Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 12

< 11 January	13 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Jones[edit]

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

Deleted via AfD in August and re-created today. The CSD G4 tag was removed by the creator against the obvious consensus from a few months earlier. Jones clearly fails WP:ATH as he's never played professionally as well as WP:GNG. His recent signing by the Packers is 100% a non-factor to his notability due to this Afd as well as this one which had the same kind of situation as this one. During the course of both the respective players were on a roster (inactive) yet had not played. Should've been speedied but if another AfD is necessary in this case, then so be it. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Giants reasoning.--Yankees10 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ATHLETE Alio The Fool 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at will. Sandstein 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht Shares[edit]

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

This sham article appears to have been originally set up to hawk timeshares from companies controlled by Matthew Condon and Joseph Galati (see [1] and [2]) using a WP:Single-purpose account, Special:Contributions/Prebbleq, that was also used to post what appears to be a resume (see Prebble Q. McLaughlin). The additions for other timeshare hawkers (see [3] and [4]) appear to be an attempt to "legitimize" Condon's and Galati's businesses by referencing more well-established competitors. Note that the article on Fractional ownership already contains a section on yachts that, while more concise, contains essentially the same information as presented here without reference to particular vendors. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trying to get this killed for a while. this page is a total sham, I've tried whittling it down before. But, if there is another article under whose umbrella this would fit, keep that one, kill this one. Vinithehat (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If moved to a generalized article name such as Yacht timeshare, a name that explains the general practice, rather than a shared name of a company. Web search has found a number of companies specializing in this and it appears to be a legitimate form of time sharing. Calmer Waters 09:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking into in further, agree that at this time there is not a need for a separate article and viable, non-promotional prose should be moved to Fractional ownership. Calmer Waters 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have to admit that after both your and User:Vinithehat's responses, perhaps just a WP:BOLD redirect to Fractional ownership would be a better approach. The main axe I have to grind is with "entrepreneurs" using Wikipedia for free advertising and just beyond that whether a particular article subject is likely to be a spam attractor. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Somebody created stubs for all the red links. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 18:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O. cornutus[edit]

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

Also:

These dab between red links. Some blue links were added, but appear non-specific. The whole idea of disambiguating between contracted prefixes seems rather dubious. Pcap ping 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely search terms, directing readers to the best available page. Polarpanda (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Polarpanda. For more information, please see previous discussions about these disambiguation pages here, here, and here. Neelix (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus in those discussions seems to be against such pages, not for them. Pcap ping 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, I included links to the previous discussions here so that there could be a continuity in the discussion rather than a series of isolated ones. Nonetheless, you may want to review the discussions again; the concensus in the past has been to keep these disambiguation pages. You may want to review these deletion discussions also: here and here. Species epithet disambiguation pages, like Miserabilis and Canus, have not been generally accepted, but "G. species" disambiguation pages have. This is a proper form of disambiguation page, one that is helpful and likely for users to use in searching for specific species. Neelix (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, works perfectly well as dicdefs. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be good to have these disambiguation pages on Wiktionary as well, but they are needed here. The purpose is not to make this an article, but to help disambiguate "G. species" epithets which are ambiguous. Neelix (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then, copy to wiktionary, regardless of whether it is deleted here or not. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has two bluelinks, doesn't read like a dict def. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Innovation[edit]

