Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 February 28 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gould[edit]

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

Not notable poet blogger Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. His works also appear to have been published in print and are available via Amazon [1], so he's more than just a "poet blogger". It may still be a delete candidate if no notable refs can be found, but I don't think the stated reason is sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2010

(UTC)

    • I am thinking after looking some more that there is some notability and that I may of been a bit hasty but the article is in need of improvement, I am looking around for independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to POETICS list Delete see below It looks like all the ones for sale on amazon.com are self-published -- the listed publishers: Xlibris, lulu.com, and "Henry Gould". "Spuyten Duyvil" seems to be a vanity press.[2] He has had at least one poem [3] published in Jacket,[4] but we should have more than that. Doesn't look notable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If consensus is for delete perhaps a redirect or a merge of whatever relevant content to POETICS_list , is an article that Gould has a strong connection to. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine by me. I changed my recommendation. If he becomes notable later, the information in the history might be useful. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in WP:AUTHOR gives notability to an author for getting a book published much less by vanity presses. There's simply none of the in-depth coverage in by independent, reliable, and verifiable, sources that Wikipedia asks for in WP:N. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:09, 27 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) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His only widely held book, A glass of green tea--with Honig in 132 libraries, is a book where he is one of the three contributors to a biographical tribute to Edwin Honig,. Otherwise his poetry has minimal distribution. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Figaredo Alvargonzalez[edit]

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

Biographical article about an individual who does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:PEOPLE, which states that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have not been able to find independent, non-trivial sources to indicate notability, with the qualifier that some sources may be available in Spanish. The Spanish Wikipedia includes a referenced article about the person (here), but most references there appear to be either trivial or not independent. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator withdrawl: References have been added, which demonstrate notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:48, 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) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciklum[edit]

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

Previously deleted, immediately re-created by the same WP:SPA, Ciklum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Claim to notability is a placing in a list by Red Herring magazine, which is currently unverifiable as the pages are 404. Almost entirely the work of an agent of the company. Sources are largely not independent (i.e. repeats of press releases). Needs deletion or a complete rewrite with new sources, IMO. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 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. Fails WP:CREATIVE. References/citations do not demonstrate significant independent secondary coverage. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Eliance[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from passing mention in Newsweek article (cited). Last article of a former Wikipedia:Walled garden, the rest of which have been speedied or AFD'd: see creator's user talk page. Under-referenced section on early and personal life suggests WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO.

Note that this is really a second nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman. Speedy deletion for this repost following that AFD was declined by an admin, though apparently nothing has been added to deleted article to suggest notability has been better asserted this time around. MuffledThud (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G4. No significant improvement over previous article. 37 references and none of them do much to establish the notability of this person. Seemingly reliable sources such as the LA Times have broken links (making verification difficult) many resources are primary sources and odd ones to use as references (Prince lyrics?) RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Erroneous citation is noted (Prince), and has been removed. Re: the LA Times link, I only see one listed, and it's working just fine.
Los Angeles Times. Richardson, Lisa.- 2 Hope to Unseat Inglewood's Longtime Mayor - Election: City Council's Garland Hardeman and Judith Dunlap. November 6, 1994[5] Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
REFERENCES:
  • 1. Article from CWG Magazine pulled from Google News Archive - published January 28th, 2010 [6] (Added to opening bio as citation for Chicks With Guns Magazine)
  • 2. Article from CollegeHumor.com - published January 21, 2010 [7] (Added to alias to as ciation for published work under Jake McCaine)
Note: It has been brought to my attention that despite the appearance of his name in Google News Archive, that it still does not alone merit notability due to the sources being WP:Primary sources:. However, I have found other secondary references regarding his music photography, and have cited under the section Your Proof It Happened.
  • 1. SerenaRyder.com - 'Serena stole the show' - live review. [8]
  • 2. ReverbNation.com - Letters Burning: Press.[9]
  • 3. DatNewCudi.com - Photos: Kid Cudi & Guests Live at Club Nokia, LA[10]
If these secondary sources are invalid, then I will voluntarily move the article back to a sandbox until the required sources become available. Again, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: We've already established this, via the comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman: I can accept that. I just spent the last hour and a half reading all the articles on notability, COI, Walled Gardens, proper sourcing, Google searches, etc. I do now have a better understanding of how all this works. To take the mystery out of all this, yes it is an AUTOBIO of sorts, edited by Livewire legend and myself. I found the articles Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability and Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of not only humourous, but quite helpful. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I've moved your last comment here, and reverted the strikeout you just did on my rationale for deletion. This is oddly similar to what User:Livewire legend did the last AFD. Please don't edit other editors' comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments for why it's a bad idea. MuffledThud (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why am I being brought into this? :) Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I should note that the information from the early and personal life was pulled from the subjects IMDB page (not sure how or if that counts in regards to a reference for biographical info), as well as a Google search on the subjects birth name. This information was not pulled from thin air. Whatever was available was what was used.
As far as the strikeout, understood. Although I should point out that in the last AFD, the "strikethrough fest" was intiated by User:MuffledThud (while emphasizing a retraction of the offer to userfy); I believe LiveWire Legend was just following your example.
Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding strikethroughs to your own comments is perfectly OK: editing other users' comments is not. MuffledThud (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't mean any disrespect by that, by the way. Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 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) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the page is being continuously updated, and there has been no further protest from the admins, I plead that the AFD be removed, and the article remain active. Archer Drezelan (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can see. here's what's been added since the last AFD:
  • links to articles about other people, with photo credits to Markus Eliance
  • a referenced paragraph on Lucas Hardemann auditioning twice in childhoof for a role on Nickelodeon
No further secondary sources have been added showing notability per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. This is a repost (with minor changes) of an article that was previously deleted following an AFD, with nothing to indicate that it will meet notability guidelines anytime soon. The only dissenting view so far to the proposed speedy deletion per G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion has been from the original creator(s) of the article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Self-promotional, most likely written, at least in part, by subject himself. Evalpor (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to point out that while the changes are indeed small, the changes that have been made do mark notability according to WP:CREATIVE. If if's a matter of the amount of notability, then I would agree to move the page back to the sandbox until there is "enough" notability to your liking.
Secondly, regardless of who wrote the article, unless you can show an example of bias in the writing, I don't see how it would be labeled as self-promotional. It looks pretty straightfoward.
Lastly, As a support to my argument for keeping the article active, I included a discussion from an admin, User:Philippe's [talk page about the article]:

"Hi - actually, I sat and thought about this one for a while: it is my opinion that this meets notability guidelines, regardless of the previous AFD. The major point to me is that he's been published in notable publications. So, while I would seriously have preferred a DRV on it, I don't think it qualifies for speedy delete. - Philippe 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) "

Any opposing or supporting comments are welcome. Archer Drezelan (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My !vote is unchanged, I still dont see this subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. A footnote that links to a Google News search does nothing to establish notability. The LA Times link works now, but it doesn't mention the subject of this article so I'm not sure what notability we are supposed to gain from that reference. Actually, most of these "references" do not even mention Markus Eliance and one only lists the name in a photo credit which is a pretty long way from this person being the primary subject of the article as is required by notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite everything, he still doesn't appear to be notable under the guidelines. Citations that prove other facts don't go towards significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The definition of "Significant coverage" is debatable under the guidelines. As User:Archer Drezelan mentioned, the argument now seems to be circling around "how notable" the subject is, as opposed to the fact that he is notable in the first place. If the motion to delete is based off a consensus that there's not enough information to satisfy the tastes of MuffledThud, RadioFan, Bejnar, and Evalpor, I disagree with the decision. Based on the comment made by admin Philippe, clearly the sentiment is not unanimous. However, the fact of the matter is there's no getting past the WP:CREATIVE doctrine set forth by the Wikipedian council.
My vote is still to keep; if it must be removed, just leave it in Archer Drezelan's sandbox.

--LiveWire Legendtalk21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've read the article, looked through the sources and perused this discussion, and I don't see anything which makes this person notable per our guidelines, including WP:CREATIVE. Wine Guy~Talk 00:59, 7 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Powell (basketball)[edit]

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

I'm not that familiar with articles on athletes, but since Powell still plays at the collegiate level he is not sufficiently notable to pass WP:ATHLETE, at least on my reading of that guideline. Obviously were he to enter the NBA it would be a different story. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is unencyclopedic and lacks references. (I created this article — but only a redirect way back when — it was subsequently hijacked.)--Hokeman (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ATHLETE, it's way out of date to boot. THF (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment College basketball players can be notable, and their articles are frequently kept at AFD. WP:ATHLETE is often ignored in favor of WP:N and/or common sense. But Powell is only averaging about 9 points per game at a mid-major school, so I wouldn't care if this article is deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the idea that "WP:ATHLETE is often ignored in favor of WP:N and/or common sense". WP:ATHLETE doesn't prohibit anything at all. It simply spells out that in certain cases (such as a pro basketball player) the person does not have to prove their notability in the usual way. My observation is that college basketball player articles are more frequently deleted if they come to AfD, simply because they tend to be created as part of a fan's attempt to honor all the members of a current team, or (as appears to be in this case), it's someone who is a fan of a particular player. In this case, he's not entitled to the free pass, and he doesn't meet WP:N on his own. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete. Oh and he's not tall enough for basketball, I'm taller than him! (I do realise though that this is very common for guards). ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks notability per WP:ATHLETE and general notability guidelines. JamieS93❤ 23:22, 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. JForget 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quayeyeware[edit]

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

I was not able to find evidence that this company meets the notability criteria. Can anyone else do better? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was unable to find any sources which would establish the notability of this company per WP:GNG. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't really explain what this organisation is, much less provide any evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This survived a speedy deletion notice under A1, but could easily come under G11 or A7. StAnselm (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When an article's entire text is an attempt to construct an argument for notability rather than about the business itself, it's not a good sign: Quayeyeware attends many trade shows and has been noted in many online magazines, stores and blogs... And I still have no more idea about what this business makes or does as I have about how to pronounce the name. (Not much.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easy: Quay-eyeware. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails our GNG, probably meets our definitions for speedy deletion though. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 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. JForget 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atherton House School[edit]

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

Previously nommed for PROD, creator removed it without reason. Non-notable preschool. (X! · talk)  · @986  ·  22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no claim to notability, could be speedied. It's just a privately run day nursery. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claim of notability; a Google search turns up nothing that demonstrates notability. I think this meets CSDA7. PDCook (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very few preschools or day care centers would be considered notable. Sad to say, they only make national or international news when something terrible takes place in one. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want me to go along with high schools being kept, fine... but a pre-school? come on. JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyurethane foam[edit]

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

Doesn't need to be split from Polyurethane. AppuruPan (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. per RadManCF - it is notable
  2. it is already redirected to Polyurethane uses
  3. both articles are plenty large and have citations -articles that are too long are disfavored, as most users of Wikipedia use dial-up service. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether a 76K sized article should be split into smaller articles. Polyurethane uses is a logical spinoff from polyurethane, and it's probably more appropriate to have two articles, one aimed at the chemically literate, and this one, aimed at the other 99 percent of people who consult encyclopedias. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article is already a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - acceptable spin off from a very long article, and arguably notable in its own right. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - spin off from a long article which has been suggested for splitting - easily notable. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:55, 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. JForget 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Gronowski[edit]

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

Zero information on this author via Google news, Google books etc. No evidence that he or his books exist.   pablohablo. 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • note that this is a longterm unreferenced BLP, nominated here rather than PROD because of the spectacular paucity of sources.   pablohablo. 22:23, 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. Per WP:NOTNEWS. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 LaSalle County, Illinois earthquake[edit]

2004 LaSalle County, Illinois earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination by an IP user who can't create AFD pages. Completing the process, I have no comments on the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @959  ·  22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's even no mention of any damage. 4.2 MMS - there are probably thousands of earthquakes of this magnitude each year. Would make sense as a list entry at best. GregorB (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For some regions a 4.2 is a non-event. For others it is a big deal. If it can be sourced, it should be kept, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This earthquake was only a small, localized event not worth mentioning on an international web site such as Wikipedia. The earthquake did not produce any notable damage or casualties. I've noticed that articles on stronger earthquakes that caused damage or even a few casualties have been deleted. As to the argument that this quake is a big deal for those who experienced it, I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, which experienced a 3.2 earthquake last year, which I personally felt. Although that quake is a big deal around here, since this is a seismically quiet area, I know it is a non-event everywhere else; thus that quake is not worthy of having a Wikipedia article. I favor the administrators deleting this article.

S Martin (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made in 2005, when Wikipedia would take just about anything. The unsourced statement "yet thousands of people were startled and awoken in the middle of the night" pretty well sums up everything wrong with this article. According to Richter magnitude scale, there are over 6,000 tremors each year in the range of 4.0 to 4.9. This might have rattled the windows. As for people in bed, it's possible that at least one person in LaSalle County said "Do that again, Stanley!" Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--DAI (Δ) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for some reason, the IP who nominated this for afd also nominated 2010 Illinois earthquake. These events are notable due to the rarity of the events, and the fact that they are much further north than the usual area for earthquakes in Illinois, which usually center around the New Madrid Fault. Also, the fact that these earthquakes are within the Chicago metropolitan area, which would affect 10 million people. Some of us actually like to read articles about earthquakes, and would appreciate a greater emphasis on the value of scientific articles in Wikipedia. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this earthquake was notable due to the fact that it was felt in a total of 6 different states, thus, it was not just a small localized event as someone erroneously mentioned above. In addition, it occurred within 10-20 miles of the LaSalle and Dresden Nuclear Power Plants, and had any severe damage occurred to those plants, it would have been catastropic.
Keep Update, I've added 4+ more references to the article, including the USA Today story about the earthquake stating that it was a rare event for this area, and another source that stated that it was the first earthquake in that county in 123 years, almost to the day. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. USA Today includes a lot of non-notable stuff from verious states so that people traveling know what happened back home. WP:RECENTISM might apply here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was not only in USA Today, but also written up at the USGS and the Indiana University PEPP program (Princeton Earth Physics Project) too. I'm planning to add that reference also, as soon as I have some time. I still don't understand why a seismological event that rarely happens in Northern Illinois, so close to Chicago, the 3rd largest U.S. population center, would not be notable. Wikipedia could certainly use more Earthquake articles, as the WikiProject Earthquakes has only tagged 796 articles. Deleting the four articles that the anonymous IP user nominated on Feb. 27th would not help the project at all. It would be nice to have some editors actually help to contribute to the earthquake articles, instead of just demanding that they be deleted, not to mention that scientific articles on earthquakes actually belong in an encyclopedia. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a minor quake of little to no significance. --Bejnar (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I still don't understand why everyone wants to delete the earthquake articles, but to keep 109,000+ association football articles, that seems to be okay. I can see everyone's priorities are sports, not science. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:02, 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 delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Someone may want to instead source the information on this quake in Newport-Inglewood Fault. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Inglewood earthquake[edit]

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

AFD nomination by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the validity of this nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Spurious nomination.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not notable, and I would argue that earthquakes are inherently notable due to their relative rarity (<10 or 15 big ones a year, generally) C628 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You are correct about the relative rarity of "big ones". According to Richter magnitude scale, those in the range of 7.0 or greater would happen no more than 20 times a year. On the other hand, quakes in the range of 4.0 to 4.9 occur 6,000 times a year. Not surprisingly, it was mentioned on the news that day and the day after, but there's no indication that this was considered notable enough to be mentioned a month or even a week after it happened. WP:RECENT is right on point on this. It's been up for nine months, which is eight months and three weeks longer than it should have been. Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--DAI (Δ) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous editors. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an earthquake is SoCal where the only damage is one broken window? Must have been a slow news day for anyone to report this. But a lot of people don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid. Such is life. WP:NOTNEWS. Transwiki to WikiNews if they want it. -Atmoz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 2008 Chino Hills earthquake was a couple times stronger and also occured near Los Angeles but not as close to the main city. That one is now a WP:GA as it had plenty of references about damage and scientific data. And now this one is getting deleted for being a few times weaker? ~AH1(TCU) 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the confusion (I'll admit that I get confused by it) is the way the Richter scale is set up, on a logarithmic measure, whereby a 6.0 is one-thousand times as powerful as a 4.0 and a 4.0 is 1,000 times as powerful as a 2.0, etc. Under that "every 2.0 of magnitude is 1,000 times worse" scale, a 5.0 would be 31.6 times as violent as the 4.0; the 2008 quake was a 5.5 and the 2009 Inglewood was a 4.7, so rather than being a couple of times stronger, it would be more like ten times stronger. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is likely to be a waste of time. I once tried to argue that a storm which never made land, lasted for only two days and never reached hurricane strength was not a candidate for a good artilcle but Juliancolton promoted it to GA (notability is not a GA requirement by the way) see Talk:Tropical Storm Nana (2008). Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, but it's still good to register comments. WP:AIRCRASH got reformed into something sensible after having been used to justify nearly every incident that ever happened on an airliner. The rule on earthquakes, bad weather, crimes, etc. is that people want to be the first to write about it if it's on CNN. Most of these things have zero historical notability and won't even be mentioned as a footnote five years from now, but as with the news media anywhere, "recent" and "local" get heavy emphasis. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thing is, five years from now, will these articles have been deleted or will they stay forever and make people reading them think they talk about something of great significance? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that eventually, most of these will be purged from Wikipedia, but it won't happen until persons who are interested in earthquakes work out a reasonable policy on what would have historical notability, and what wouldn't. Right now, the standard is "it happened here today". Honestly, nobody really cares about a 4.7 tremor that happened in Inglewood in 1960, or in Indonesia in 2009. In the case of events that don't really merit their own article, one of the problems is that people really aren't sure where they can mention those, so they're left to writing "2010 earthquake in _________". I think that the most informative type of article would be based on location -- in this instance, it would make more sense to write about this minor event on the page about the Newport-Inglewood Fault. For whatever reason, one of the authors of this article acknowledged that fault, but apparently didn't want to believe there was a connection, tossing in an uncited statement that "The Newport-Inglewood Fault runs through the area, but it is currently unclear whether the quake occurred on that fault". Seems like faulty logic to me. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced, pertinent information to Newport-Inglewood Fault and redirect. This quake is already mention in that article, but without sources. If this were to be closed as a redirect, the sources could be pulled from this article's history and placed in the Inglewood Fault article. Wine Guy~Talk 01:17, 7 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 Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Eureka earthquake[edit]

