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second what Kitfoxxe said. Best to merge it. Bejinhan Talk 07:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Christian and have never heard of this being a Christian holiday. On the other hand, Christians are free to celebrate any Jewish holidays or ceremonies that they like, and sometimes do -- both to fellowship with Jewish friends and to learn more about our own religion's roots. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as per Kitfoxxe. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Changed to delete in view of StAnselm's merge of this information into Sukkot. --Joe Decker (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no more a POV fork of the Jewish holiday than Easter is of Passover. Really, Judaism and Christianity look at the same source text, the Hebrew scriptures, and come up with markedly different interpretations. The "fork" isn't a Wikipedia POV fork... it's a 2,000 year old religious fork that continues to this day. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the nominator's concerns have been addressed already. The article still lacks reliable secondary sources confirming that this is indeed a holiday celebrated by Christians. The potential Christian version being different from the Jewish holiday is not exactly what's in question anymore. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:37, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- But Easter is celebrated by most Christians. The Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated only by a small minority of Christians. I would be willing to support this article if it clearly indicated which Christian groups do endorse the celebration of Tabernacles with reference to independent, reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sukkot Done. Delete. The pertinent question is, "Do Christians who celebrate this think they are celebrating a Jewish feast, or a Christian feast?" Now, one of the websites mentioned says, Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles ) is not a "Jewish festival", but rather a "Hebrew" festival, for it was given to all the Israelite tribes, not just Judah. But that is clearly implying that they are celebrating Sukkot. The content of Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday) should be a section of the Sukkot page. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think Sukkot should have a section called "The Feast of Tabernacles in the Christian tradition" or something like that. But it's really hard to find relevant material. Is there any reference to any non-Jewish Christians in church history celebrating it? StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. I have added a "Sukkot in the Christian tradition" section to the Sukkot article, and copied the relevant information across. I can now change my vote to delete. StAnselm (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: this article is clearly about Sukkot, and all three non-Bible references given[85][86][87] explicitly say so. With the merge to Sukkot, this article has no function. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know why I didn't look into this sooner, but there are three similar articles that need to be merged into their respective main articles: Feast of Trumpets (Christian holiday), Passover (Christian holiday) and Day of Atonement (Christian holiday). StAnselm (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many Hindus celebrate American Thanksgiving, but there is no need for an article: "American Thanksgiving (Hindu holiday)". Just an example. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:52, 5 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) 00:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last shot (2010 film)[edit]

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

Hoax film, PROD removed by creator, SD was declined as not a blatant hoax, nothing on IMDB CTJF83 GoUSA 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator claims a student film, so it isn't notable. Also article contains conflicting information and big-name stars, so highly unlikely to be accurate. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert the subject's notability. RadManCF (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted questionable content for the page, making it more suitable for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N easter12345 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not the questionable content it is the lack of notability that makes it eminently deletable. --Bejnar (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax, it's a student film. That's fine. Only problem is that student films are not inherently notable. This should not be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If the film gets coverage upon its release, it's possible that there might be a claim of notability. But the article is premature, and we don't predict future notablity. So, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we can always undelete it if the film gains notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who removed the speedy because it wasn't blatant in my mind, but I was also the one who placed the prod. While the lack of sources doesn't necessarily indicate a hoax, it indicates that it's not notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate that there are so many films by this name, making seraches for this one a bit difficult. However, and as this is a student film that has no coverage and has yet to be released, the article is a tad premature and Wikipedia can delete without prejudice toward return if and or when it can assert and source notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability Cynof Gavuf 09:23, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eisen (journalist)[edit]

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

Delete because it fails WP:BIO. The only sources are related sources, no reliable secondary sources. Creating a podcast for the Giants is hardly a claim to fame. No awards. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Random webmaster type. Not even notable enough to mention in the Giants article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Needs references or Awards/Prizes..--Rirunmot 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Notes Magazine[edit]

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

A defunct and perhaps cripplingly obscure magazine. Being defunct doesn't matter; being cripplingly obscure does.

At first an article (created in 2006 by User:Egress13) on an obscure periodical, until around this stage (10 Jan 2010) this was short, clear, inoffensive, but utterly unreferenced (and thus perhaps largely untrue). Within six days User:DGG and I had sourced a few uninteresting facts about it from its own website, resulting in this version. None of the various claims for notability within the article could be sourced. As nothing notable about the magazine could be sourced and it seemed to be one part of a rather complex literary/business scheme run by a writer named Christopher Klim (article created by User:Egress13), I suggested at Talk:Christopher Klim that its content, and that of Klim's Eric Hoffer Award (article created by User:Egress13), should be merged into the Klim article. As you'll see there, DGG agreed, but said However, I think it advisable to leave in enough information so that a reader will get an accurate idea of the nature of the entire enterprise.