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

Yet another advert for a non-notable company. Paozik (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (I've just tagged it as such). Spammy article about NN company. Tagged for speedy a long time ago but removed by the author. Time it went. andy (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite concerns about the notability of the company, and the involevment in the creation of the article by people involved with the company, the article does have topic specific sources which write at length about the company. The company exists, and the article meets the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Concerns about the quality of the material in the article should now be addressed by editing and improving the article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotion for non-notable company. Article has been deleted five times before, and this iteration is written by an employee of the company who is a single-purpose account. Given references are mostly incidental mentions, no mentions at all, or narrow trade rags. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not a blogtronix employee 2. References are not incidental, and all references are relevant. 3. corporation is just as notable as other producers of collaboration software which are listed in encyclopedia, many of which have far fewer references than this article. (Jive Software, Socialtext, Thoughtfarmer) 4. other editors have acknowledged that my article is significantly different than previous versions, with which i was not affiliated. several editors have deemed the article acceptable, why should Haakon take exception? 5. I am not a single-purpose user, this is merely my first project. I plan to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever areas I see a need. Elimccargar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you are not an employee, then by some strange coincidence there is a Twitter user that has the same username as you and posted about working there. If that is a coincidence, then I must apologise for the mistake. Haakon (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Haakon's sleuthing. WP is not a tool for marketing and promotion.Nefariousski (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am independent contractor/student intern, i do stuff for a couple companies, but if u consider that sufficient conflict of interest, so be it. but please do not delete the article. if you look at the article and only consider its language, references, and notability, i think you will see that it merits inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources not sufficient to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite his unwillingness to admit his (alleged) connections to the company, Elimccargar should not be villified simply because of such connections. Please don't forget to Assume Good Faith unless otherwise indicated. From the very first revision of this resurrected article, it seems to have been written in a neutral style, with no overly-promotional statements and with facts backed up with references. (I have written on the article's talk page that I believe the {{advert}} template should be removed for this reason.) I believe any calm, neutral person could believe that Elimccargar is just writing on a topic he knows about, that he believes is notable. Questioning his motives is inappropriate. Nonetheless I vote to delete the article...the sources it references simply do not establish it as being notable enough to deserve an article here. When usage picks up and significant, large sites are running on this software, it may then be notable enough, but in the current time it is not. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed the advert issue (IMO) and removed it. You're right that it may qualify for an article in the future, but that will be on the basis of significant coverage, not on increases in popularity. It seems like it's already a widely deployed product, but has not garnered much press attention yet. Haakon (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, I meant it to follow that when the software is being used by major, notable sites, it will receive more attention from third-party sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Glad to see we agree on these issues. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that in terms of software bloggers and "industry rags" are the most important measure of notability. This software powers several immense communities in several countries, and the sources reflect that. 74.211.199.50 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — 74.211.199.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The question of the motives of any editor is not relevant to a deletion discussion. If Elimccargar has a COI then his edits should be checked carefully, but valid contributions are fine. If an article is "promotional" then it can be edited to change the style to neutral. The current article seems neutral in tone, it is only promotional insofar as it is about a non-notable firm. That brings us to notability, which is really the only issue here. I haven't reveiwed the existing sources nor searched for possible additional sources enough to have an opinion on that score yet, but I do think with this sort of software demonstrations from multiple independent sources that the software is in fact in wide use even if not widely written about should sometimes be accepted in lieu of more traditional indicators of notability, and that in such cases widespread appearances in forum and blog pots can be relevant, even though those are not normally considered reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lets look at the references provided or some of them:
- [5] looks like a WP:RS to me. It is in blog form but appears to be by the organization staff, not an outside unvetted contributor. WP:RS says "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I think this is a case in point. DES ^(talk) 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [6] seems to be an RS by the same rules, indeed it looks rather more reliable to me. DES ^(talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [7] is clearly reliable, but only a passing mention.
- [8] seems to fall into the 'written by a professional" category of RS.
- It is unfortunate that the Gartner reports lead to a page behind a login.
- The Red herring top 100 list looks signifiocant to me.
- [9] looks like a RS to me.
Strong keep after looking at the refs in some detail. DES ^(talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haakon. This is a fairly clear cut case of promotion, and it disgusts me a bit that the person responsible is trying to hide that fact. JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DES, it is also noteworthy to look at the amount of traffic Sharetronix has generated on twitter, from all over the globe. I think international adoption is a significant indicator of notability. In terms of the intentions of the author, this seems to me more like inexperience with wikipedia policy than a case of intentional advertisement or dishonesty.Wikiworker87 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — Wikiworker87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Significant independent coverage of apparently notable software. LotLE×talk 08:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Please substantiate that. What coverage, exactly, do you find significant? JBsupreme (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be well written and definitely does not read as an advertisement. While the references are purely in blogs it is not that bad for software about blogs. I have read an article in the bulgarian (paper) version of the .NET Magazine about the company. I don't know if this counts. Also the competing companies are listed on Wikipedia so why the double standard? Especially when considering the fact that this article is written far better than this one for example Jive Software Stilgar (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NaibStilgar. Not sure if I am allowed to vote on my own article, but this is what i have been saying all along.Elimccargar (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) — Elimccargar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete. The only really independent coverage appears to be this Information World Review article. Pcap ping 09:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails notability. Jack007 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack007 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith AFD by sockpuppet of blocked User:Torkmann. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Polar Blues (Album)[edit]