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

AFD nominated by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the validity of the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or seriously hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.109.73 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not notable, and I would argue that earthquakes are inherently notable due to their relative rarity (<10 or 15 big ones a year, generally) C628 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 6.5 is not a small earthquake, and there was plenty of coverage from around the world, not just the US. Plus it was the largest quake to affect California in over 6 years, and the largest to affect Eureka since 1992. RapidR (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think a thousand 6.5s occur per year. The point that occurred in the U.S. doesn't mean it is notable--DAI (Δ) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were some minor injuries, so it's perhaps more important than the usual CNN/Fox tremor. However, there's no historical significance demonstrated to this one. I think the article will, ultimately, be kept, because it passes the two tests that many Wikipedia editors find important: (1) Did it happen in a year that begins with "2"? and (2) Did it happen in the United States? No surprise that it got mentioned on January 9. It would be surprising if it got mentioned in February. Remember the 1953 earthquake near Algiers where "dozens of people suffered minor injuries"? Neither does anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was stronger than the second earthquake off Eureka, and plenty of earthquakes as weak as mag. 3 - 5 get Wikipedia articles in the Central United States and the United Kingdom, especially in Illinois because they are relatively rare and are associated with other boundaries such as the New Madrid Fault. This particular earthquake is not particularly rare, but recent earthquakes in this area where activity was low previously would indicate that the region is getting more active, and we should have enough coverage of this on Wikipedia as it occurs. I would say that only about 100 earthquakes occur each year around the world that are magnitude 6.5 or stronger, and of course we don't have an article on every one of them but this quake affected a populated area that is expecting quakes in the future, so a quake of this size is relatively notable. If a M6.5 occured off Honshu, or the Dominican Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Karachi, Kuwait, etc., or especially in an American area with few earthquakes such as Yellowstone, Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, New York, Boston etc. with no deaths, it would probably still get a Wikipedia article. Simply occuring in the US or in 2010 does not make the event non-notable, and in the 21st century we simply have more data available to record earthquakes so an article would be easier to write. Notability is somewhat subjective, especially for specific events that affected populations such as this. ~AH1(TCU) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though it is rather short, this article could easily be expanded. --12george1 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2010 earthquakes --DAI (Δ) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This earthquake is sufficiently notable from its size. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 6.5 Mw is notable when it happens in a populated area. Unlike a quake of, say 4.0 Mw, a large quake has lasting scientific and historical significance. Regarding various numbers that have been suggested in this thread, the USGS estimates that 75 quakes of 6.5 or greater occur worldwide each year.[11]--Wine Guy~Talk 01:36, 7 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 Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


2010 Illinois earthquake[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.
There are however many articles like this on wikipedia, this one is important, in that it was an earthquake in a place where there is not earthquakes, it is notable in that fact Skuzbucket (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would argue that it does fulfill the requirements outlined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability. First, the earthquake "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as the New York Times (cited in the article), the Christian Science Monitor[1], and the Wall Street Journal[2] to name just a few. Second, any earthquake in Illinois is rare, especially one that generates national news coverage. This particular earthquake is notable scientifically because its origins are not understood well. —Diiscool (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Gaylord, Chris (February 10, 2010). "Illinois earthquake: How bad is a 3.8 magnitude?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Barrett, Joe (February 10, 2010). "Minor Earthquake Strikes Near Chicago". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or make a general article on northern Illinois earthquakes, and merge that information there. The earthquake was pretty weak, but it's still interesting to many people because of where it took place. It would be a shame to get rid of this material entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least temporarily, since I have heard of this quake in the news, but an article on earthquakes in Illinois seems to be be needed, which this one can then be merged into along with similar articles such as the LaSalle County quake several years ago.

S Martin (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely meets the notability requirements. Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not significant, and I think Diiscool puts it perfectly. C628 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Diiscool makes some sensible arguments about a quake in the Chicago area being an unusual event (Southern Illinois has had its share because it's close to the New Madrid fault). However, it falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, it made the news the day it happened, but two weeks later, is anyone mentioning it? We get plenty of articles entitled "2010 _____________" (tremor, plane making an unscheduled landing, event where more than one person was shot, man bites dog) simply because it's on CNN or Fox that day. Usually, there's a grace period of a week or two before a nomination is made, simply because some news events do turn out to get covered days and weeks later. This doesn't appear to be one of those events. I agree with Zag that a general article would be preferable to this type of "breaking news" piece. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete depressing america-centrism. Millions of such shakings occur every year.--DAI (Δ) 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable due to rarity of event, further north than usual area for earthquakes to strike Midwest. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and sourced. Hooper (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pass WP:NOTNEWS Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Of course it has sources, it just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable due to the fact that it was a rare event, in an area (Northern Illinois) where earthquakes occur 2-3 times a century. Secondly, why not keep a scientific article contributing to the study of earthquakes on Wikipedia? I wish that there would be more emphasis on science in Wikipedia, it's pretty sad that Category:WikiProject Earthquakes articles has only 796 articles, and on the other hand, Category:WikiProject Football articles has 109,249 articles. Is it really possible that all 109,249 association football articles are noteworthy?? Why the emphasis on sports and not seismology?? What is wrong with having one or two more earthquake articles?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor quake of no significance. Earthquakes like this are not so rare in northern Illinois. Much bigger quakes like the 1909 Jun 26 14:42 5.1M Intensity VII in Aurora and the 1972 Sep 15 05:22 4.0M Intensity VI northern Illinois, were more substantial and only occur a couple of times a century in northern Illinois. --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the two quakes mentioned above need articles too, as they don't have any right now, even though they're notable. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the intrigue caused by the unusual location of the quake, which caused notable coverage by WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While a 3.8Mw on the New Madrid Fault would not be notable, this one is scientifically significant because they have not yet been able to associate it with a known fault. Wine Guy~Talk 01:52, 7 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker[edit]

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

Some discussion here regarding his meeting notability, as almost every source is either unreliable or only trivially about him. Kept through an AFD in November 2009, but the concerns are being voiced strongly enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apparently I started this article, years ago. Thanks to the efforts of many editors, the article is a lot stronger now than when it went to AfD before, and the publications list has been expanded. I have never seen an article with so many citations go to AfD on notability grounds before. Strongest media sources include: San Francisco Chronicle and Good Morning America. But it is Tucker's notability as a well qualified and widely published researcher, and author, that impresses me. Apparently Life Before Life has now been translated into ten languages, see Cedar Creek Institute Board Members: Jim B. Tucker. And I just noticed that Tucker received a research bursary from the Bial Foundation for € 50,000 in 2001 [12]. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:PROF and there has been no compelling evidence that he meets the GNG. That one of his books may be notable or has been translated into x languages is irrelevant - the books have articles already. I'd have rather continued to try to find sources showing notability, but as it has been so long and they haven't been forthcoming, I must !vote delete due to lack of notability. Verbal chat 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep given the number of references claims of non-notability are utterly ridiculous. Artw (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not the number, but the quality. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't going to bring the article up for deletion again, but no specific claim of WP:GNG or WP:PROF has been substantiated. Yet. As of a few hours ago, there were few sources which (clearly had, or were claimed to have) significant coverage about him, rather than about his works or cases. One of the "better" (i.e., most used as an example justifying WP:GNG) sources was about one of his subjects, with any comment about him or his works being secondary. As for the specifics above, the second reference above is about the book Life Before Life (and is not strong evidence that the book is notable; it could easily be sponsored by the book publisher), and the research bursary is clearly not notable, as has been pointed out before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. His work and his cases clearly pertain to him. Mitsube (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referering to the documentary about his investigation of Cameron Macaulay I've addressed that here [13]. You'll note that per the GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", so even if you could argue that it was more about Macaulay than Tucker the significant coverage ithin still counts towards notability. Artw (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parapsychologist Ian Stevenson has a substantial presence on Google Scholar. This candidate has not yet achieve the same level of distinction. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The overwhelming coverage that has been made on Tucker's research and his routinely being employed as an expert on the subject by mainstream media is quite sufficient as a rationale to keep the article. The dogged assaults on these articles, with much sophistry, leaves me with a strong impression of I don't like it and it is increasingly difficult to retain a good faith attitude towards editors who appear to want to purge Wikipedia from covering certain topics which remain paradoxical towards current scientific consensus, based on that as the main motivating factor. With basis in Hepcat65's comment about other biographies I think a major argument here is that there shouldn't be another standard for articles on people which some editors scorn, basically on dogmatic grounds. __meco (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not scorning the subject on dogmatic grounds. As I said above, the article on Ian Stevenson is well sourced and the subject is notable. I would oppose its deletion. My problem with the present article is that it doesn't reach the same standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
If you read my previous comment carefully, you'll notice I'm commenting on Ian Stevenson (cricketer)s notability compared to Tuckers. This is of course no argument, just a comment on the suspected tendency to I don't like it that directs editors who keep on nominating well sourced articles for deletion. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research Hepcat65 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is unusually strongly sourced, and the opposing arguments have hanging over them the unmistakeable wiki-odour of IDONTLIKEIT, not to mention ITDOESNTMATTERWHATYOUSAYCOSIMNOTLISTENING, as put better by User:MECo above.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meco. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think we have an unfortunate double standard here: mainstream scientists are consistently held to a much higher standard than fringe scientists, and that this double standard leads to an unduly large amount of coverage of the fringe in our encyclopedia. For a mainstream scientist, a keep in an AfD needs to document significant scholarly impact of their work (typically thousands of citations with some individual papers having hundreds) while a fringe scientist typically garners many keep votes on the basis only of a few sources that show that they exist and believe what the article says they believe. By typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for: e.g. in a Google scholar search for Tucker and reincarnation I found only 11 citations for his top publication, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. All that said, I think the sources on the article provide some evidence that he passes WP:PROF #7. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very uneven comparison you are making. By stepping outside the reigning paradigm of science as defined by its most rigidly dogmatic apologists the "fringe scientists" have taken upon themselves a very heavy burden indeed, i.e. that of being outsiders – scorned, ridiculed and marginalized – by default. If nothing else, following such a career path takes courage. The very basis of your argument is flawed, because if it were valid, Wikipedia would violate its own policies by giving such topics as covered by the paranormal, religious and spiritual topic realms any attention other than as social phenomena, let alone attempting to describe the arguments and investigative results presented by their proponents. You cannot judge the opposition by the rules set down by the incumbent class alone, even though you can do so with members of the incumbent class. That is why everyone accepts that mainstream scientists be judged by their own standards. However, since one fundamental function of these standards is to enforce loyalty towards the mainstream view of how science must be performed and delimited, it does not constitute inconsequential acting when the opposition also gets to have its views on what the rules of conducting science should be, considered when evaluating these non-mainstream, dissident, non-conforming to (some of) the majority-set rules, scientists for a general audience. It is relevant and significant that Wikipedia is produced for a general audience and not for the mainstream scientific community. Thus our guidelines and policies appropriately acknowledge the majority position, defined as compliance to the mainstream scientific consensus paradigm, and to a large extent conform to it, however, for the reason that we are producing a general encyclopedia, we have modified our rules accordingly. So, as you write that "[b]y typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for", we are nevertheless not bound to evaluate Tucker's notability on those standards alone. Indeed we shouldn't strive to do so. None of us should. Because to advocate doing so exposes a detrimental flaw in comprehending what a general encyclopedia is in contrast with either a chronicle of scientific proceedings or annals of academic living. And as long as that fallacy persists we shall keep fighting among ourselves. And that surely is not to the benefit of developing Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this supposed to make sense, or is it just intended to sound poetic? Because I'm not getting much out of this long comment beyond some vague special pleading for giving more attention to the nuts because of how brave they are to be so nutty. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an objective observation, Eppstein's statement is sound. The criteria for notability of mainstream academics/scholars/scientists, as demonstrated on these pages, are in practice much higher than for those outside the mainstream. Fringers tend to get favourable treatment in WP so I don't think you have much to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
And even that observation is based on the flawed presupposition that the same ratio of mainstream scientists versus fringe scientists should be deemed notable. That certainly goes to the core of my reasoning above, and although that may be a correct observation per se, the underlying argument that this is a problem to be corrected is myopic. You simply do not address, nor take into consideration, my main points. How many (tens of) thousands of scientifically trained researchers aren't working with grants from the pharmaceutical industry to advance development of heart medicines or cancer drugs? Non-mainstream scientists/researchers mainly engage in primary research, whereas mainstream scientists to a very high extent work in applied fields or on specialized research assaying a large territory where its boundaries have previously been established. Dismissing such monumental factors from the equation simply belies your argument altogether. __meco (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a fair number of news accounts in RSs. [14] DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meco and hepcat. I will remember to copy and paste their arguments the next time someone nominates this article for deletion. Mitsube (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Author 3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i see a continued pattern of deleting academics with notable mass media references. is it "popularizer envy"? Pohick2 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it. I think the legitimate concern is that WP should not inadvertently develop the reputation as a "white-pages" of fringe and crank "scientists", just as it shouldn't be a superset of facebook. (Note that I'm not necessarily commenting on this particular case!) This is largely why notability criteria are much more strict than a few years ago. I don't think you should read anything more into it than that. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Ample news coverage about this guy. Dream Focus 01:15, 7 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 WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay (word)[edit]

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

The clearest content fork you are ever likely to see c.f. gay. Please vote SPEEDY DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This was a discussed split from the article gay, that doesn't seem to have been properly completed. Hopefully someone from the discussion at Talk:Gay#New_proposal can explain what is going on. (I'll notify them now) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until nominator provides links showing what this article is a fork of. RadManCF (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm.... already there; this is a completely unlinked and unloved clone of gay.- Wolfkeeper 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge any viable content. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I noticed this duplication a while back and then promptly forgot about it. It seems to be linked to failed proposal some while back to split the original gay article. Paul B (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - if possible. Redrafts are useful if they are looking at ways to improve the article but should never be in mainspace as cforks. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Snowball Delete - per ↑ and ↓ - also, clear duplicate, no point userfying --Jubilee♫clipman 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gay → Speedy delete -- The Anome (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC), updated 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (A10) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything is the same as gay, nothing to merge....also A10 is for recently created articles only CTJF83 chat 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A10. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article was created in 2007 and is thus not eligible for Speedy under A10. Removed db tag --Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum - admittedly, the original article was a redirect; however, the new version was created 4 months ago: hardly recent --Jubilee♫clipman 02:57, 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. JForget 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamismophobia[edit]

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

WP:NEO. The sole user in a reliable source is Martin Amis, who is describing himself. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism. The only mentions of this word on the web all refer to Martin Amis and are usually in quotes - indicating that the word has not passed into the language but is a term used by one person. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. I note that there was at one time a "islamismophobia.com", but that domain registry appears to have lapsed in November 2007, ten months after Martin Amis used the word in The Independent. Cnilep (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly WP:NEO applies here, this is just a word used by a famous novelist, not deserving of an article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment any objections of speedy redirect to Islamophobia? CTJF83 chat 10:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea, the term is discussed as specifically not being the same thing as "Islamophobia," and obviously seems to have been coined to distinguish how Amis feels from the more general "I-don't-like-Muslims" sentiment of an Islamophobe. Deletion without a redirect makes a lot more sense, unless there is a list of neologisms somewhere we can redirect this to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's unsourced though, but if you don't think a redirect is good then I'll go for....
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe_Szwaja[edit]

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

Non notable, minor public official with no recent political office. Novelty candidate in numerous elections, with little success. Bevinbell 18:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. This does not however bar the article from being kept on the basis of passing the general notability guidelines. Jujutacular T · C 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you feel about the general notability guidelines? Specifically, I contend that Szwaja "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Jujutacular T · C 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be much out of the ordinary. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG as well. The coverage is not significant under the terms of the guideline. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Szwaja fails WP:POLITICIAN but he passes WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As Davewild (talk · contribs) wrote at another AfD, "The general notability guideline supersedes any subject specific guidelines." Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which encompasses WP:POLITICIAN) says that "A person is presumed notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Szwaja has clearly received this coverage.