In this message thread you'll find irreverent, unciteable, but I suspect accurate material about Writers Notes and its award (now the "Eric Hoffer Award"). I have trouble finding anything else.

Nobody objected to the proposed merge; I therefore went ahead and did it. (Though arguably after waiting too short a time.)

User:Egress13 removed the material about Writers Notes from the article on Klim on 24 February. The next day I reinserted it. Five hours later, User:Egress13 removed it again, with the edit comment Cleaning up facts: Writers Notes was not free, defunct for several years; the website does not offer paid consultations; the author has not been associated with it for several years.

The magazine (or ex-magazine)'s own website has been redone in the last ten days or so; now indeed the (humdrum) facts cited from it are no longer there.

If the author is no longer associated with the magazine/website, it strikes me as odd that the contact address for both (Writers Notes, Klim) is the same company at the same PO number. (Aware of the slipperiness of the content of Hopewell's various websites, I give "Webcite" URLs.) This magazine -- which has been known for its insightful interviews with literary lions such as William Styron (in his last interview), Tim O'Brien, and Mary Gordon, as well as contributions from noted authors Robert Gover, Thomas E. Kennedy, and others (as we were told earlier, though with no source) -- seems to have faded into oblivion. If this is so, then of course the material about it should remain deleted, and a redirect to it should as well. However, no CSD appears to cover the latter.

And the above is pretty much what I wrote at RfD. User:Thryduulf thereupon suggested undoing the merge and putting the article up for AfD. So here we are.

(NB there will -- or should -- be no links to this article, because I'd have previously pointed any toward the article on Klim. I think there were very few, but there would at least have been one from Klim as well as one from the later merged article on Klim's "Eric Hoffer Award". I suppose I could re-create the incoming links; but really, I think I've already spent quite enough time on a magazine that no library in Worldcat admits to stocking.)

-- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On March 15, 2002 Business Wire published a description of Hopewell Promotions based upon the company's news release. It read, in part: "Internet Home Page Address: www.ChristopherKlim.com; Address: PO Box 11, Titusville, NJ 08560-0011; Company description: Author promotions for award-winning author Christopher Klim, handling media contacts and event bookings." Of course Christopher Klim had not won any awards as an author at that time. Writers Notes Magazine was just part of an advertising scheme. You can take a look at the various incarnations of their webpage via Internet Archive at this URL. Especially telling is the March 25, 2003 version. --Bejnar (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the redirect, & protect it, & protect the article as Hoary and I have edited it. There was first an attempt to provide wildly inaccurate and inflated coverage of the company; when this was corrected, the person responsible then tried to remove it. We shouldn't give in to attacks on our articles like that, but should restore the neutral version. I point out that when I said leave in enough information, I did not mean I was including any material giving my own judgment, just enough information that a reader could form their own judgement. deleting the article rather than protecting it is not the way to handle bias. This originally came to attention when there were attempts to use being published in this magazine as evidence for notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that you, DGG, haven't addressed the notability issue. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a little on the notability issue as you see it? ¶ For your part, DGG, are you actually suggesting reversion of this to a redirect, and indefinite (full) protection of the redirect, and reversion of the article on Klim to our version and indefinite (full) protection of that? I must confess that the notion that you and I can wander around Wikipedia editing articles at will -- um, sorry, I mean editing them with scrupulous regard for policies and guidelines -- and then indefinitely protecting the results isn't utterly without appeal to me, but (aside from its probable unpopularity with other editors) it seems out of character for you. A sleepy typo, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the article is completely 100% true as currently written, it's not notable in the least. 1500 copies is nothing at all by magazine standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know. I suppose it would be nothing by the standards of sleb, cooking, pr0nographic, or toy (computer/motorbike/car/camera) magazine, but I'd guess that it's not at all bad for a literary mag. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. A mainstream literary publication like, say, Granta has circulation around 50,000, and even lesser publications can regularly manage 10,000-20,000. How low is 1500? Let's put it this way: it's lower than the student newspaper in my local middle school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit unfamiliarity with periodicals. I know rather more about books. In my part of the world, the most prestigious photography award is routinely given for books that have had print runs of 2,000 or so. Hysteric Glamour and Rathole are unusual in announcing the number more conspicuously and (usually) numbering each copy; although this page that lists them all doesn't specify the number for most, it's almost always under 1000 and sometimes as low as 400. Months after publication, the huge book Hokkaido (edition of 1500) by the ever-trendy Moriyama is still in stock. -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really getting desperate here. Comparing a literary magazine with $200 limited-edition Japanese collectible photography monographs?!? I don't even know where to start pointin out how ridiculous that is. The only similarity is that both are made mostly of paper. The business models are obviously completely different: an art book can be a limited edition of a small number of copies not because it can't sell more but because it makes it more attractive to serious collectors willing to pay 200 bucks for a book. A magazine would never deliberately lower its circulation, if anything magazines want a large circulation to attract more talent and better advertising prices. In some cases magazines even artifically raise their circulation for this reason--for example, Newsday was caught doing so in 2004 which caused a major scandel in the publishing world. So yes, comparing a magazine to a $200 limited-edition book is rather ludicrous for all sorts of reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course the term "limited edition" appeals to snobs and other nitwits, but it is extraordinarily hard for me to provide you quickly with credible sources for the print runs of most other books. Let us stay with these limited, numbered editions for a minute. I have four of these Hysteric Glamour books and the highest list price among them was about 5,250 yen, or about 50 of your American dollars -- very similar to the price it would have had if it had not been in a "limited" edition. ¶ Moriyama's Hokkaido is a huge book and $200 is about what similarly-sized lumps of slaughtered tree cost here if they don't come from Taschen or Te Neues. (Consider Nachtwey's Inferno, though Phaidon priced it modestly.) Moreover, Hokkaido is not marketed as a "limited edition"; it merely has the size of its print run printed on it. "OR" informs me that Persona (1) had a run of 2000 and that its second, "popular" edition had a run of 5000; nothing "limited" about either. ¶ I've never suggested that this little magazine depressed its circulation. I'm not fully sure that it even existed, but if it did exist then I'm sure that its publisher would have wanted to sell lots and lots. -- Hoary (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not exactly helping your point here, assuming there even is one. Let's examing this item by item. A book that costs $200 cannot be compared to a literary magaine. A series of books that cost $50 each cannot be compared to a literary magazine either. A book which sold 7000 copies is also not comparable to a literary magazine. 7000 is not the same as 1500, or even close, and books are not magazines. 1500 is so low that there's very little in general circulation to directly compare it to--some school papers, church bulletins, fanzines, office newsletters and the like might have similar circulation numbers, but the business model is too different to compare. The reason for this is that publishing a magazine under 5000 copies or so would tend to be unprofitable in most cases, see this link for a very general overview. Using those numbers, a magazine printing 1500 copies would have to charge $7 each and sell every single one to just recoup printing cost! Factor in salaries, office costs, advertising, distribution costs, etc and a micro-distribution magazine might need to charge $15 an issue just to break even! For reference, that's roughly 3 times the cost of an average American magazine. If the circulation and impact of this particular magazine was so low that it's difficult to determine whether it even existed, I think that rather proves my point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1500 copies for a literary magazine is quite respectable. A more apt comparison would perhaps be academic journals. Most publisher and editors of such journals would do anything to get such a high circulation. I estimate that perhaps 90% or more of all academic journals have circulations way below 1000. --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own uneducated guess would cautiously bring down your "90%" to "80%" but otherwise agree with you. On the other hand, this really is a different business model: academic journals may be subsidized and either way typically have high subscription rates (for institutions, sometimes rates I'd call astronomically high). I was going to consult Ulrich's yesterday but wasn't able to do so, and shan't today or tomorrow. I did however have a look at a copy of Christopher Anderson's book Capitolio which of course is a book (yeah yeah different business model) but which exhibits this interesting combination: (i) edition of 2000 copies (as is straightforwardly stated on its colophon, as is emphasized in the Magnum Photos page selling signed copies, but as goes unmentioned in its amazon.com page); (ii) well-printed, clothbound product; (iii) fairly widely discussed and highly regarded; (iv) real-world price from the world's best-loved monopolist of under $50; (v) new copies still available now, months after publication. You can move large quantities of the "middle of the road", but you need great luck to do so for anything else. ¶ The point is to avoid specious arguments for the deletion of articles, arguments that would be harmless here (if, as I suppose, the article will, for other good reasons, be deleted or turned back into a redirect) but that could harm elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed why I made this argument, because despite thinking that the circulation numbers are decent, I still think this is not notable. As for 80%, I think my 90% is already optimistic. There are tens of thousands of academic journals, the best of them may have a circulation of a few thousand (not counting exceptional journals such as Science and Nature). The vast majority will have a couple of hundred. And some of these will be literary journals (admittedly different from literary magazines) and many influential literary journals (or magazines, in fact) have (or had) circulations of only a few hundred. Remember, we're not talking mass-market publishing here, but niche-market. --Crusio (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A circulation of 1,500 is respectable for a lit mag, but keep in mind that a privately funded lit mag is highly unusual. Typically with a lit mag, an academic institution is covering the loses, and there will be loses. Eventually Hopewell Publications decided to no longer cover the shortfall and closed down the publication. Regarding the Wiki article as it stands, however much it pains me to say this, I vote deletion as well. The article is just not representative of the actual publication. --EGress13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Despite the reasonable circulation, I see no evidence of notability here. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator of this article, I vote for deletion. I had once worked as a proofreader for Writers Notes Magazine, which sprung out of the totally free resource tool at www.WritersNotes.com. The circulation is true, the articles as depicted are true, but much of the underlying discussion seems to portray the publication as an obscure failure and even part of a bizarre Ponzi scheme. Even the images have been stripped away for some reason. I'm disgusted. Please remove the article before the author discovers the mess I've inadvertently tangled him in. --Egress13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egress13 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above opening line [sc "A defunct and perhaps cripplingly obscure magazine. Being defunct doesn't matter; being cripplingly obscure does."] says about everything you need to know about the nasty tone and temperament of this article. --Egress13 ... originally posted after the first two sentences of the nomination (those quoted within brackets here), within the nomination.
- I don't see a nasty tone in the nomination, though I do see an aggrieved tone with hints of sarcasm. Sorry about that. ¶ Your complaint about the opening line puzzled me, but then it occurred to me that you may have thought that the magazine was crippled by its obscurity. If so, I apologize for my misleading prose. What I meant was instead that its obscurity had crippled, and seemed likely to continue to cripple, attempts to "source" the assertions about it within the article -- that this or that writer had written for it, etc. I still think that this is true. ¶ I think that periodicals are very poorly represented in Wikipedia. I encourage the creation of more articles on periodicals. (And I have nothing against defunct periodicals. Just last Friday I bought a couple of 34-year-old issues of the defunct monthly Camera Mainichi [a feeble stub, but my own] and very alive they still are.) I'm willing to believe that Writers Notes is worthwhile too. I'm open to persuasion: I can change my mind about the worth of the subject and the article; I've done this on occasion in the past. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish you had left my comment where it stood instead of moving it. As creator of the article on Writers' Notes Magazine, I would like to remove it. It was a mistake getting involved in this. The magazine will never be properly characterized on Wikipedia. Please accept my apologies. Please delete the article. --Egress13