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

No google hits. Too trivial. Most likely a vanity piece. WordupBrah (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mirzad[edit]

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

There is little to hang an article on here; a claim that he has written a book (no evidence for this on the Web) and a claim that he is a minor politico (press secretary for the district of Behsud).

None of the sources given in the article support the information given however; in fact they do not mention Mirzad at all. pablo_hablo. 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think he passes WP:POLITICIAN as he is a mere political staffer. He does not pass WP:AUTHOR - I can't find any references to the one book that it is claimed he wrote. Finally, I can't find, and the article does not cite, significant coverage that would demonstrate he passes WP:GNG. It would be great if someone who has the language ability to do so could review the 3rd and 4th sources cited in the article. Pending that, or if it can't be done, deletion is appropriate.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the reasons provided by Mkativerata. And, sources 3 and 4 mentions nothing about him. The Persian source, dailyafghanistan, is a news site. The sourced article from Daily Afghanistan is about President Karzai's cabinet ministers. (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per the above comments. I certainly can't find any other information that would confirm notability, and being a deputy press secretary clearly is not a legitimate claim to encyclopedic notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think I am qualified to judge the notability of this person. So far, I haven't seen anything from any other editor that convinces me they are qualified to judge, either.Jarhed (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am qualified to judge, as he does not pass the guidelines for an article. Alio The Fool 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? How do you know?Jarhed (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are not in English, and I don't know if I can trust what I have read about what they say. I also suspect that the proper references might not be available online. Finally, I suspect that we might be biting a newbie. I think we should wait on this a while.Jarhed (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments from article's creator JamshidAwal[edit]

Hi there , So sorry to bother you all. Since I was physically and psychologically exhausted with what now seem the worst idea that I ever had to creat this article (Ali Mirzad) I have decided to delete this article. The intial objective of this article was of informative basis. It is sad and unfortunate ..but I felt helpless and tired. You'll understand by reviewing my talk page.. all the editors are fighting amongst themselves and are becoming more and more violently anal. In a world full of violence the last thing I ever want is to be the reason behind on more conflict.

Unless you can help to setelle their dispute I respectfully urge you to allow me deleting my own article.

kind regards,

P.S. I should add that I found the incessant comments about my capability of the english language quite hurtful. as I am a an english literatur masters student. I don't believe that someone's ability should be judged by a few typos.. :-(