    See this article from The Seattle Times, where Szwaja receives over ten paragraphs of coverage, and this article from Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where he receives exactly ten paragraphs of coverage. These sources, coupled with the numerous sources already present in the article, establish that Joe Szwaja passes Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Cunard (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As noted, there are a number of references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hitting all the points in WP:GNG. As for WP:POLITICIAN: "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (though one might argue that Madison, the capitol of Wisconsin, isn't a major metropolitan city, and he there isn't much from his seven years on council there) Bennetto (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although Madison (pop. 229,000) is not large enough that a member of its council would be automatically notable, there seem to be sufficient sources for him in particular. I DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Would you not agree that most, if not all, the coverage is linked to failed runs for public office. Does failed campaign coverage rise to the level of significant coverage/notability? Bevinbell 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Failed elections are generally less notable than successes, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable at all. Many Americans with a good background of history could tell you who gave the Cross of Gold speech; far fewer, I suspect, could name his opponent. As for coverage: just because he lost doesn't mean the coverage he received isn't "significant". Bennetto (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would pose that there is a big difference between a democratic nominee for president and a City Council candadite and green party candadite for a congressional seat in terms of notability.Bevinbell 18:06, 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. WP:CSD#A7 no credible indication of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler small[edit]

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

14-year old "upcoming pop star" who has not actually released an album Bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 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. was already CSD'd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Farnworth[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE; contested prod VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am including the below comments from the article's talk page for consideration regarding the prod and this AfD, as the two users involved in editing the page appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relevant , as this person has competed in, and won many major junior trap shooting competitions throughout North America and Europe, this can be proven through records found at the Dolphin Inn in Longton, Lancashire. Further proof of this is through the Omemee doctor, Jules Sobrian, as he has co-trained Daniel along with Daniel's father, at Peterborough Trap Shooting Club. I have personally seen him shoot, and was impressed by his winning streak over the years. Some people have been adding extensive information to this person's page. This page requires only information on him and his trap shooting, NOT information about his ancestry. I have deleted this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article also complies with the article about Jules Sobrian and is significant as he has had management by him and should be considered a safe article. As long as this article stays unedited, then this page should be kept, because it explains his trap shooting. If any information is added that is unrelated, then this article should be revised. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Before the page was destructed by a user at a blocked IP address..it was then taken from my talk page, to make me look like a bad editor, I have since changed my password, and I will make sure this page will never get vandalized on here or my talk page, EVER. Thank you Wikipedia for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.41.176 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If anymore proposals for deletion come up for this page and it is because of vandalism from unregistered users, then it shall be deleted, but it will be unfortunate. I will try as hard I can to make sure no more info is added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This shooter is a significant shooter throughout the UK and Canada. This wikipedia page should definately be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.41.176 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see reliable, third party sources that support that claim. Even so, I don't see subject meeting WP:Athlete. More info is not the problem. Information in significant coverage showing the subject meets notability requirements and backed by reliable sources is what we need. Dlohcierekim 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due diligence. Unable to locate reliable, 3rd party sources on Google. References on page do not support claim to notability. Dlohcierekim 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I don't see any claim to notability in this article. Competing in the Canadian Trapshooting Championship doesn't appear to be a claim to notability given that I can't find any independent coverage of the event from the last 20 years or more. Also, there are no independent reliable sources about the subject provided in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Talk page comments might assert significance, but are unsupported. A lot of name dropping and insistence of importance, but wring it all out and there is no notability in the article as it stands. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those sources indicated on the Talk page deserve further research. Who will join me at the Dolphin Inn to check them out? Woogee (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woogee, as a former admin, you should have a clearer grasp of WP:RS. Cheerio, Dlohcierekim 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, after a couple of pints, nobody will care.  :) Woogee (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody well right, though we can't use OR. LOL. Alas, it's off to work I go. Dlohcierekim 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this person Dan Farnworth HAS competed in the Canadian Trap Shooting Championship in Hamilton in 2008 and 2009. He has competed in the Kreighoff DTL Trap Shooting Competition in 2003, and he was a long time member at A6 gun club and the Dolphin Inn. He is now a member at Peterborough Trap and Skeet Club, he practises his skills alongside Olympic gold medalist, Jules Sobrian. (TrapShooterPageCreator (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete unless third party sources demonstrating notability turn up in the entry. Currently there are none, and making a lot of noise on the AFD page won't solve the problem. Hairhorn (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, despite the fact that this was a contested PROD with an assertion of significance, it's been speedily deleted by User:Bwilkins. Dlohcierekim 12:09, 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.

Daniel E. Witte[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 delete. JForget 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Balaican[edit]

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

Non-notable person involved in minor political scandal. No other noteworthy qualifications. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; WP:BLP1E. The scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article; we don't need separate biographical articles about other individuals who were involved but aren't notable for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PKT(alk) 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/redirect to Judy Sgro. THF (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I started this article -- in 2005. In 2005 there was no WP:BLP, and thus no blp1e. WRT merging to Judy Sgro -- I don't think this is appropriate. Sgro was the Minister of Immigration for barely a year. The general phenomenon of Canada giving skilled worker visas to foreign dancers -- mainly Romanians, was of long-standing. Following this nomination I did some homework. There have been at least four Romanian dancers who came to Canada who have received significant news coverage. The other three received that coverage either before, or after, Ms Sgro was the Minister.
    • Reply Just because this article predated the WP:BLP policy doesn't mean that it should be grandfathered. The article still needs to meet those guidelines or else be removed. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is recommending grandfathering? I recommended the creation of an article on the topic of Canada issuing over a thousand skilled worker visas to Romanian women to work in the sex trade. This is something that I think undeniably can be documented. The issuing of these visas were issued during the time when seven ministers were in this portfolio: Elinor Caplan, Denis Coderre, Judy Sgro, Joe Volpe, Monte Solberg, Diane Finley, and Jason Kenney. I think it is an extremely bad idea to bury coverage of this notable, controversial program in the articles on individual Ministers of Immigration. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I strongly disagree with the assertion, repeated several times here, that "the scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article." Among the details not currently covered in the Sgro article are:
    • Balaican married a Canadian man, and as the spouse of a Canadian she was entitled to apply for both Canadian citizenship, and a less restrictive visa, which would allow her to apply for jobs outside of the exotic dancer industry.
    • Balaican had been fined $250 because a patron at the exotic dance club had touched her body in a way prohibited by law. She had subsequently quit dancing.
    • Because Balaican had quit dancing her skilled worker visa was no longer valid, and a determination had not yet been made as to whether she was entitled to the new less restrictive visa she was entitled to apply for.
    • Special "Minister's permits" are routine in cases like hers -- special permits that allow the applicant to remain in Canada until the determination is made as to whether they qualify for a new different visa.
    • After the controversy broke Balaican and her husband wrote a public letter in which they stated that they never met Sgro, and there was no quid pro quo.
    • Bernard Shapiro, then the Canadian Parliament's Ethics Commissioner published a 64 page report on his investigation into whether Sgro had violated ethical standards. This report uses Balaican's name 53 times.
    • Shapiro's report concluded that Sgro had not in fact met Balaican or Mulholland, and was unaware when she signed the routine Minister's permit that Balaican and Mulholland had volunteered to work on her re-election campaign. But he also concluded that some of her campaign staff were aware, and he faulted her for having campaign staff who put her in the position of appearing to be in an ethical conflict.
      • Reply WRT your comments, pts 1-3 are irrelevant to Sgro. The remaining points are relevant and if properly sourced could be included in the Sgro article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, no, I do not agree that "the scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article." Could these other elements be shoehorned into the Sgro article? Maybe. It could trigger a concern that the Sgro article was being soapboxed, and stuffed with details that really belonged in another article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Other Romanian dancers in Canada, of note, include: Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Loredana Silion -- In 1999 Silion sued the Canadian government in order to get a skilled worker's visa. Her visa application had been turned down. She had worked as a topless dancer in Romania. She had not worked as a nude dancer. The Ministry of Immigration employee charged with determining whether she was entitled to a skilled workers visa to work as a nude dancer in Canada decided that her previous experience as a topless dancer wasn't sufficiently related.
    2. Alina Balaican -- details above
    3. "Andreea" -- the stage name of a Romanian dancer whose father is a Romanian diplomat, who tried to get her visa changed to let her switch from one club to another.
    4. Irene Gabriela Astanoaiei -- a medical doctor who came to Canada in 1999 to pursue her medical career. The process through which doctors with foreign medical credentials become certificated to practice in Canada is long, expensive, and problematic. She started working as an exotic dancer as she tried to navigate these channels. She disappeared under mysterious circumstanced in 2008.
  • Merge to an article entitled something like Romanian dancers in Canada, to cover the issuing of skilled worker visas to Romanian dancers, to cover those like the four I noted above, who have been covered in WP:RS, and to cover what can be said of the other 996 or so who haven't been covered. Minister Sgro didn't start the controversial practice of giving temporary work visa to exotic dancers. And she didn't end the practice. So it is inappropriate to shoehorn this material into her article. In 2008 Diane Finley, who was then Minister of Immigration, had bodyguards assigned because she had received "Numerous threats, of an escalating nature" -- stemming from her plans to introduce legislation permanently prohibiiting giving temporary visas to exotic dancers. The program itself merits coverage, separate from the articles on the Ministers of Immigration who happen to be in office when incidents occur. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terry Pedwell (2008-04-23). "Minister threatened over 'stripper law'". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28. Security has been tightened around Immigration Minister Diane Finley following threats related to Conservative efforts to keep foreign strippers out of Canada. Numerous threats, of an escalating nature, have been made against the minister in recent weeks, several sources have told The Canadian Press. The exact nature of the threats was not revealed, but sources say they are directly linked to Bill C-17, the government's anti-stripper legislation. The sources hinted at an organized crime connection.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly referenced trivia that violates BLP1E. LadyofShalott 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the topic of Canada giving temporary "skilled worker" visas to over a thousand Romanian women to work in the sex trade is not "trivial". Second please be more careful about labelling material violations of WP:BLP when that material was contributed prior to the existence of a WP:BLP. Similarly the standards for referencing were much looser in 2005. The {{cite}} templates and <ref>, </ref>, <reference/> tags hadn't been written yet. WRT "poorly referenced" I spent a couple of hours looking for references to the Alina Balaican case. I found dozens. I could have added some of those references to the article -- bringing the references up to our current standards. But, like the rest of us, I have an obligation to act in the best interests of the project. In my opinion what would best serve the project would not be an article on Alina Balaican, but an article on the long, controversial and convoluted history of Canada giving temporary visas to Romanian women to work in the sex trade. That was my good faith suggestion, immediately above this opinion. It is a suggestion for which I think provided meaningful explanation. And I am disappointed to find it is a suggestion the respondent above has simply not addressed -- almost as if they didn't bother reading the opinions of other respondents here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right that there might well be a valid article to be had on the larger phenomenon. But this AFD isn't about that; it's about whether we need an unsourced biography of Alina Balaican herself. Nobody in this discussion has said that the issue was trivial — but the names and biographies of individual women involved in it certainly are. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. As the article explains, her name is only of interest because it was picked up by the press among many hundreds of other dancers in a similar situation. Pcap ping 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pcap, THF. Possibly redirect afterwords. RayTalk 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 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. JForget 02:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Edlington Attempted Murders[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. The topic seems to be a non-notable news event. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This stub doesn't give a good picture of the crime or its impact. Two brothers of 10 & 11 lured two boys to woods then beat, tortured and humiliated them over a prolonged period, filming it on their mobile phones.[15] Crime of this nature by children of this age is not run-of-the-mill, which is why this case has received intense and extensive coverage in the UK since first reported in April 2009.[16] The Attorney General personally looked at the case to assess whether the sentences were too lenient,[17] and the sentencing has been covered in comment columns, not just news reports.[18] The case has been highlighted as a failure of child protection services,[19] and of Doncaster Council.[20] David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has used the case politically as an example of what he calls "Labour's moral failure" and "broken Britain",[21] and has called for the full publication of the report into the case.[22] The case has been compared to the murder of James Bulger,[23] and the case of Mary Bell.[24] I'll work on the article shortly. Fences&Windows 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. The prod nominator and article nominator are both in the US: this may be a case of neither having heard of it (due to a lack of US coverage), but not checking the coverage before nominating. Fences&Windows 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Fences and windows. Edward321 (talk) 06:21, 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 withdrawn. My main concern here is that the article seems impossible to write without sounding promotional. However, my concerns were mostly assuaged by Pietri's arguments. I hope to see that happen. Jujutacular T · C 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Startup[edit]

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

Contested prod. Rationale was: Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Jujutacular T · C 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify reasons why you consider 'Lean Startup' a Neologism ?. Leanguy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." I don't feel that this term has enough coverage in reliable sources to be covered by Wikipedia. Jujutacular T · C 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism, possibly copyright infringement. Every reference I can find on the web comes back to this one guy, Eric Ries, who coined the term. In fact I found this: "The Lean Startup is a trademark and service mark owned by Eric Ries."[25] This Wikipedia article doesn't mention that it is a trademarked phrase but makes it sound like a term of general use. I think that's a rather shaky situation from Wikipedia's point of view. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)M Keep I yield to William Pietri's expertise and sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of trademark, Lean Startup is sure a big movement with meetup groups around the world formed to discuss lean startup methods. I wonder if this article here is shaky from Wikipedia's point of view. Cocacola Leanguy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it points out the trademark. Check it out: the Wikipedia article on Coca-Cola says "Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944)." --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trademark isn't an issue. Jujutacular T · C 22:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, copyright infringement is a serious accusation. I tried searching on some of the text in the article, but couldn't find other copies of it. Do you have some evidence that this text has been taken from elsewhere? Like Leanguy and Jujutacular, I think there's no problem with us covering trademarked terms, so if you have reason to think otherwise, please let us know. William Pietri (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't saying that the text was taken from somewhere else. I was saying that the trademarked term isn't identified as a trademarked term in the article. If Wikipedia is OK with that, fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fine fact to mention in the article, but the absence of some relevant fact in an article isn't a reason to delete; it's a reason to edit. William Pietri (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "shaky situation" Melanie refers to is the fact that the article makes it sound like a common industry-wide term, whereas the sources show it always associated with a single person. Jujutacular T · C 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For somebody unfamiliar with the field, that's a reasonable concern after a first glance at Google, but I think I've addressed that sufficiently below. If you still think otherwise, let me know what remaining concerns you have. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, O'Reilly is offering a webcast on this topic - led by Eric Ries![26] Like I said, every reference I found on the web comes back to this one guy. To me that means it is not yet a generally used or accepted term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He did create the process and name it, so a lot of it will come back to him. But if you dig deeper, you'll see that plenty of other people are writing and talking about it, including Steve Blank, Dave McClure, Ash Maurya, Rich Collins, and Chris Cameron. I also note that Stanford thought the topic important enough to invite Eric Ries to talk about it, and Ries and Blank are currently teach a class at Berkeley's Haas School of Business on the topic. The term may not be generally used in the sense that people in Dubuque are talking about it on the street, but I don't think that's true for a lot of good articles. If the two top schools for high-tech entrepreneurship are teaching it to their students, it seems weird that it's not important enough for Wikipedia to cover it. William Pietri (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Ries was not the first person to coin this term, but he is the "evangelist" for it. It was used long before in the boostrapped startup circles. For example, I own a domain name LeanStartups.com and wrote a blog about lean startups since November 18, 2008. Lean startups is also closely related to Lean services and Lean software development --Apsinkus (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded by the argument that if a term is "always" associated with a person it is unacceptable. For instance, the Black-Scholes [27] model is "always" associated with Fischer Black/Myron Scholes, yet that term is clearly acceptable. If the concern that it is a term only associated with one person, then please refer to the Lean Startup Circle [28] which has more than 2500 members that subscribe to the model and hold meetings across the globe. This group was neither founded nor maintained by Ries (although he is a periodic contributor.) Therefore, the question becomes: is 2500 active, verifiable practitioners sufficient? If not, what number is sufficient? Dbinetti (talk) 05:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outloud[edit]

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

Delete, seems to be a circle jerk over a band with no notability. I see no sources that back up that this band meets inclusion guidelines, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who added the article, first of all outloud is a band who is just starting but already gotten a lot of attention for a band who has just released a debut album, and second i've seen smaller bands that havnt been deleted. How can i back up the article more. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i've looked at WP:BAND and it says "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" and they have been in multiple rock/metal magazines including Rock Hand and Metal Hammer and they are on a major lable. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:33, 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) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Towning[edit]

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

Towning is an antiques dealer who is one of several dealers on ITV's "Meet the Dealer" Don't know that there are enough secondary sources to base an article on although a redirect to Meet the Dealer might be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:24, 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, NW (Talk) 14:40, 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.