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Sills (American football)[edit]

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

This is an articles about a 13 year old (7th grader) who committed to play football at USC. This articles is not yet notable for the fact that he hasn't even started playing college football yet. The supersonic seahawk (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Talk:David_Sills_(American_football)#Prod, this subject has been a target of the media for years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because he committed to a major university at a young age does not make him notable for an article creation. Besides, the media is not going to keep talking about him for years to come. When he made the commitment it was a big deal because he was only 13, but the media has other interests other than following this kid until he gets to college. The supersonic seahawk (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with Super... I definitely think that this is a unique enough issue that it is worthwhile and notable. While he certainly is not notable becaue of his college football play (because he hasn't had any yet), I see evidince of notability under WP:GNG (general notability guideline).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This issue isn't as unique as you think. There has been 14 year olds who committed to major universities before in basketball. Why should David Sills have his own page while those number of people don't? I've even seen high school seniors who got their page deleted because they weren't in college yet. Although I agree they don't have to be in college in order to have their own page, why don't we wait until he's a high school senior to consider him notable. The supersonic seahawk (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a matter of age or scholastic status. We are a tertiary source and summarize secondary sources. If secondary sources exist the wikipedia article could and should exist. High school basketball players like Lance Stephenson last year who have already received a lot of press can have articles. Probably many McDonald's All-Americans could have articles in high school.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's getting news coverage by major affiliates in Los Angeles, because of the uniqueness. As a result, he will get the follow up scrutiny--this name will be in the news for the next 6+ years, whether he succeeds or not.Trackinfo (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 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.