--JamshidAwal (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the comments about 'language ability' in this AFD have nothing to do with your language ability; they are to do with the ability of English language readers to read the 4th and 5th footnotes to the article - which are links to non-English publications - in order to determine whether the publications are reliable sources for the material in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted, it can be restored to your userspace for you to work on. Other editors can review it there and it can be restored as an article when it's ready. But it really will need some better sources. I will place a {{rescue}} tag on the article, this will attract other editors who may be able to help. pablo_hablo. 07:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a non-English language Wikipedia to which a corresponding article could be written where the language would not be a barrier to the readers, that may be a way of improving the basis for this article to bring it to a level of quality. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Mkativerata, doesn't assert sufficient notability, appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN , WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG . Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Institute[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability given, IMO. For example, a letter to the editor written by the founder is used to substantiate coverage in the New York Times. Article was previously speedied as promotional, but the current version is significantly different from the deleted version. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan - if you look at the other source material, you'll see that in addition to letters to the editor, the Galen Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, including multiple article submissions to and mentions in publicatiosn and outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, FOX Business Network, National Journal, and National Review. The Galen Institute has also been featured in the New York Times in other instances in addition to the aforementioned letters to the editor; I can document those appropriately on the page if needed. Furthermore, the Galen Institute counts among its notable scholars, trustees and fellows former high ranking officials at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, former heads of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform. I can source additional information if necessary, but under these grounds, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, there is a second New York Times source under the page's reference section to an article describing Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner's role on the 2005 Presidential Medicare Commission. This is not a letter to the editor, but rather a substantive article that clearly discusses the Galen Institute. Additionally I have added a third New York Times source - an article written by Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner for the New York Times to the reference section, so as to clear up any and all question as to: a) the appropriateness of citing the New York Times as a publication in which the Galen Institute has appeared; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting an organization's leader and mentioning the organization in that context isn't generally held to be substantial coverage. And about reconsidering deletion -- I don't make the call on that. The closing admin will review the discussion here and decide if there's consensus to keep the article based on arguments grounded in Wikipedia policies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first glance at the sources, I thought Sarek had been asleep.......then I saw that almost everything in a source not related to the org was a listing of something a member said etc., not coverage of the org itself. That doesn't make the org notable. No evidence that the org itself has attained notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the most prestigious reliable sources in the US use this organization for content on health care issues. If Fox Business Network [10], National Public Radio [11][12], the Wall Street Journal [13], the Chicago Tribune [14], the National Review, [15] and the San Francisco Chronicle [16] consider them notable, then Wikipedia should to. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So coverage not about the org, but about a person who belongs to the org makes the org notable? That sounds like inheriting notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift - to address your concerns, I've added articles that specifically focus on the Galen Institute as an organization, as well as articles on the Health Policy Consensus Group, to the reference section. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if you look at the notability criteria under WP:ORG is states: "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." It's not MY concern, it's the criteria. A bunch of quotes from members do absolutely nothing to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the media coverage I list and sources I cite, while there are stories that use quotes from Galen personnel, there are also profiles of the Galen Institute, stories about the Galen Institute's funding, the organization's mission/goals, conferences held by the organization, and polling and studies conducted by the organization. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I've added a Washington Times editorial that uses polling data from the Galen Institute, and a lengthy profile of the Galen Institute from Human Events magazine. I've also added some articles that examine the Health Policy Consensus Group. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Events piece is a step in the right direction. The op-ed piece does nothing. They provided polling data. That's not coverage of the org. Again, the primary criteria is: "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.". "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Using a poll the org did in an article not about the org isn't going to go far in satisfying that criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still contend, as I pointed out in my initial post regarding this subject, that the fact that the Galen Institute has been featured in multiple top-tier media sources (not only through quotes, but through profiles and other stories about the organization) provides sufficient validity and notoriety. These mentions are, in my opinion:

"significant coverage in secondary sources" (see the coverage of the Galen Institute by Fox Business Network, and note that while the president of the Galen Institute appears in those clips, she appears as a representative of the organization);

"reliable and independent of the subject" (ranging from prominent daily-run top-tier newspapers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal), to prominent magazines (National Journal, Reason Magazine, Human Events) to television (Fox Business Network) to radio (National Public Radio));

not "trivial or incidental" (I'm not sure one could classify commentary from the Galen Institute in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times or appearances on Fox Business Network as "trivial" and "incidental").

As for the piece in the Washington Times, it is not an op-ed, but an editorial - it was written by the editorial board of the paper, not the board of the Galen Institute. The polling data in the piece was not used in an article about the organization, but about health care attitudes in the United States. In other words, while the Galen Institute wasn't the subject of the piece, it was deemed significant and notable enough by the editorial board of the Washington Times for inclusion of their data and their organization in the piece. Explain how this doesn't meet reliability, significance and notability standards. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice smoke and mirror effect. Listing thing seperately, yet not exactly in context. Listing places they appeared as "reliable and independent" doesn't mean that when they appeared there, it was significant or in depth. Then you list the "significant" coverage seperately. That should be one list because both reliable and significant need to be present, not one or the other. Also, when did I say the op-ed piece was written by the org? I said it is an op-ed piece. It is. It is the editorial opinion of the paper (ie op-ed). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the objective terms "significant" and "relevant" and making them subjective based on your own personal views of what's significant and what's relevant. Who's to say that having poll data used in an editorial from the Washington Times editorial board isn't significant? Who's to determine whether a focused paragraph discussing the organization's views and positions in The New York Times or a submission from the organization via its leadership to the Wall Street Journal is less significant or relevant than a fluff piece on the organization? As far as I can tell, there are few pieces solely on the organization (as is the case for other organizations featured in Wikipedia that have not faced this level of scrutiny); there are, however, hundreds of instances where the organization has submitted pieces to top publications (I doubt an insignificant organization could get a piece in the Wall Street Journal), and has been featured in top media outlets (are 6-10 minute segments on Fox Business Network not considered "in depth", even though they feature the organization, its positions and key goals?).