The result was delete. The single 'keep' !vote does not provide enough evidence to counter the delete !votes, so the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Key[edit]

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

Non-notable, unverifiable, seems to be a case of WP:NFT. The Hacker Key website apparently no longer exists. Why did you do it (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable trivia. The article doesn't really even explain what this actually is, but it looks like something from a (possibly no-longer-existant) web forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does explain what it is, namely an extension of the Geek code. The Interwebs allows you to find more information there. I'd keep this article; it might be useful for somebody in the future. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are a couple of references on it in Google Books, such as Encoding: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by Inc Icon Group International or Traits: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by the same Inc Icon Group International, but the mentions are short, an in general it seems pretty much outdated, almost unused (I've spotted quite a few specimens in the wild life, but it borders on nothing). I tend to think it was not ever somehow popular itself, behind being "yet another Geek code derivative". Honeyman (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently non-notable concept, lacks coverage in reliable sources. Could potentially be merged into Geek code, but it's not directly relevant to that article. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 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. The consensus is clearly to delete (and salvageable material has been added elsewhere as per Fences&Windows's comment). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerinegate[edit]

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

WP:NOT#NEWS anyone? The fact that a pair of noted papers temporarily and briefly took note of this hoax doesn't make it important. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerinegate is a small controversy but it is an example of the media getting things wrong. Should it be merged into another article? Should there be a new article on the Brown bullying allegations? Spidergareth (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept in the Popper article since it is a notable aspect of Poppers career. It is also important because a major news organization was hoaxed. It should be included in another article, Poppers is probably the place for it. Spidergareth (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think this can be safely deleted per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTTWITTER. Or perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. A very brief comment about this could be added to Robert Popper, as he did successfully hoax The Telegraph, but the title is not a likely search term and the material isn't usable. Fences&Windows 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I will add it into Robert Popper. Spidergareth (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin, please note that material from this article was selectively merged into Robert Popper by Spidergareth without attribution. I have made a note at Talk:Robert Popper on the history of the article, which satisfies the Wikipedia license, so this article may be deleted (if there is consensus to do so). Fences&Windows 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's certainly WP:NOTNEWS. --Duncan (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now article has been merged. Spidergareth (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Never happened, no story to tell. --h-stt !? 11:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge + redirect to Robert Popper --Chuunen Baka (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the story gets bigger and wider. I note that some of the story has been merged into Robert Popper, I see no reason not the merge the rest, too. 81.102.127.62 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a newsrag. Woogee (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ::The importance is that two separate major UK news organisations were duped into printing fiction as fact. The hoax fits completely in with the current image of Gordon Brown being a bully, with new revelations and denials coming out frequently in the UK presently. Kev (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it needs expanding as an example of cognitive illusion?
  • Keep why is Tangerinegate disallowed when Thatchergate is permitted?
  • Delete. It's sad that this is even being defended as encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWSNiteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS Not a likely search term, so a redirect is counter-indicated. --Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 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. JForget 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Volny[edit]

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

Gay porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Awards section now added, he passes PORNBIO. There is an overwhelming bias on Wikipedia for gay pornography actors to allow American actors but not European actors as the US porn-related awards are well documented but there are few such notable awards in common use across Europe. Consequently PORNBIO itself tends to encourage rapid deletion of such BLPs, a somewhat less hard-line approach may be appropriate for non-US BLPs with plenty of grace time considered for promoting improvement of these articles before taking to deletion. In this particular case a search for Volny on AVN.com immediately shows his award wins, so not enough effort to follow the guidance of WP:BEFORE was applied by the nominator before raising this AfD. Ash (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems to me that the rational behind this nomination is summed up in first three words. I'm requesting that Epbr123 nominators be required to put more effort into their nominations and not just saying "fails gng, fails pornbio" as I've seen dozens of times in the past. I would like to see an argument as to how BIO is either met or failed by a neutral party before I vote on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, ok. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ash's first sentence. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm curious about assumption of the European Gay Porn Awards as a notable award. The article itself was created very recently and offers little detail. They appear to have been short-lived and as this source notes the sponsorship is unclear. I'm sure there are many such awards that we would not consider notable - why this one? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The awards do have some coverage, eg. [30], [31], [32]. Epbr123 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Indeed, the European Gay Porn Awards is just as notable in Europe as the AVN_Awards are in America- then they should be respected as a reliable source...especially given the difficulty in finding unbiased sources for Porn Bios' inclusion in Wikipedia. But I'm getting ahead of myself...This is a firm "keep" if only because this performer has won multiple awards, has more than a dozen reliable citations which are NOT under question, and is most unquestionably notable. The article passes WP:PORNBIO. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:17, 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 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ellison[edit]

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

Has no first class, list-A or Twenty20 experiences, CricInfo lists one FC match however CA (the more reliable of the two) records it not as a FC match. According to WP:CRIN, U-19 matches alone don't indicate notability, nor do Otago 'A' matches. Freelance writers for CricInfo also don't suggest notability. Author declined a PROD under WP:GNG however after discussion at WT:CRIC I've decided to bring to AfD for consensus. SGGH ping! 12:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified User:XLerate as he removed the PROD. SGGH ping! 12:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right. Juggling two Afds at once. SGGH ping! 12:40, 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.

The result was keep. JForget 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Atzeni[edit]

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

May not be encyclopedic, But am not sure of that MaenK.A.Talk 11:46, 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. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Code[edit]

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

Potentially amusing, but doesn't make any real claim to notability. The only references are to blogs and personal web pages and the only implementations are personal projects. Why did you do it (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep If you don't see the formal notability references in the article - please bother to find and add them, before putting anything you don't understand for the deletion. Funny that I spotted this AfD request not by looking over some afd logs, but because I needed the information on the geek code myself, and the first place I decided to consult was Wikipedia. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, to the point: the most prominent reference is the own article in the Jargon File, currently maintained by somebody called Eric S. Raymond (his personal homepage may give you some more clues on it). Btw, Jargon File is 26 years older than Wikipedia. Also, a quick lookup on Google hints us about 69 books whose authors are aware about Geek Code and want either to tell about it a word or two, or at least mention their own geek codes in the book. This includes the books from marginal and sociological ones as The New Hacker's Dictionary by the aforementioned Eric Raymond (and in fact being the print version of the Jargon File) or Communities in Cyberspace by Peter Kollock, or Ethnologies by the Folklore Studies Association of Canada (where the Geek Code named "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet"); but also the books purely technical like The SAGE handbook of online research methods‎, or ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh yes, and the latter book tells us that the geek code is a part of FOAF ontology standard. That should close any other questions. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are only passing references, not substantial coverage. The Jargon File does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable secondary sources as it is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. And inclusion in FOAF is similarly unconvincing: as a minor, little known feature of the standard, it too is no more than a passing reference. Why did you do it (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Jargon File ... is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. - please reconsider the Eric S. Raymond and Jargon File articles; the Jargon File first appeared in 1975 while Eric Raymond claims that "his involvement with hacker culture began in 1976". The Jargon File is a manuscript of geekdom knowledge that changed several authors and editors (most important one, besides Eric Raymond, is probably Guy Steele), and passed several published editions (note Guy L. Steele, Eric S. Raymond, eds. (1996). The New Hacker's Dictionary (3rd ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68092-0.). I doubt it could ever be considered "not a subject to formal editorial control" with such a long history. As for the FOAF, the [FOAF vocabulary specification] clearly shows that it is not "a minor, little known feature" but just the usual vocabulary term like "age", "publications", or "weblog". Honeyman (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I've understood the reliable sources rules correctly, the kind of editorial control that Wikipedia looks for is specifically a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as you get from peer reviewed scientific journals, and to a lesser extent, news sources, especially from the high end of the market. Even if you accept that the Jargon File meets those criteria (which is debatable), it is still a dictionary and a collection of trivia. We don't have articles for everything in the Jargon File (banana problem? bit paired keyboard?) and nor should we. As far as FOAF is concerned, it gives the Geek Code a status of "archaic" (which judging by [33] seems to indicate that it's not actively being used) whereas the important bits all have a status of "stable," and even describes it as "somewhat frivolous and willfully obscure". I stand by what I said that this counts as no more than a passing mention. Why did you do it (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In general, I agree with your addition. But there is one thing that differs Banana problem and Bit-paired keyboard (which are not included in Wiki) from Geek code, Befunge, Bells and whistles, and the Cargo cult programming. To date (and IMO, at least for three of the above, unfortunately), the latter ones are known and used. And this is where (contrary to the notability proof), the Google Search numbers (78100 for the "BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK" query) act as a perfect endorsement. Yes, it is incredibly outdated; but the people use it nevertheless. 119 on Wikipedia; 312 on LiveJournal; 87 on Facebook; 5540 on MySpace; hell, do all of them indeed know what VMS or Kibo is? Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:GHITS and WP:BIG. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • ... which both claim that the Google numbers cannot be used for notability confirmation (what I don't), though sometimes thay may be used as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet to disprove the notability (what they fail); and they don't restrict to use Google numbers to prove the fact of "still in use and known" (what I do). Honeyman (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And once again, besides the Jargon file, the dictionaries and the FOAF standard, there are multiple sociological works which describe the Geek Code, its relation to the geeks and the community, some of them name the Geek Code the early criteria for being the geek, some of them tell about it as a witty manifestation of the computer-specific culture, but none of them somehow mentioning its "insignificance" or "negligibility". They are apparently peer-reviewed or cited, and independently published. Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I only see one (The Cultures of Computing) which gives it more than one or two sentences, and even then, most of its coverage is quoting the Geek Code verbatim. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, I cannot agree with your "archaic" argument for FOAF standard. Neither it goes well with the "notability is not temporary" Wikipedia concept, nor in fact it indeed means "outdated" in the FOAF scope; it is used in the scope of Vocabulary Status Vocabulary, which tells that "archaic... This term is marked as old-fashioned; although used, it is not considered typical of current best practice and alternative expressions may be preferable"; and the FOAF Vocabulary tells us that "The definitions of 'stable', 'unstable', 'archaic' and 'testing' cannot be defined as global absolutes, but only in relationship to the practices, expectations and social structures around some vocabulary"; in other words, I'd consider the "stable" term is the standard one which is used for very long, and without any spec changes, which the opposite, "archaic", is still the standard one, which though is being used rarely, with decreasing popularity; while both stay the same supported and standard ones, unless mentioned otherwise. And for the "otherwise", I mean the numerous marks like This property is a candidate for deprecation..., This property is considered archaic usage, and is not currently recommended for usage, which are not present in the term_geekcode definition. That is, if I decide to implement a blog service that provides the FOAF profiles which contain the term_geekcode, it's not the standard who could define my service as "incompatible" - it's my service and its positive experience of term_geekcode implementation that may redefine the term_geekcode status from "archaic" to "unstable" or "testing". Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, to stop this nonsense, let's pedantically apply the WP:N to this topic, and review the references in-depth.
          • Significant coverage - 65 books in Google Book Search, and also 37 mentions in Google Scholar. more than a trivial mention - a couple of paragraphs in "The new hacker's dictionary", including a brief historical overview and its influence ("... there is now even a Saturn Geek Code for owners of the Saturn car"). About a full page in "Communities in Cyberspace", with even more details, including basic decyphering rules. A couple of paragraphs in "The telecommunications illustrated dictionary", just between the GDI and the Geissler tube (and likely about the same in Data & telecommunications dictionary, unavailable for review), and the geek code generator mentioned in the Linux Journal article (and I bet the Linux Journal magazine definitely has enough editorial oversight) - not that much a coverage, but a broad interest. The amount of coverage in "Ethnologies, vol 21" is unknown, but it seems sufficient enough to explain how to decypher the Star Trek addiction from the code. "The cultures of computing" by The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, edited by the Associate Professor in the University of Illinois - just the whole Geek Code spec is cited on a dozen of pages, and the geeks concept is defined through it; and its authorship/editorship makes me think it's not just yet another book by a hacker about the hackers' inner jokes. In "Two bits: the cultural significance of free software" by Christopher M. Kelty, the Geek Code is used to distinguish between the early geekdom characterization (called in the book "the Hayden-style geeks") and the subsequent geekdom after the explosive growth of the Internet. A pity but the contents of "The Incredible Internet Guide to Star Wars: The Complete Guide to Everything" by Peter J. Weber is not available due to the copyright issues; but it is interesting to know that the Geek Code might be known to the usual Star Wars fans rather than just to the hackers community; similarly, it worths mention its mention in "Role-playing games (RPGs)" by Sean Winslow.
          • Reliable - among the books above, there are books that passed several editions, and there are multiple sociological works.
          • Secondary sources - even the dubious Jargon File is the secondary source for Robert Hayden's Geek Code, not to mention everything else. Neither of the books in the Google Book Search output lists Robert Hayden as the author.
          • Independent of the subject - see above.
          • the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan" - well, we here in 2010 are discussing the topic of 1993. Apparently it was not.
          • Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity - unlikely with the RPG or Star Wars books not to mention the other ones.
          • a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. - well, it definitely had the coverage by the end of 20-th century. And the "ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION‎" which mentions its FOAF inclusion is written in 2008.
        • And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT:
          • Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability. - oh yes. "...a classic mock self-diagnostic called the Geek Code" from here, and "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet" from here should be enough.
          • The history of computing and of personal computers. Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms - well, the Geek Code is from the times of Ultrix, SCO Unix, NeXT and VMS.
          • It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. - I don't recall any commercial or closed-source versions of Geek Code.
          • Notability of one package does not automatically mean that each of its competitors are notable as well - I won't say a word if every article else from Category:Internet self-classification codes is deleted (though I might reconsider the Hacker Key, as it was covered by some of the same sources as Geek Code), cause all of them are no more than the less known neighbours of the Geek Code.
          • On the other hand, software of significant historical or technical importance is notable even if it is no longer in widespread use or distribution. - precisely. Though the people still include the Geek Code in their profiles and signatures to date.
          • Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage. - well, it is covered in the books from a couple of overview/historical paragraphs to the full spec, from 1993 to 2008, from published hacker bulletins through RPG/StarWars books to the sociological analysis... and regarding the geography, Robert Hayden is assumed to be from US or UK, while I am from Russia. Honeyman (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still not convinced. The above are all a couple of paragraphs at most. I do not consider a couple of paragraphs or a dictionary definition to be more than just a trivial mention. If you can give me, for instance, three substantial and independent newspaper articles for which it is the main subject, I will withdraw the nomination. Why did you do it (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Unfortunately, neither you cannot do this IIRC (as long as least there is a single Delete vote besides yours); nor we ever need the three substantial and independent newspaper articles to prove the notability, quote WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material; going in details in about every book reference (Geek code is created by bla-bla, used for bla-bla, influenced bla-bla, you can encode the fact you can distinguish Mr. Spock from Picard using bla-bla) is definitely far from a trivial mention (... and examples of such obscure self-representation methods are Geek Code, Furry Code, Bear Code, Nerd Code, Dork Code, and several thousand more ones; now let's go to the next chapter.) Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, and by the way, WP:NSOFT has a warning in big bold letters at the top of it saying "This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion." Why did you do it (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • And precisely this big bold warning contains the words though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion; what matches my usage of it: And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT. Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can come up with substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'm utterly unconvinced by the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for importunity, but I need to stress again that the geek code is a part of standard in the FOAF Vocabulary Specification, together with such fields as Myers-Briggs classification or the list of other people the person being covered by FOAF data personally knows. Honeyman (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I noted above, that does not qualify as substantial coverage in a reliable secondary source. Why did you do it (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking over the evidence presented there seems to be sources for this. "Communities in Cyberspace" looks like a reliable source. It has a real publisher and editor. It devotes a fair amount of space to the geek code. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. I have cited one of the numerous books which cover the topic in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the colonel, the first one to contribute here who actually believes articles can & should be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think notability has been satisfactorily established here. Robofish (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it’s evidently assigned. --Frakturfreund (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think notability has been established here. Agharo (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced and notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Essential piece of Internet culture. Sources that establish notablity have been presented above. --Cyclopiatalk 18:14, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Otis[edit]

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

I don't think he's even a professor. WP:Academic CynofGavuf 09:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Being a graduate student and getting a scholarship are not any sort of claim of significance. Tagged for A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 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. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Skeleton[edit]

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

I found the creator of this article adding a link to this at List of conspiracy theories‎ - " another theory claims that this story is just part of a disinformation campaign to prevent or delay the disclosure of an extraterrestrial skeleton." Even the article has no reliable sources calling it a skeleton, and the lead says it is 'the unofficial name'. I have done a search and find no evidence that it meets WP:Notability. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No other sources have been found, so it does not meet notability criteria for its own article. However, it might merit mention under another related Moon article. I recommend merging with South_Pole-Aitken_basin article or De_Gerlache_(crater) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka2uya2ep (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge about one line's worth to Topography of the Moon. LadyofShalott 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn't find a source for this name; it seems like OR. Hence I'm not sure a merge would be a good idea.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete—Unable to support a keep or merge at this point.—RJH (talk)
  • Comment Without a reliable source the article might as well claim the moon is made of cheese. -- Kheider (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, unsourced, possibly even bordering on a hoax. The feature in question doesn't even look like a skeleton. Why did you do it (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content of the article and the content of the cited references fail to distinguish this from something some kid just made up. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently original research/made up, lacking any third-party references. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like OR to me. Airplaneman talk 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 09:48, 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 keep. A discussion in support of merging can be held on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Collins (baseball)[edit]

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

Playing in a farm team doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. CynofGavuf 08:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC) See my comment below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He has not pitched a major league game and is not a top prospect.--Yankees10 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Minor leaguers mey not automatically be notable, but they certainly can be, especially if they have independent coverage in reliable sources as this one does. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's this persistent - and incorrect - belief that WP:ATHLETE bars minor leaguers, and to them I can only say that if you want it to do so, work consensus around to get it to say so. The real text of WP:ATHLETE is that "fully professional" players qualify, and our general understanding is that AA ballplayers collect salaries.  RGTraynor  12:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for that, but as someone not very familiar with WP:ATHLETE I took the phrase "fully professional" to mean essentially "playing at the highest level" or something along those lines (i.e. I assume it excluded minor leaguers). If AA ballplayers are considered "fully professional" then okay, but probably that should be specified in the guideline, perhaps in a footnote (and are you saying single A players are not?). Assuming that's the standard I guess I would still take some issue with that (not that it matters for this AfD), as it would suggest that someone who plays AA ball for a few months, drops to single A, and then months later never plays again and spends the rest of their life in the sales business should have an article about them per WP:ATHLETE. Surely there are thousands of people like that throughout the history of baseball (and I'm sure other sports), and we definitely do not want articles about all of them. In any case if what you say is true regarding WP:ATHLETE (the wording in points 6 and 7 in the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability seems to contradict it somewhat, but that is an essay) then apparently this should indeed be kept. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The belief among those who wrote up the essay on WikiProject Baseball is indeed that minor leaguers, even decade-long AAA veterans, are not notable. Of course, that essay remains their private opinion, and has no force over notability standards generally or WP:ATHLETE in particular. There's certainly a widespread belief that WP:ATHLETE is too loose - which I share - but the only way around that is to change consensus on the guideline itself.  RGTraynor  11:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, my main point was that if minor leaguers are indeed considered "fully professional" (and if that starts at AA for whatever reason) that should probably be explained in a footnote until consensus changes. It's not surprising that many people would read the guideline as excluding those in minor leagues in the view that they are partially but not "fully" professional. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification on the statement "The belief among those who wrote up the essay on WikiProject Baseball is indeed that minor leaguers, even decade-long AAA veterans, are not notable." The essay on baseball notability says that minor leaguers are not inherently notable, but does not preclude the possibility that they can be notable if they meet certain criteria (which I believe this player meets). Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Edward321 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There has been much debate over the years as to whether minor league baseball players are "fully professional" per WP:ATHLETE. I am in the "fully professional" camp, especially once they get to AA. While I don't nececssary think all minor leaguers need an article, I support the older version of the baseball notability essay which included minor league all stars. Which Tim Collins apparantly has been. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, Collins has coverage by multiple independent reliabile sources, e.g., Baseball America and TSN, and thus satisfies WP:N as well as the current baseball notability essay. Of course, if not kept, this article should be merged per User:Spanneraol rather than deleted. Rlendog (talk) 01:31, 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 SNOW Delete. GlassCobra 20:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWBT-FM[edit]

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

Complete hoax. Station does not exsist according to the FCC. NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 08:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks like a pirate station, rather than an outright hoax. See here. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Egads. When I think pirate radio I think cutting edge, underground, indie type of stuff. Not remixes of Beyonce and Lada Gaga. What a travesty. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a hoax, but a non-notable pirate station. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Nexis search reveals no articles. If it is not a hoax it is certainly not notable. JodyB talk 13:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either hoax or pirate station, and not notable either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a pirate station that actually exists, but let's clarify in the article that it is a pirate station.204.52.215.153 (talk) 18:05, 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. JForget 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Glaciation[edit]

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

PROD removed. Concern was "No sources given". Author apparently deems this now notable. (Still no sources.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a recent work of art by an artist who wouldn't pass WP:ARTIST. Google hits reveal nothing for this piece and there are no sources given (and we can safely assume none are forthcoming). Although there may be instances where a work of art is notable while the artist is not, this is not the case. Both fail WP:NOTE. freshacconci talktalk 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the reasons given above. artist has very minor third party mentions, currently does not meet notability at WP. for sure, without that, an individual piece cannot be notable on its own outside of extraordinary circumstances.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and non-encyclopedic material...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete WP:OR, can not be verified (too many false Ghits). Bearian (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sufficient (any) secondary sources. Ty 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Freshacconci. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:06, 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. JForget 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varhene[edit]

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

This is borderline article that popped up last night on the recent changes page; it looked legit so I tagged it for needing cleanup. I happened to catch the article again just now, it was tagged as csd on notability grounds, but I think the article has enough notability that an afd is a more appropriate avenue for deletion. In a nutshell, the article appears to be encyclopedic and is a borderline cruft page. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 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 WP:SNOW: delete and userify to User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix[edit]

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

Completin an unfinished nomination. Reyk YO! 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...and now that I have had a chance to read it over... Delete because it's pure original research. Reyk YO! 10:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, the creator is using Wikipedia to publish original research. Even if it were already published elsewhere, I don't think that for the most part a proof is an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles aren't supposed to endeavor to prove something! Even for famous proofs like the ones for the four-color map problem and Fermat's equation, though there should be articles about them, the proofs themselves, possibly hundreds of pages long, don't belong here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The title is that of a research paper, so I don't even know what to search for to make a good faith effort to look for sources. The author is apparently unaware of the basic principles of Wikipedia. From the presentation style it appears to be an original paper and therefore OR.--RDBury (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the proofs issue should be brought up here, there are many proofs on Wikipedia and some articles which consist primarily of proofs. This is controversial to some but they are allowed. Bringing the issue up here may generate a lot of discussion on proofs in general which should probably be in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs which already has a great deal of argument in both directions.--RDBury (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a note to that page: I think WP:NOFULLTEXT has some applicability to the question, in addition to WP:NOR, which applies here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this may be good stuff, for a different sort of web site. Lots of "original research" posted to Wikipedia is worthless crap at best, but this may be good. It appears to have been written by David Ingerman, whom I met, if somewhat briefly, at MIT. However, it clearly runs afoul of Wikipedia's policy against original research, so delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 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. JForget 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cihan Can[edit]

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

The player did not played in a fully-pro league (ie Turkish Super League), failed WP:GNG and WP:athlete Matthew_hk tc 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he's played in 5 Turkish Cup matches and 80+ TFF First League matches - I suspect that passes WP:ATHLETE.

As far as I know, the TFF First League is only semi-pro, although I'm no expert. As for the Turkish Cup, If he played for a fully pro team against a fully pro team then he would meet WP:ATHLETE, however I can't find any source to support that he did play in the cup. Would you mind pointing out your source? (Please bear in mind that my turkish is extremely limited) Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if the First League is semi-pro, but I don't know any Turkish. The TFF website's English sections show that his current club has 32 professional players (and other clubs in the league have similar totals). He has also played in the Cup against Besiktas (see match report). Jogurney (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Professional" players of the squad, some of them were youth player and played at A2 League (Reserve League). For the Cup, the first round of the match was 1 League against 2 League. So Super Lig club opponent may or may not a notable/fully-pro club. Matthew_hk tc 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you. If Gaziantep BBSpor has 32 pro players, why wouldn't the club be fully-pro, and by extension, why wouldn't Can pass WP:ATHLETE for playing in the Cup against another fully-pro side (Besiktas)? Jogurney (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the TFF site list him as "professional" but according to FIFA, professional player were those their wage could support his expanse, oppose to semi-pro or amateur that he need to work part-time to support his life. Please find a source to prove TFF First League is a fully-pro league. Matthew_hk tc 16:20, 28 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) 05:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources provided by Jogurney. He "[has] played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic ... club competition." (WP:FOOTYN). Gaziantep Büyükşehir Belediyespor is a professional team per this page (note you have to click search to see the list of pro players), and has played against Beşiktaş J.K., a Süper Lig team and therefore fully pro, in the Turkish Cup, a domestic club competition. That's basis enough for keeping in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe the cup match against Beşiktaş is sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE, and would be surprised if his 80+ TFF First League matches don't satisfy it as well. Jogurney (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The TFF site listed third league players and youth players of Super Lig clubs were "professional" but is that really "fully-professional players"? It is, the players did not need to work part-time as semi-pro. The Brazilian FA (CBF) also listed State League players were "professional". Matthew_hk tc 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a past AfD, some of the Brazilian editors (including Caroica, I think) reported that most Brazilian clubs who play in the state leagues are fully-pro. Keep in mind that we are talking about the second tier, nationwide league of Turkey here, not some backwater level of football. Moreover, there are quite a few google news hits for this player, I just don't have the tools to translate them from Turkish to English confidently. Jogurney (talk) 02:17, 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retro housewife[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a neologism; apparently original research. I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources that use this term; there is a blog on the subject by the same name which may or may not be notable, but the term 'retro housewife' doesn't seem to be. Robofish (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a dictionary entry as there is no focus upon a particular word, its etymology or usage. Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to add sources which testify to the notability of this post-feminist phenomenon. I have added a couple including a book entitled "Retro Housewife". Given the ease with which this article can be improved in just a few minutes, the article should be kept for further improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources you added do not appear to have anything to do with the topic of the article: one is a tongue-in-cheek salute to the 1950s homemaker which pairs reproduced ad plates with factoids about women in the 1950s, while the other, though it treats the topic of the purported post-feminist "revival of domesticity" and contains both the words "retro" and "housewife," makes no reference to the "retro housewife." Please see WP:KETTLE. --RrburkeekrubrR 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As observed above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we are not concerned with particular words here. Nor is it a search engine and so we are not looking for a particular phrase either. What we are concerned with is the topic and this may be described in many ways. For example, this paper talks of "an attempt to redefine women's roles in line with a nostalgic discourse of familialism and a return to the private sphere of the home.". These are different words but clearly the same topic. It is quite easy to find sources of this sort and so the topic is notable. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 27 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) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or preferably Merge somewhere (one of our feminism or gender role articles? housewife?). The concept is notable and worth covering somewhere but under this title it's a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do agree that there is a basic concept here which might be encyclopedic. However, neither this article title nor its contents are likely to form the basis of useful material for that article. With respect to the article title, WP:NEO states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. So, at minimum, the title needs to go. However, the article content is just as problematic, describing a point-of-view on feminism without providing it's context within the various points of view on feminism. Much of the article seems, perhaps only because of the lack of sources for many of the statements and the POV-pushing, to be potentially in violation of WP:NOR. In short, I looked for something to salvage that I could argue needed to be merged into an article like housewife or feminism or post-feminism, but failed to find sourced, non-POV content to salvage. (If you can find content you believe is worth salvaging, I recommend merge as the appropriate alternative.) --Joe Decker (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (small correction made --Joe Decker (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Please give a specific example of this original research as I'm not seeing any novel thesis here which has not already appeared in sources such as the ones which I have cited in the article or above. All the author seems to have done is put an existing concept in his own words. This is mandatory for our work here as we must not break copyright by copying sources too closely. Likewise, there isn't much of a POV here as the author does not seem to suggest that the trend is good, bad or make any other value judgement. The only objection I can see is that there is an assumed context of western society, especially the UK/US, but this is not unreasonable for the English Wikipedia. And this can be qualified for clarity without deleting the entire article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. Consider carefully: "The modern version of the housewife has women pursuing an education, entering the work force and then leaving to care for children." I'd compare the first part of that sentence to a statment that "pink is the new black", it is at it's very core a statement which expresses a point of view. Now, points of view are expressable in Wikipedia (heck, it's a point of view that gravity calls an apple to fall to the ground), but for statements which are not essentially scientific or universally accepted (which I'm guessing is the case in the article here), it's clearer to be clear who holds that point of view. "Andy Warhol thinks pink is the new black", or "most post-feminist scholars believe pink is the new black", or "most Americans believe pink is the new black", or what have you. Whether that rises to the level of OR is debatable but not really the primary point, with respect to this particular sentence, I'd just say "this seems like an absolute statement that there's general agreement on this point, I doubt there is general agreement on it even if I agree with it, thus it's got some POV to it and we should fix that." Hope that helps explain my point. I do very much agree with you that there's a core of an idea here that can be usefully merged with housewife and/or post-feminism, I just think it needs to be explored more, sourced more, and given context within the enormous variety of points of view that people have around feminism, etc. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (Note: apologies for misattribution of merge proposal. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • The basic term of the article seems to be somewhat notable, but the article as it stands today is highly POV. I personally busted out laughing while reading most of the text. It either needs to be rewritten with many more citations and a neutral position, or deleted. The citations and about two sentences are about all that can be retained. --Chris (talk) 15:23, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebouh Chouldjian[edit]

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

I checked but failed to see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - other than spam/promo press releases. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 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) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The search terms provided above by Ashot provide a number of reliable sources giving significant coverage of this figure, most dealing with the fact that he is almost certain to become the first Armenian Patriarch of Armenians in Turkey (see: [36], [37], [38]). This significant coverage may be primarily on one topic, but by all accounts, he will be the Patriarch of Armenians in Turkey by May, and the fact that he will be the first Armenian one surely makes him notable. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above, with the spelling variation it seems easier to find RS, e.g. [39]. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:23, 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 keep. No consensus for deletion after two weeks - only one vote if minus the SPA JForget 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdasar Arzoumanian[edit]

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

I checked but failed to see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - other than spam/promo press releases. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since Baghdasar Arzoumanian is an armenian name and surname it has various spellings in English, which may be Bagdasar, Paghtasar, Paghtassar, Baghdik, Bagdik, Arzumanian, Arzoumanyan, Arzumanyan. This may help in looking for sources. --217.76.2.195 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following search: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Ashot  (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Ashot Arzumanyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually the editor has made substantial edits to a number of articles outside this topic (editor was formerly Psalm Tours (talk · contribs). -- Ty 18:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: There is an extended article about him at |architectacademic.org in Armenian. Also there is a 100 page illustrated book published by the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. The following is the link to the cover page thumbnail image of that book located at |architectacademic.org: [40]. --217.76.2.195 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — Ashot Arzumanyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be a drought of English-languages sources to verify the claims. But unless we think this is mostly a hoax, he's probably a notable architect. --Griseum (talk) 06:27, 27 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) 05:07, 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 keep. Now the award has been shown,no point in prolonging this DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getik Baghdasarian[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the editor has made substantial edits to a number of articles outside this topic (editor was formerly Psalm Tours (talk · contribs). -- Ty 18:11, 28 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) 05:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you use these external links as references, provided they meet WP:RS. See WP:REFB. Also, can you provide references for museum collections, as this would weigh heavily in the article's favour. Ty 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Ty 11:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "the person has received a notable award or honor". Baghdasarian was the winner of the 2006 presidential award for sculpture.[41] Other material in the article also attests to notability. Ty 12:14, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FBI on The Sopranos[edit]

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

Appears to be entirely original research. Maybe there's a Sopranos wiki for this somewhere? Bdb484 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can see the concern, and there is some language that needs to be removed, not to mention a complete lack of sourcing, but I'm inclined to give room to these sorts of articles when they involve high-profile long running shows. There are already character pages for most major, and some mid-level characters. Having all of the FBI characters in one list is much more useful than having individual pages. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly unreferenced to any reliable secondary sources, and consisting entirely of either plot or original research. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is easy to find substantial sources for this such as "Tasting Brylcreem: Law, Disorder and the FBI in The Sopranos", Reading the Sopranos. See Google Books for many more. The article should be kept for further work in accordance with our editing policy. As this source has been added to the article, pd_THOR's comments are now obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 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) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of characters on fictional topics are acceptable, and The Sopranos has been the topic of published books which cover the characters rather thoroughly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't a list of characters; this is a synthesis of a list of characters with a running theme of the show. Pretty much the definition of original research, absent actual citations in the article's text from sources that would make this a viable article. Townlake (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant major theme from very major series. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 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) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imma be rocking that body[edit]

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

Most music videos are not notable enough to have their own article, and this is one of them. Sufficient information is contained in or could be contained in Imma Be and Rock That Body. –Chase (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article is notable because it has several differnt styles in the song and it will be difficult to explain a ten-minute music video on the album page if it was merged/redirected. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) has a video just about as long and is adequately described there. My proposal isn't to merge or redirect this anywhere since as it involves two different main articles. –Chase (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was unaware that "Imma Be" and "Rock That Body" were two different songs. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 16:28, 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) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Single that isn't enough. CynofGavuf 09:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Additional information can be added to the pages for imma be and rock that body Mydreamistofly (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article should be rewritten with just one line: " "Imma Be Rocking That Body" is a mix of Imma Be and Rock That Body. Please refer to these pages for more information." or something similar. Or maybe redirect to either one? -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a music video, not an actual mash-up. Redirecting wouldn't be appropriate in this situation. –Chase (talk) 23:54, 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. Article seems to have undergone significant sourcing improvements since nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Reflections[edit]

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

Non notable software DimaG (talk) 22:01, 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) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this was notable software. The fact that the guy who made it also wrote about it isn't exactly a shocker. Doesn't appear to meet any of the general criteria for which we'd normally keep a software product (influential, major firsts, bestselling, etc) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many Amiga graphic software article there is on Wikipedia? Would be interesting to have an article on 3D modeling on Amiga which would contain this material. As it stand now, I don't think a stand alone article on this particular software is OK. -RobertMel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1989 seems early in the world of 3D graphics programming. What was the first 3D software package? It appears to be contemporaneous with current software that started around 1989/1990 on Amiga: LightWave 3D. Given the topic--Amiga, 1989--I think offline research or more background in the area would be needed to support notability or non-notability claims. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a paper from a conference of The International Society for Optical Engineering evaluating this software to teach opthamology/surgery. The software changed names; it became Monzoom, and I've added further information about that (Amiga and PC) software. The references could use further work (please give that a try if you can), and many of the current sources are in German. To me, the 10-year history of this software and its use (see reviews/tutorials/plugins now listed) establish its notability. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really seem to be a problem in establishing notability for softwares which appears not to be restricted to free softwares (but in particular to free softwares). In the case of aging ones, they have been replaced by better ones and no one really talk about outdated ones. I don't know where I stand on this issue. -RobertMel (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a lower-cost alternative to Imagine and Turbo Silver and relatively popular in Germany at the time. V2.0 was not sold as a book but in a normal shrink-wrap box, so I don't see why there shouldn't be an article on it. Just because Dima doesn't know Reflections, that doesn't mean it wasn't used by a whole lot of people... Morn (talk) 17:27, 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 keep. JForget 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creedence Cover The Classics[edit]

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

Non-notable recent compilation album by notable band; PROD declined and invited to take to AfD. No references, no hint of an assertion of notability, nothing. Orange Mike | Talk 05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I'd say the Allmusic review is enough to make it notable. RG (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I agree with the above votes. Probably a quickie compilation tossed off by a record company with little use for fans and collectors, but the reviews and the obvious notability of the band show that the article isn't really hurting anything by being here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist that has been reviewed, providing content for an article. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 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. Consensus is that this topic is not notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 34 of the Internet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rule 34 of the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only discussed trivially in the sources. No non trivial sources found. We've been around this block countless times. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I gave my reasons on the first AfD about a year ago. Unsurprisingly, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar show no new coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This iteration of the article does have slightly more references than the one that I AfD'ed last May, but they are all very passing mentions and I still see no indication of notability. If this is deleted again, it should probably be salted as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting side note...even though deleted, the old version of this article (which was deleted) is now a redirect that actually has a decent number of page views, suggesting that it might still be a somewhat likely search term. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of these stupid memes get insanely popular while still flying under the radar. Try to find just one source for "it's over nine thousand!" I dare you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, this has nothing to do with WP's deletion policy, but 663 page views in January is hardly an impressive statistic. For example, during that period, Internet meme has been viewed 104,180 times. The page is non-notable even by Wikipedia's traffic reports. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this count as a source for "over 9000!" ? ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't saying pageviews make it notable, I was just musing about what to do with that redirect. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. There is a soon-to-be-published Rule 34 (novel) from Charles Stross. Perhaps we could make a disambig page, and list there the definition we're discussing here, along with the other 2 (or more) meanings. Just a short line that directs to [List of Internet phenomena], like:
    "Rule 34, an internet meme that states "If it exists, there is porn of it somewhere on the Internet.""
Or something similar.
Also: The mention of this definition at 34 (number) seems to have disappeared.
Also: I've added an external link to the Know Your Meme page[44], which has a few more potential leads (that I have no time to follow up on currently). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "The page is non-notable even by Wikipedia's traffic reports." Since when did Wikipedia traffic statistics become a criterion of notability? Gordon Coates, another article I have worked on recently, had an average of barely 10 page views per day, and the guy's a former Prime Minister of New Zealand with a good article. Please stick to real arguments, not something like page rank. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding the comment that it should be "salted". You are saying that this CANNOT ever be notable? And/or that having to delete the odd article popping up again is in iitself harming Wikipedia? It seems so, because in addition to deleting the artice, you are proposing a lock mechanism which will strongly reduce the likelihood of something ever being created here that passes your muster. If this was such a clear cut case, then my variant would be applicable for speedy too. Ingolfson (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a well-enough known internet meme to have an article on an Encyclopedia that is not paper. I see no reason to delete - but I suspect that this article is suffering from having been deleted before, and is therefore now having even higher hurdles applied to it. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Wikipedia is not paper has nothing to do with the fact that the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's shocking that this rule hasn't been picked up by the media. Do no journalists own computers, FFS? It almost makes me want to become a reporter just to published discussions of internet memes. Maybe we should soft-redirect to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Knowyourmeme like we do with Wiktionary?

Fences&Windows 15:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Encyclopedia Dramatic is not a Wikimedia project and has some pretty horrible stuff, I would say having a soft redirect there is probably not a good idea. Plus it would raise a disturbing precedent, which people might abuse to soft redirect inappropriate topics to pages on projects (such as Knol) that have different inclusion standards than we do. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Commentary Wouldn't it be far more sensible to simply redirect(or delete and then create a redirect) this to, say, Internet Meme or even start a List of Internet Memes ? If deleted and not protected from re-creation, this WILL be recreated later, and then we'll be right back here again. EugeneKay (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary like an expanded dictionary entry. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete previously deleted numerous times, speedily and after AFD, even salted under a differnent name. RadioFan (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well-known meme that seems to be sticking around, and has occasionally been mentioned on non-internet sources (novels, TV shows, etc). See no logical case whatsoever for deletion. CaptainVlad —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC). — CaptainVlad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • See WP:DEL#REASON. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, as well as articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline are subject to deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 22:14, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hugely well known internet meme. Artw (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an encyclopedia, people come here to look stuff up they don't know. looking for Rule 34 should at least tell them what it means. Whether it needs its own article might be debatable though. 93.205.246.85 (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) — 93.205.246.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason whatsoever why we should relax the notability criteria for this. Why did you do it (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that this is even a well-known concept, and it certainly hasn't been covered in reliable sources in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is suspect.  f o x  (formerly garden) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I !voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 (Internet meme) but as it was deleted then and there isn't really any possibility for the content of the article to change I don't see why the arguments for deletion should change. My own argument in the previous AfD was based on incorrect assumptions I'd made that there was an actual official list of 100 Rules of the Internet which long pre-dated /b/, and I promised to try to verify that and rewrite the article to be about the list. Further research has shown that I was wrong, and so I don't stand by even my previous keep !vote and think that this should be deleted, and urge that further re-creations of this article (this is at least the third, possibly fourth attempt as previous titles have been salted) should be speedily deleted. If someone wants to work on it in userspace, that's fine, but there's really little chance of the article being able to be notable unless the guidelines change. —Soap— 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking coverage in reliable sources. I also strongly object to crosslinking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Their article on this subject is about the furthest thing possible from encyclopedic. ThemFromSpace 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also impossible because ED is blacklisted. Try linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica in an article and you'll get a "Spam filter notice" saying that there's no way to save the edit. (Though an admin could add it, my guess is that it won't survive.) —Soap— 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyone who argues that this is a commonly recognized meme simply needs to provide reliable sources indicating so. none provided, ergo no article. May i remind people that not all 7 billion human beings look to 4chan as a source of culture.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and probably never will be. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I Google it originally gets 719,000 results. Then when I click the last page of results, page 11, it only shows 509 results. Doesn't sound like its that well known. Wiki-answers has a bit about it, surprisingly enough. [45] Just searching for "Rule 34" in Google, returns [46] 981 results. Is it called something else? If its so well known, why isn't it used more? Dream Focus 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important Internet meme, and very likely to be something people would like to look up without having to go to ED or similar. JZ (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable sources for WP:N purposes. HomepageDAILY has already been rejected, see WP:RS/N. Pcap ping 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am very saddened to say this because I know how much of "A Big Deal" rule 34 is, but fact of the matter is the page is irreparably in need of attention. It is entirely composed of unreliable sources and I doubt that it is likely that we will be able to find such reliable sources. What's worse is that there are claims in the article that use these unreliable sources and create completely new claims out of them, such as the claim "The meme is believed to have orginated on the 4chan imageboard." In fact, the source says that nowhere at all, it merely says "Humanity wants porn, so as image board website 4chan noted with Rule #34- if it exists there is porn of it." This doesn't say that it was created at 4chan, only that it was noted there. It's simple but severe problems like these that put this article beyond hope for repair right now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What many !voters are misunderstanding here is that the discussion is about this article not about the topic. Is there anything in the current article that is worth saving? This isn't strictly a discussion about whether or not the topic could have an article written that meets notabilty guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was referenced from XKCD, which is [47]. XKCD itself is notable, but I'm not sure if this is a reference worth considering. Resistor (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe the nominator and Rjanag are right: the subject is not notable. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:02, 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 no consensus. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna 2006 Tour[edit]

Rihanna 2006 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable, third-party sources (WP:RS). ArticlesForRedemption 11:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I am working on it now. This is really easy. Can't you help? Bearian (talk)
Done for now. I like how it's shaping up. Have I changed your minds? Bearian (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you deletionists Leave Rihanna Alone! Bearian (talk) 03:32, 27 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) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately only a single substantive source seems to be available so I have to vote merge with the other Rihanna tours, or perhaps with the album it was promoting. Polarpanda (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been significantly improved by User: Bearian since the AFD was initiated. Multiple sources makes notability clearer.--PinkBull 17:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This tour doesn't exist. In 2006 only exist a tour of partnership with the Pussycat Dolls and the Roc Tha Bloc Tour. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 02:04, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keshab Raj Seadie[edit]

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

This is the managing partner of a New York law firm, whose page I'm nominating separately. I don't see any recent news hits on the firm (or the individual, being that they share the same name). The only google news hits at all were listings in 2006 asking for a paralegal. Shadowjams (talk) 16:48, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see any reliable, secondary sources. Lots of advertising, but no reporting. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:22, 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. Although the arguments for a merge made me think about that, I feel that the 'keep' !votes are sufficient to show that this article should be kept -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse (Moorcock)[edit]

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

Original research essay about an aspect of one authors books. It offers nothing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Multiverse are used in a lot of fiction there is nothing given here that distinguishes this authors use of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with the author's article as per WP:BKD. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Added refs, added research tag in the hope that more will be dug out. Multiverse in this sense is very much related to Moorcocks writing, though it could be argued that anyone else using the term in a similar way is just tagging along after him. Artw (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any independent reliable sources to back up the rather grand claim you just made? Ridernyc (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of him coining the term at least in it;s fictional sense? The ref I just added does that. And then, as the man himself puts it: "The term caught on well enough to be used for a variety of purposes in popular fiction and theoretical physics and was incorporated into the lexicon of Doctor Who" [49], so I guess it's more his grand claim than mine. Artw (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED would appear to back him up on this. Artw (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have received substantial coverage from reliable sources. The claimed "refs" are passing mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? It's described as a major part fo his work in an encyclopedia article on him. How is that a passing mention? Artw (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at it this way: Marvel Universe is an acceptable article because the Marvel Universe itself has been the subject of substantial coverage. We do not have articles say, the "'Brandy and Mr. Whiskers' Universe" or the "'My Two Dads' Universe", not because we deny the existence of these fictional properties but because sources do not discuss their fictional settings in enough depth to make a standalone article appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say by being so long lasting and covering mutliple works (as shown in the refs) it's clearly closer to the former rather than the later, and as for essays, look below... Artw (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, multiverse is used in a lot of fiction... because Moorcock pioneered the concept 40 years ago. Adequate sourcing has already been added, but it's my firm belief there's plenty more. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michael Moorcock. For his use to justify its own article, we would need multiple references showing he was the first fiction writer to use it, or show conclusively that his use inspired the use of the word in science. if, after its merged, this can be shown, then it could be broken out into its own article. for the record, i am highly opposed to the endless articles on fictional subjects that are not strongly referenced, ie, really talked about a lot in the real world. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Michael Moorcock#Sharing fictional universes with others or as a new section on Michael Moorcock. At first I thought this was a keep as a standalone article but independent coverage of the subject, Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse, is thin. There is passing coverage of the Multiverse as part of Moorcock biographies, use of the term “Multiverse,” sometimes with a nod to Moorcock, but people are not sitting down and creating independent treatments of “Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse.” I found the following when attempting to locate independent treatment.
    • Gardiner, Jeff, The Age of Chaos: The Multiverse of Michael Moorcock . The British Fantasy Society, 2002, ISBN 0-9538681-1-7. An excerpt is available here where it’s apparent this is a Michael Moorcock biography and does not focus on the Multiverse despite its use in the title.
    • Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse, Vertigo/DC Comics, 1999. This attempts to show the multiverse in graphic novel form and would be an example of coverage.
    • Spinrad, Norman, On Books: The Multiverse, essay in Asimov's Science Fiction, April-May 2008. While the title looks promising I do not know what this essay covers.
    • De Saille, Stevienna, A Cyberian in the Multiverse: Towards A Feminist Subject Position for Cyberspace[50], presented at the UK Postgraduate Conference in Gender Studies, 21-22 June 2006, University of Leeds, UK. This is an example of someone that uses the Multiverse as a conceptual idea but is not about Moorcock’s Multiverse in particular.
    • Kotani, Mari, Across the Multiverse: How Do Aliens Travel from “Divisional” Space to “Network” Space?[51], The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 13 (2002). Here’s another example of the use of the Multiverse as a conceptual idea. Moorcock is barely mentioned.
    • Davey, Ian, Cartographer of the Multiverse at http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/moorcock. Here is an example of a fan who borrows the term “Multiverse” but it's to conduct a tour of Moorcock’s work and while “Multiverse” is significant to Moorcock’s work the Multiverse itself apparently is not significant enough to have an independent essay. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A simple Google search of the term "Who created the term multiverse" finds sources that predate Moorcock by 2 years so the science claim is refuted, Numerous sources show it was created by Andy Nimmo, then vice chairman of the British Interplanetary Society in 1960.[52] Also simply checking the multiverse article here on the project we will find that there it has been sourced and credited to predate Moorcock by 8 years in literature also. [53] Ridernyc (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crucial thing would not be using the word Multiverse, it would be using the word multiverse to indicate a set of intersecting fictional universes. Artw (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though I think it does pretty much knocks that dubious lats paragraph on the head, which I've removed. Artw (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jclemens.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough material. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and the nomination's claim that it is OR is clearly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' This person has a large number of articles dedicated to them and their fictional universe. A rather large number of his books have articles about them. His multiverse is a key feature in a lot of them. Enough valid information to fill an article, and nothing gained by deleting it, or cramming it altogether somewhere else. Dream Focus 07:21, 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. WP:CSD#A7 along with the team's page. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball[edit]

AfDs for this article:
University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting the cart before the horse. Team doesn't have a page yet, so why make a page on their basketball history? Half-assed unsourced stub either way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:35, 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 merge and redirect to Biographical film (to which Biopic redirects). I have merged only (a few words about) the first meaning - autobiographical movie. The second meaning (a photograph taken of oneself) is not mentioned in any of the sources and fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiopic[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP, WP:NEOLOGISM, at best one sentence that belongs in the Biopic article. Ridernyc (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative delete. I wouldn't call this madeup, since gsearches definitely turn up decent usage of the term. However, I couldn't find anything to make this anything more than a dictionary definition. Jujutacular T · C 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a merge, per MQS. Jujutacular T · C 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely used in archived media: The Washington Post, The Philidelphia Inquirer, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have all used the term. Granted these are all trivial mentions, so there's nothing there to make a whole article out of, but how much trouble is it to redirect this to biopic? Jujutacular T · C 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a place for inclusion in context of these two sentences at Biopic should not be too difficult a task, and the suggested redirect will send readers to where the topic has useage in context to the larger article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 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. Consensus is that this list constitutes a notable and verifiable intersection. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners[edit]

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

This article was recently recreated even though it was previously deleted. It was first submitted for deletion back in 2004, and the result was no consensus. The issue of having Nobel lists based on religious affiliation was raised several times in the past, and after a long discussion in 2007, it was decided to delete all such articles (Jewish laureates, Christian laureates, atheist laureates...). Even if we were to consider Jewishness as an ethnicity and not just a religion (which is the argument that is often invoked in such situations), the article in its current form does not provide any reference whatsoever to back up the claim that any of the individuals listed are Jewish. Why are they listed here? What is the criterion used? I'm always wary of attributing a religious affiliation to someone without reliable sources clearly stating that the individual in question identified as such. In its current form, the article is a flagrant violation of WP:RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BomBom (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —BomBom (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —BomBom (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I did not know it was deleted, but we have this category. What seem to be the problem in having the article? For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind. I've checked all individuals and all of them are added to corresponding categories as for example Jewish American scientists, German-American Jews , Jewish poets , Russian Jews, etc in the main articles they appear. I hope you are not suggesting that all those categories should be removed. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must have external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question identified themselves as Jewish. The fact that an individual is placed in a Jewish-related category on Wikipedia is not considered proper referencing, as Wikipedia cannot cite itself. I would also like to point out that if this article is kept, it will lead to a slippery slope and we will witness the recreation of other religion-based Nobel lists. --BomBom (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, you do not like it - so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize. Of course all the articles have the external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question are Jewish, and it could be confirmed with not just one, but by many reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Jews is not only religion, it is an ethnicity and it was a nationality in a former Soviet Union, that's why your claim about other religions has nothing to do with the article. I did not include to the article, the ones, who converted to Judaism. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mbz1, it is quite offensive for you to suggest that the reason I want this article deleted is because I "do not like [the fact that] so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize". This is certainly not why I dislike the article. There is already an article about Ashkenazi intelligence, and I have no problem whatsoever with it as this is a notable topic that has been extensively studied by external researchers. What I dislike about the Nobel list is that it lumps together very different people using a very subjective criterion (Jewishness, which cannot be as objectively defined as, say, nationality or university affiliation) without providing any kind of reference to back up the claim. The Nobel Foundation maintains several Nobel-related lists on its website. None of them are based on religion or ethnicity, which means that the awarding organisation itself does not consider the correlation to be relevant. As for the fact that there are other similar lists, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia has such lists as List of black Nobel Laureates or List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. Ideally, I would like to see them go too. They were also submitted for deletion in the past (which shows that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with such "ethnic" lists), but there was not enough consensus to delete them. However, that's the way Wikipedia works; one bad list should not be an excuse for other bad lists. Finally, if you find it interesting that 22% of Nobel laureates are Jewish, then you can certainly go on and create a properly referenced subsection about that (one where the notability of the correlation is established by external sources) in the Ashkenazi intelligence article. This is where it would be most appropriate. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you said it yourself: List of black Nobel Laureates or List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. Then why we cannot have list of Jews Nobel Prize Winners. It is an interesting information, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so why not? See here: Jewish Genius. -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. BTW not all Jews are Ashkenazi you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the article is quite interesting, and inspiring, it amounts to original research since it doesn't cite any sources that say, as a group, Jewish Nobel Prize winners are a notable thing. If someone writes a book putting this forth as evidence of Jewish intellectual or moral superiority (or of their status as God's Chosen People or whatever) then write an article on that but don't just give us the data. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every Nobel prize winner is notable, and it is just an interesting fact that Jews constitute 22% from those notable people. Nobody is talking about superiority, but as I mentioned above as long as Wikipedia hosts all those articles in place, I really do not see, how one could claim that this article should be deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is an interesting fact, more than just interesting. However until someone else points out this fact WP should not do so. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is all over the NET. Wikipedia seems to be the only site that is missing the info :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's 'cause WP follows published sources, not other websites. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that published sources are more reliable than web sites? Few months ago one of my images was published in a book. I explained to the author in length that the image was of inferior mirage. When I got a published copy of the book, it stated that the image is Fata Morgana, and it is only one example. Anyway here's a very reliable source, which has a individual article for every person mentioned in the list. Jews are not interested to claim that somebody is a Jew, if they are not 100% sure they is. Please trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that discuss the disproportionate percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates, there are also sources that discuss why this is the case. See Murray, Charles. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 pp. 281-283 (we even have an article on that book, also viewable at Amazon). Also Zukerman, Harriet. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States pp. 78-82 (google books). There are many more. I dont really have an opinion on whether or not this specific list should exist, but an article could certainly exist on Jewish Nobel laureates. But Mbz1, please calm down a bit, I am sure the people voting to delete are not doing so because they dislike the fact that many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize. Also, I think you could take care of some of the concerns by providing a rock-solid source for each of the entries saying that the person is or was Jewish. nableezy - 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I provided 2 sources: Here we go Page 198. and reliable source. I am not sure who one could say "disproportionate" percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why it is "disproportionate", and who was the one to establish proportions?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proportionate relative to the percentage of the population. Dont worry, its a good thing here. nableezy - 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a fascinating list. We also have List of Jewish actors which I was at the other day and discovered several wonderful actors and actresses that I didn't know of were Jewish. We have List of black ice hockey players. Jews are proud of the achievements of their fellows, just as Black folks are proud of the people in their heritage group, and Russians are proud of their poets and and their inventors. If someone wants to argue that Blacks are superior at ice hockey or Russians are superior poets, that's their business. It is our business to give them the information that is relevant, not to make value judgments over the worth of such an article. Mbz1 is absolutely right that these Nobel Prize winners are notable for being Nobel Prize winners and there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a list. Stellarkid (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou wanted a published reliable source? Here we go Page 198.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable. However, in a list of this nature, there should be a WP:RS for each individual that indicates she/he is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the list should cite sources saying each of the people listed is Jewish. But it has already been demonstrated here that reliable sources are available for many of them, so that argument for deletion falls away. I also agree that the list's preamble should contain a referenced explanation of why this combination of attributes (Jewishness and winning the Nobel Prize) is significant, e.g. based on the sources mentioned by Nableezy above. No difficulty there, it seems. People are also arguing for deletion by virtue of precedent (the 2007 AFD), and a kind of inverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: that all sorts of bad stuff will be created if we don't delete this one. The latter is not convincing, because we can simply bring the bad stuff to AFD, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. And people did argue late in the 2007 AFD (which was a group nomination of several lists of Nobel Prize winners by religion/non-religion) that the list of Jewish winners was a special case. I agree. -- Avenue (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Bene: This is an article that was just created, and perhaps Mbz1 has not had much experience with the sourcing requirements of new articles. It would have been better to discuss any preceived issues on the article's talk page before initiating an AfD. I suggest this AfD be closed, and time given to discuss any problems with the article on its talk page. If, after discussion, the articles still seems problematic to BomBom that would be the time for an AfD. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. 1) POV, who decicdes that someone is Jewish? Do we have a kind of statement? Why should that be relevant? 2) POV, this list tries to privilige Jewish in comparison to others. Why is that? Are Jewish God's blessed people or what? 3) Do we need now a list of Spanish Nobel Prize holders, German, English,....??? 4) Could everything be included in Nobel Prize winners, and what a person beliefs in is not subject to a neutral encyclopedia.

Hence because of POV and redundancy delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) PS: cite: "Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the Nobel Prize, not for being of a particular ethnicity or religion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yikrazuul (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have focused it only to the religion: Yes, we donna have a "List of Christian Nobel prize winners", "List of Hindu ..." etc. because it never should be important here to be "of a particular ethnicity or religion". I am sad to see that you are stressing the religion and ethnicity so much, which is your sad-but-true-POV. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list has nothing to do with the religion. The list includes few Jews, who converted to Christianity, and it does not include Christians, who converted to Judaism. Yikrazuul, I've also got a strong impression of at least bad-taste POV from your comment. Both times you've used "delete" you made it bold to look as a double vote. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is absolutely no evidence of POV here. Being of Jewish ancestry or conversion to Judism is not a vague criteria. Individuals either are or they are not and sources will confirm that. Equally so, Nobel Prize winners are known and verifiable. This list's inclusion criteria are clear and concise. One might quibble with an individual entry, but this list in toto meets WP:List and WP:CLN guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we do have articles on nobel prize winners by nationality, gender. i agree it can be a slippery slope: I dont like the article on "black" laureates, as that is a highly subjective description. however, people self identifying as jewish is very clear cut, even people who renounce their religion or even their culture, but acknowledge they came from it. We can support articles like that here, esp since jewishness is a highly notable identity that often transcends other categories, due to the history of the jews. we could have notable hindu winners (which is a highly culturally identified religion), but that would be mostly people from India, so somewhat redundant. I think a problem here stems with the original research in the lead, where numerous facts are pulled together to give an impression of POV. I dont think we can say much in the lead beyond "this is a list of people who have been awarded the NP who are Jewish", unless other reliable sources have written about the intersection of Jewishness and Nobel prizes. maybe if the lead is simplified, it will read better. MBz, if there are nobel laureates who converted to judaism, they would be included here. we would use the list as inclusively as possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your suggestion, Mercurywoodrose. I've used the most reliable and the most conservative source I have found to make the list. That's why I did not include in the list few laureates. For example Elfriede Jelinek, who won Nobel Prize in literature in 2004 is one of them. Wikipedia article states about her: "Her father, a chemist of Jewish-Czech origin ("Jelinek" means "little deer" in Czech) managed to avoid persecution during the Second World War by working in strategically important industrial production. However, several dozen family members became victims of the Holocaust." Does it make her to be Jewish? I do not know. The idea behind the making of the list was not to make it is big as possible, but rather make it to represent the reality as much as possible. If the article would be kept, we could discuss later on, if laureates like Elfriede Jelinek should be included. One more example is Christian B. Anfinsen. He won Nobel Prize in 1972. He converted to Judaism by undergoing an Orthodox conversion in 1979, so 7 years later after he received the prize. I of course did not include him, because I felt, if I do I could find myself at a slippery slope. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz, your sourcing is actually terribly off. I had to deal with this list many times, and the state its in now is no better. You added two individuals without any original source information: Pyotr Kapitsa and Igor Tamm. If you do a little bit of research, you'll see there's actually no solid source saying either is Jewish. You'll only find some ethno-centric or anti-semitic sites listing them on and off --- without any source information on their pages. Also, the front of the page state "162 people who won Nobel Prizes were of Jewish ethnicity" -- which is yet again a misleading statement, as you fail to mention that almost 1/3 of those individual listed are Jewish by means of one Jewish parent or, in a few cases, less. How does that make this article NPOV? Bulldog123 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyotr Kapitsa is listed in Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 10 (Keter, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 747), he was also a member of Jewish Antifascist Committee. I added another reference for the entry.
Tamm is listed in "The Encyclopedia of Russian Jewry, Biographies A-I", edited by Herman Branover, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1998, pp. 351-352. I added another reference for the entry.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it has been shown time and time again that the Encyclopedia Judaica is a rather unreliable, and occasionally questionably motivated, source. Pyotr Kapitsa explicits states he is not Jewish: [58]. Straight from the horse's mouth. Similarly, if you consider Jewish encyclopedias to be good sources, you should then have removed Tamm for not being listed in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia: [59] - which is perhaps the most extensive. There are no official recorded biographies of Tamm stating he is a "Jew." Yet, there are stating he is "half German" [60] and more than plenty stating he is "Russian." If you think it's strange to put Jelinek on this list for having a Jewish ancestor, you'd be hard bent not to find it odd to put Tamm.
  • Which once again shows that all this list is doing is regurgitating ambiguities and acting as great fuel for anti-semitic websites likes stormfront.org and low-brow Jewish "ethnic pride" webpages like the Jewish Virtual Library. Wikipedia doesn't need to substantiate the fact that Jewish people made great contributions to the world by having this list. It should be obvious. As obvious as a List of Caucasian Nobel Prize Winners. Arguments over content like this just screams: "Grow up, already." Bulldog123 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep verifiable, notable, and per Mbz1. Broccoli (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep: the particular stench alone of User:Yikrazuul's "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" should be a sufficient reason. --RCS (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - criteria for inclusion in the list is clear; that it's right now inadequately sourced (if that's even the case) is not grounds for deletion. That said, I want to note that a reasonable man could support deletion without being an antisemite, and it's wrong to impugn anyone by suggesting otherwise. Tom Harrison Talk 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Argue the merits, not the motivation--Mike Cline (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment- True but the comment "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" has zero place in an AfD, and frankly has a very bad smell. Stellarkid (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic itself is notable and has been covered in reliable sources since ... 1942 [61]. Also, as far as I can tell reliable sources have been added for most (all?) laureates.radek (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To speak to the issue of lists by religion which some have objected to, we also have these For the record we have lists of Muslims, List of Muslim scholars, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim businesspeople, List of Muslim historians, List of converts to Islam, list of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim soldiers, List of Muslim painters, List of Muslim astronauts, List of Muslim geographers and more. Obviously some people find this type of list interesting and informative. I haven't looked for any Christian, Hindu or atheist lists. Also to Mbz1 with respect to converts, Sammy Davis Jr. (a convert) is counted among List of Jewish actors. Stellarkid (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, Stellar! I wonder what the reason for deletion would be offered now :) About converts, I personally would not have included them to the article because to me the list is more about ethnicity that about religion. If we are to include converts to Judaism, does it mean we should exclude converts to Christianity? Of course, in no way I own the article, so it is for community to decide who should be included. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting question, Mb. I would say it would depend if the converted-to-Christianity Jews explicitly renounce their Judaism. I guess a group like Jews for Jesus and the Messianic Jews are Christian-Jews or Jewish-Christians. Most converted Jews still consider themselves Jews to one extent or the other. But if there were evidence that a converted Jew did not wish to be identified as a Jew, then it would make sense to leave him off the list. Indeed there are some well-known Jews that wish they were not; and there are even some prominent "Jews" that want to be identified as a Jew merely for political purposes. So you are right, It is complicated. Stellarkid (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so complicated, afaik. According to the Halakha, if you are born as Jew you can't be anything else other than Jew. I mean, you can convert to any other religion, but it would be meaningless to the Halakha beside being treated as Meshoomad (this is sort of apostasy). Broccoli (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not complicated at all, and this is why it's so important that each person's religion be sourced (and why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia won't do). If WP:RS report that a Nobel laureate is Jewish, they are Jewish for Wikipedia purposes. If there are no sources that identify the laureate as a Jew, they don't belong on the list. Nothing matters but the sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If we are to have lists (which gets debated regularly) then this list should stay. It has clearly defined AND LIMITED members that don't keep fluctuating (it can be added to but it would be a rare circumstance to remove someone), so it is a list that can be complete. Sourcing must be impeccable, but surely all nobel laureates should be notable enough for their own article anyway, so the sourcing should be also in that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the article is POV. Vexorg (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? Anyway, even if it was (which it isn't), POV is not a valid reason for deletion, please read the Wikipedia deletion policy. Appears to be simply a IDON'TLIKEIT vote.radek (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Vexorg - Since WP:NPOV is a core WP policy, I am open to changing my position of Strong Keep above if indeed as you assert that this article is POV. The operative concept in the WP:NPOV policy is this: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. In this article, the majority perspective is that there are some number of Nobel Laureates that are of Jewish descent. The list presents that majority perspective well, although individual list entries may be subject to verifiability. What then is the minority view that is not presented fairly? Your assertion that the article is POV must mean that a minority view is not presented fairly. If that is the case, what is that minority view and how might it be presented so that the article was indeed NPOV? Please address these questions so as to better assess your claim of POV. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think the vote by Vexorg should be discussed seriously because at least on two occasion the user added unsourced Jewish ethnicity claim to the persons, who are not Jews: [62] and [63]. I'd like to assume good faith in the user vote, but...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a surprise. Looks like I'm on 'the list' - It's worth noting that editors of good faith don't have to resort to attacking the history of other editors in order to give weight to their rationale here. I'm entitled to vote/comment here just as you are. If your arguments are strong enough you should need to personally dig at other editors. FWIW David Sainsbury and David Sumberg are Jewish and something they are entitled to be proud of. Anyway it's clear why you and Mike Cline are very protective over this article .. User_talk:Mbz1#Strengthening_the_Lead-in_for_List_of_Jewish_Nobel_Prize_Winners and I would imagine this will be taken into account. Vexorg (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Mbz1, calling people nazis who do not agree with your agenda is not very nice either is it? Vexorg (talk)
The exact quote from my talk page: "nazis did not ask for a reliable source to prove somebody is Jew, when they murdered 6 millions innocent women, children and elderly" So, whom exactly did I call "nazis"? I mean, if I did, it is a bookable offense, go report me to AN/I or take your acusation back.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry I didn't read your quote properly. I retract the statement. Vexorg (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe you should retract your accusation towards Mike Cline. He helped me with the article because I asked him to. There's nothing bad in his help,is it? On the other hand he warned me to "avoid challenging the behavior and motivations of those opposing your position." So, if you need to blame somebody, blame me alone please, Mike has nothing to do with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He gave you good advice Vexorg (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then admit you were unfair to him.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is obviously an ethnicity-based list, not a religious one, and unlike most of these Jewish lists (e.g. List of Jewish American entertainers), this one is actually notable, maintainable, readable, and complete; most of the other lists will never be so. The list is also now copiously referenced, thanks to User:Avenue. It, like other rare examples with similar qualities (e.g. List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices), actually has a chance of becoming a Featured List. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity. I think that will solve the problem of having those IMO racists lists as Black Nobel laureates, Jewish Nobel laureates and the like. What makes this particular article relevant makes also the one for all the other ethnicities notable too. I think that that achieves neutrality. What makes Jewish ethnicity more notable than... I don't know K'iche' Maya ethnicity? Even if there is only one individual for that section. Such and article will be similar to List of Nobel laureates by country or by specialty.  franklin  02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have used the word "racist" so easy. Do you believe that everybody, who voted to keep the "racist" list is a racist or in the best case scenario are too stupid to see that the list is "racist"?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A writer once said. "Things are not how they are called but the way we call them along the way" (terrible translation probably). They don't call it racist because they call racist when something bad is said about a race of people. It happens that I call racist also to any division of persons into races or for what is worth, ethnic groups even more if it is done to show some sort of pride. Anyways, the important thing is about creating the article List of Nobel laureates by ethnic groups. I would call also racist such an article too, but in this case all the possible races (present among the Nobels) will be represented.  franklin  03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely nothing racist about the list. The list is a part of Jewish history and Jewish heritage. It also provides encyclopedic information for people, who are interested in this particular topic. I've never said, and never will say that Jewish ethnicity is more notable than any other is, and of course, if somebody would create a similar list for any other ethnicity I am not going to nominate it to be deleted or to vote for it to be deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's way the creation of List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity suits precisely that purpose and I would say it siuts better that purpose. It serves well to show Jewish history and heritage (articles on the topic can link to the specific section) and at the same time doesn't leave out other ethnicities. It shows information in a more encyclopedic way since it is more useful to establish comparisons, statistics, etc. The example I gave shows why having this independent article will certainly be a source of exclusivity. It is very unlikely that an article like "List of K'iche' Maya Nobel laureates" will be created because probably there is only one Nobel laureate in such category.  franklin  15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you're free to create a list of Nobel laureates by ethnicity, I'm not sure if it is really workable. Classifying people by ethnicity is not straightforward and depends on the context. Here you'd be trying to do it for people from all over the globe and across more than a century. The list of Jewish laureates has the advantage of focusing on a very restricted part of this problem, and even here there are tricky issues around the definition. -- Avenue (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—the primary argument for this article's deletion has been supposedly inherently referencing problems. This has already been proven false by the editor of the article. Therefore, there is no real delete rationale left. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the issue of the lack of references has been addressed, which by the way, wasn't the primary argument.  franklin  00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please indicate which of the following criteria are any other "arguments" based on: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion? Sourcing was the only possible issue here and it has been addressed.radek (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it was indeed the main argument. -- Avenue (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but there is an inherent mistake in your question. I do not have to give one of those. The very first line states "but are not limited to". There are a couple of reasons why this list is not desirable and some have been mentioned by others but I would like to focus, for the moment, with the proposition I made, which I think suits well to those who want or need this article and also polishes some of the reasons why it is not a good idea. I am talking, of course about the only idea I have given, creating List of Nobel prize winners by ethnicity or List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity (which ever preferred). All the reasons for having this article are reasons for having that article instead. On the other hand, we have to face that this article's only addition is two numbers: 162 and 20%. It happens that it is a list of elements of a set (Nobel laureates) gathered according to a feature that doesn't have anything to do with it (being Jewish). Notice that that is not the case of any of the other list involving Nobel laureates. The alternative I mentioned at least is more politically correct. I think all the people wanting this article would find this alternative equally satisfactory or maybe better. That, if the real intention is to provide real encyclopedic information. I think that should have been the article created in the first place, if any in this direction.  franklin  02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you're changing the subject back to your proposal, I've responded to that now under your !vote above. Here I will just say that no, I do not find your proposal equally satisfactory. But you're welcome to go ahead with your list as well. -- Avenue (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable intersection, as for other ethnic/religious/cultural etc. groups. That a few individual items in a list can be questioned does not mean the list is invalid. (the same argument goes for the restoration of lists mentioned as examples previously deleted). I am really unable to figure out why the arguments against having such lists are even considered, once sourcing has been dealt with the general discussion referred to goes back to 2007, and I hope consensus has been changed, and that we are no longer afraid of this sort of subject, and more receptive to lists in general. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This intersection is notable given that there are many sources talking specifically about this intersection (and the oddly large size of the set). We have a lot of good sourcing so that's not an issue. There's a tiny issue of a similar article being deleted earlier but that was 3 years ago and had very different inclusion criteria, so there's no issue there. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I question the process that led to the earlier deletion of the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)). It is clear from that discussion that the claimed consensus was absent. Moreover, ethnicity/religion is clearly relevant to some winners of the prize for literature, e.g. Wiesel, Bellow and Singer, and peace (Rabin and Perez). List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity is a helpful suggestion, and would be an interesting article, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - 90% of the keep arguments just say "Jewish is an ethnicity too!" which the nominator has already acknowledged. The reason for deletion is the same reason for deletion that was given in the other 10 AfDs. This list keeps on getting recreated. There's really no discussion here. You can't recreate previously deleted lists. Bulldog123 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 90% of the keep arguments note that the list originally had less than perfect sources but that this has been much remedied since then. I myself showed above that the topic itself is notable in reliable sources going back to 1940. 95% of the delete votes DO seem to be based on nothing but IDON'TLIKEIT and completely ignore actual Wikipedia deletion policy.radek (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean ignoring wikipedia policy like recreating deleted lists? Bulldog123 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not actual Wikipedia policy. Please actually READ the policy before appealing to it: "Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden". And under valid reasons for recreation see "Improvement of previous writing" and "Poorly created articles" which are both very relevant here.radek (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It never was recreated, as a matter of fact I even never known it was here before. I've done everithing from the scratch. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of recreate is "make or cause to be or to become what has once already become." Therefore, whether you knew the list existed already or not, you recreated it after there had been discussions to delete this page and pages like it. "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" is not a topic. One criteria for making lists in WP:LIST gives a test. Can you make the article Jewish Nobel Prize winners without the "list" in front of it. You can't, because the topic is not separate in academia. Sites online use it for either ethnic pride of anti-semitic reasonings, and authors like Charles Murray use it to prove a point in his book (which lists all accomplishments by ethnicity and nation as well). But alone, it is not a topic that can have an article written about it. Bulldog123 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all irrelevant as you are discussing an imaginary rule that doesn't actually exist. It is fine to recreate deleted pages as long as this is not done in a disruptive manner.radek (talk) 03:08, 7 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 close Tagged as G3 before AFD opened. Blatant hoax/vanity by young user. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GannonTabuu[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guide line. AppuruPan (talk) 03:23, 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 Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony And Sonic Z[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guideline AppuruPan (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Blatant hoax. No sign of this being real. The show is named after the creator of the article. I recommend also speedy deleting GannonTabuu and Anthony James O'Brien as they is a part of the hoax, and created by the same editor. TheFreeloader (talk) 03:26, 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, with no prejudice to merging. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sejong Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Google provides no results except the school's website and Wikipedia. [64] [65] Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:19, 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. JForget 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of US states by number of restaurants per capita[edit]

List of US states by number of restaurants per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not an Indiscriminate collection of statistics. Mattg82 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few people need such stats, its not linked except in "see also"s. Its reasonable to assume that this page will never be seen, but will slowly disintegrate into a state of disrepair and obsolescence because nobody will update it. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is indeed a trivial intersection of statistics. Yilloslime TC 20:50, 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. NW (Talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kare Made Love KM[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fail applicable notability guidelines like WP:BK. The series ended in 2003 and no sign of potential licensing outside Japan or Drama/Anime adaptation. No licensor in North America, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Scanlation is stall at volume 6, chapter 35 out of the 10 volumes and seems not much "something" among fandom. Adding all those facts lead me to ask a Delete KrebMarkt 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnotable manga series that fails WP:BK and WP:N. As nominator is very good with searching foreign languages sources, I'm satisified that if he says there are none, then there really are none. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly nothing in English that I can find. No evidence it passes WP:BK means delete to me. If anything else turns up, I'll reconsider. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It had a seven year run in a major magazine. That magazine has been around for more than 40 years, and is published twice a month. You don't last that long without knowing what you are doing. If the magazine thought it notable enough to publish for seven years, then its notable. As for the nominators comment on the scanlation indicating fan interest, you are wrong. There are many things fans want, which aren't translated, it all depending on the mood of whoever is going to bother translating it. So you can't tell one way or the other by that. Also, who cares how many thieving English speakers steal something? Lack of interest in one language, doesn't mean it isn't popular in other languages, specifically the one it was officially released as. And they released 10 volumes of it. If it didn't do well, didn't have a significant fan base, would they have kept releasing collections of it? Dream Focus 09:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will answer that one critical point is this series failure to be licensed outside Japan and get adapted into Drama/Anime even 7 years after the end of the series. Shueisha has always maximized licensing prospect and adaptation possibility to generate additional income to compensate the decline of their publications readership. Comparatively there is another Shojō Arisa that got licensed by Del Rey with just the volume 1 released in Japan and the series still ongoing. Another one could Satoru Makimura Real Clothes serialized in the Shueisha josei magazine You that was adapted into a TV Drama. Kare Made Love KM failure in both licensing side and adaptation area is an evidence of lack notability. Last straw is the state of the ja wiki article which is still a stub after 4 years and received no edit since 2008 that how much this series stirred interest from Japanese editors. --KrebMarkt 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think "No licensor in North America, France, Germany, Italy & Spain" is really very relevant - notability in Japan would be sufficient (though I can offer no opinion on whether that exists). -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That information is given to point that WP:BEFORE was duly given proper consideration and to indicate for editors looking for coverage, areas that were unsuccessfully explored so they won't redo search in those directions. --KrebMarkt 19:40, 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, Scott Mac (Doc) 20:21, 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, NW (Talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trusting the nom here, who is said to be good at finding foreign-language sources. Not notable per any guideline. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 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) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dolan[edit]

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

No references added since August 2008. A Google search doesn't bring up any notable articles on him. This article comes off as an article on any typical radio jockey who doesn't stand out from the crowd for any unique reasons. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:11, 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, NW (Talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. The more notable Simon Dolan according to Google, the entrepreneur, doesn't even have a wiki article. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 04:00, 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, default to delete per subject request. NW (Talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lloyd Smith[edit]

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

This article fails to show why this subject is notable. All of the links in the article are to primary sources of one sort or another. Generally fails WP:N. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:59, 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) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revise as per Rrburke, deleting all unsourced contentious material, in addition to making any other changes required by WP:BLP. --Joe Decker (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revise per above, taking into account WP:ATD.--Cyclopiatalk 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a poorly sourced WP:BLP article (half of the links are dead and are making highly contentious claims!!) -- if the content is legit, this is a truly despicable human being, but the real problem here is verifiability and the shaky ground its on. JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rrburke above provided working sources. --Cyclopiatalk 11:48, 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 and userfy. JForget 02:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League players from Great Britain and Ireland[edit]

List of Premier League players from Great Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is not actually a list; it's just a header for a list, with lots of blank sections underneath. Maybe someday in the future, someone will actually create such a list (and this nomination is not intended to prejudice that), but in the meantime this empty list is just a waste of the time of any reader who loads the page. I'm sure that whoever started this list was full of good intentions, and I intend no criticism of them for not following through on what they started. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy, I think User:03md might be interested in finishing what he started. anemoneprojectors│talk 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until the author has finished with the article. He/she is free to repost the article into article space when he/she is done with the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think the idea of this list is really bad - for England's part it's a list of people who played in their country's domestic league, and there is nothing special about that. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't recreate. The list would be absolutely colossal (when the Premier League started it had hardly any non-British/Irish players, so you're probably talking 400 names from the first season alone, and about 1000 names overall), plus there really isn't anything notable about a player from Britain playing in the Premier League. It would be like having List of British hit singles by British singers.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. I can only agree with Chris. There isn't anything special about a British or Irish footballer playing in the Premier League, not to mention that this list would be far too extensive to be of much practical use to anyone. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 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. JForget 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayberry Cafe[edit]

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

Not notable: Sourced only to a restaurant review article in a local paper. Every restaurant gets reviewed by a local paper, so that's nothing special. Its "relationship" with The Andy Griffith Show is parasitic. I could just as easily open a bar called "Rick's Café Américain," decorate it accordingly, and claim it's notable because a bar by the same name appears in the movie Casablanca. The claim that two cast members have visited the restaurant isn't sourced and isn't material anyway. Famous people do not confer notability on the places they visit. Rklawton (talk) 01:18, 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. JForget 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necroholocaust[edit]

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

All of the information in the article seems to be true, but it doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria laid out at WP:MUSIC; that is to say, they haven't won any music awards, they haven't got any best selling albums, and they haven't been covered by independent media sources as far as I can tell. If my understanding is correct, this means we should not have an article about them. —Soap— 00:43, 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 keep. JForget 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester Celtic AFC[edit]

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

Non-notable minor football team who do not compete in a national league or any nationwide cup competitions. No indepedent reliable sources to make the article verifiable or assert notability. -- BigDom 08:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why don't you include some of this information and accompanying sources in the article then so that it is clear whether the notability guidelines are passed or not. With the state the article is currently in, there is no assertion that the club is a notable one. Furthermore, the fact that Damien Duff and co. happened to play for one of the youth teams (most likely under-7s or something) does not mean that a team is notable. -- BigDom 09:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"most likely under-7s or something" I'll ignore this as it displays ignorance and lack of understanding on your part. Anyway, the article is now much better referenced and improved.Fionnsci (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know about that - he looks pretty young in this photo :) Bettia (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - referenced, and I believe meets club notability based on the amount of professionals. matt91486 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm normally pretty lenient when it comes to sports clubs but I'm siding towards delete here. The general rule of thumb states that a football club is notable if they have played in the national cup - so far I have found no evidence that this team has done so. The sources on the page aren't really enough to establish notability - most are from primary sources and the others are just a team profile and a results page for their youth team. I can't find find other sources on t'web that would swing this. Also, having a number of famous past players is not enough - notability is not inherited. Bettia (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs improving but is worth keeping. Playing in LSL is notable Djln--Djln (talk) 16:25, 2 March 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) 00:34, 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 redirect to Minder (TV series). for the time being, information can be merged if necessary but most of these articles fail badly individual notability and so as mentioned below the long-term solution should be a merge to List of Minder episodes or suchlike Black Kite 11:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Entrepreneur[edit]

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

Not an article, merely a plot summary and cast list Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it difficult to understand the logic of the person who proposed the deletion of this summary of an episode of 'Minder'. It it one of a continuing series of the episodes, which will eventually be complete. I have done most of them over the past few months and propose to continue them. Maybe the poster doesn't like it, that's his choice, but if it's not OK then all the other episodes are also not OK.

I've done my best to write them authentically, with reference to the DVD's which I watch and the 'official' guide which I have bought.

I object in the strongest possible terms to the suggestion that it be deleted. There is no logical reason that I can see.

Of course it's not an 'article' - it's not meant to be. It is a concise summary of the action plus a short (not complete) cast listing.

Please explain why you object.

--Robert Fraser (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because by your own admission it's not an 'article'! If it's not an article, then it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. If the other episode descriptions by your own admission are not articles, then obviously they are "also not OK" and should also be deleted! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all the other 'Minder' episode articles. I think these might fall under WP:PLOT. Can't this show just get a list of episodes page like so many other shows? ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it could, but isn't deleting the information it should contain a step backwards? Someoneanother 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cool, but the information can't be merged after deletion, they would all have to be redirected to the new list article with their article histories intact, IE they can't be deleted first, which is your !vote, if you see what I mean. Someoneanother 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by default This is good content about one of the most iconic 80s British TV series, and shouldn't be deleted out of hand. It's coming from a book which has details of every episode (I checked Amazon and one of the customer reviews states that every episode is covered), therefore it's verifiable. These should all be consolidated into a Minder series 8 episode list, which would easily be doable with a little trimming. Someoneanother 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and set redirect (thus saving the history) to Minder (TV series)#episodes unless an individial episode notability can be shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging if necessary. Wikipedia is NOT epguides.com. --Sussexonian (talk) 23:33, 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 and move to Environmental impact-minimizing vehicle tuning. A discussion on the article's talk page can be held on finding a more suitable name. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green tuning[edit]

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

Neologism with no sources that actually discuss the term Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has its value at Wikipedia to describe ecologic improvements to existing vehicles (ground, water & airvehicles). The article Electric vehicle conversion, ... also exist and this article falls perfectly into the same category (this name could also be considered a neologism, yet it too has its purpose on wikipedia). Removal of this article, along with the (now removed) Comparison of alternative ICE fuels, Alternative ICE fuel generator, and ICE fuel conversion should be avoided in the future, and quite frankly the removed pages should also be reintegrated to wikipedia.

KVDP (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no issue with an article about ecologic improvements to exsiting vehicales, probably as a section of the existing articles about each class of vehicle. I have an issue with someone coining a new term :'Green Tuning' Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have to be able to talk about these issues without making up phrases. The existence of the article suggests that "green tuning" is a term of art, and it isn't as far as I can tell, so it is misleading. Let's present information about this subject without misleading - see WP:VALINFO. wrt the ev conversion article, see: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge: Guyonthesubway is right (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) but this looks like encyclopedic info, so deletion isn't appropriate. The no-neologisms policy does need to be followed, so either it needs a purely descriptive name (this gets awkward though - Car tuning for environmental impact? Car tuning for minimum environmental impact?) or it should be merged to Car tuning. That article should definitely have a section on this, anyway. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One remark dough: car tuning would then only involve cars and no other (ground?) vehicles. perhaps it's best to rename this article to "Vehicle tuning"

217.136.150.185 (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems the phrase is only very rarely used in the wild, so this page has to go - WP:NEO. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 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) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to non-neo based name. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move as it's a notable topic with a neologism name. -- samj inout 01:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blazo[edit]

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

May not be notable enough to merit an article. He did manage quite a while in the minor leagues, but I'm not sure if that is enough "notability". You decide. Alex (talk) 18:24, 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, JForget 00:28, 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) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage is enough for me. Jujutacular T · C 06:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be nine articles in Google News, seems to be enough to meet WP:BIO. elgnomotalk 17:59, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mz Bratt[edit]

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

It does not appear that this musician meets the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Wine Guy~Talk 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references in the article include significant coverage from the Guardian, and a Google News hunt turns up additional non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. I don't see how this fails to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's my fault, I didn't explain the nom very well. She has only released one single on a notable label ("Who Do You Think You Are?" on All Around the World Productions), although she is not listed on their website. She has also released a second single on a non-notable indie label ("I Like You" on UnX Records). In interpreting MUSICBIO, I pay attention to the wording: "may be notable ... at least one of the following"; in this case, I don't believe the "new artist" articles (like that in the Guardian) make up for the fact she hasn't produced much music yet. Wine Guy~Talk 09:16, 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, JForget 00:22, 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) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ginsengbomb. She has had significant independent coverage from the Guardian and FemaleFirst, thus satisfying WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 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) 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Whispering Woods[edit]

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "It exists" (or in this case, "It does not exist, except in fiction") is not a valid argument. If there are no third party sources on this subject it must go, we are not Triviapedia. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:48, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is listed for rescue, but if someone's going to work on it, it won't be me, as I just spent an hour working on Rihanna 2006 Tour. Otherwise, merge. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search for sources produced no significant coverage at all, let alone from reliable sources, article is not verified and the subject certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be notable, which is highly unlikely since most individual aspects of fictional settings aren't. I would support a merge or redirect to Etheria (She-Ra), effectively this article's parent, but it's in no better condition, state of compliance or relevance. That She-Ra and co. live in a wood on a planet twinned with He-Man's stomping ground is something that can be summed up in a sentence or two on the main article. Another reason I'm not leaping on the redirect option is that the term 'whispering woods' is hardly limited to She-Ra, run it through Amazon.. Someoneanother 19:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Etheria (She-Ra). This is not a notable topic, and I doubt there's any content worth merging. Robofish (talk) 23:45, 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 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numotion[edit]

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

No notablility has been established for this software developer, Google turns up nothing in particular. The redirect from Nucontroller CMS to this page should also be deleted. Artw (talk) 00:09, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_27&oldid=1142641833"