With regard to the op-eds and letters to the editor - if there is an issue with op-eds and letters to the editor being grouped with other coverage, I recognize and respect that and can make changes to separate news and opinion.

And you did call the Washington Times piece an op-ed, when it is, in fact, an editorial - the former is submitted by a third-party to the paper, and the latter is written by the paper's editorial board. That's the difference between the Galen Institute submitting a press release and having it published, and the editorial board referencing the organization's polling information because of its notoriety. From the Wikipedia op-ed page:

"An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.

Andrewpsroyal (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. The deletion rationale is quite poor. Articles are not deleted for "Insufficient evidence of notability given", it is way too myopic merely to examine the "evidence given", when the true question is if evidence likely exist. The difference between the two is of course the work required to find that evidence, and work is always unpopular. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Anyway, I'm in line with Oakshade, running op-eds in Wall Street Journal, not as a private person, but representing the institute, should convince most people, that notability concerns are immaterial. Media Matters for America, an organization that "fights conservative misinformation" critizices the WSJ op-ed for not disclosing that the Galen Institute receives funding from pharmaceutical and medical industries, thereby purportedly having a conflict of interest when supporting conservative health care proposals. [17] Media Matters clearly see the op-ed piece as the work of the Galen institute, not the individual writing it (and so do I). Additionally, there are about 200 Gbook hits for "Galen Institute" [18]. Niteshift36's interpretation of the notability guideline seems overly bureaucratic and formalistic, requesting specific 3rd party indepth mentioning of the institute, when it is pretty obvious that the Institute has very broad media profile. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to consider I might be wrong about the level of sourcing out there. However, I disagree with your GBooks search above. When I close the quote, I get 124 hits, some of which appear to mention it only in the context of an individual working with them, and some of which are books published by them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power.corrupts - I've added that Media Matters for America article as a source to my statement about the organization's funding. Thanks for pointing it out. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Galen group and its staff may have a high profile as spokespersons, but publicity for a cause/belief/etc. is a major reason these organizations exist. The results of heavy marketing and PR efforts, no matter how successful, are as unimportant in a notability discussion as well-known or huge advertising campaigns (unless, of course, they are a focus of mainstream reporting themselves). When all the "placements" are removed, there remains no significant coverage or profile of the organization itself, or anything more than 2-4 sentence descriptions that vary little from those supplied by the organization itself or vague references to its ties or funding. As the article stands now, it's an essay written in Wikipedia style that's nothing more than repetition of the points the organization wants to get out and that are sourced only to its own people or supporters, no matter what the actual publication is. Until there is some serious objective, comprehensive mainstream reporting on this organization that delves into something deeper than talking points, then there's no reason for an article here. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're drawing the conclusion that these media mentions (or as you call them, "placements") were obtained as part of a public relations campaign rather than because of the organization's notoriety - a view that is at the very least myopic and the very worst completely misinformed. Do you have evidence that these media mentions are "placements" submitted as part of a broader public relations effort? As far as I can tell, the coverage of the Galen Institute in the press is in direct relation to their positions on health care issues, not their effort to sell themselves as a brand - having worked in print journalism and at communications agencies, I can say with an absolute degree of certainty that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times don't accept "placements" for their op-eds, and they don't publish op-eds from organizations that do not meet sufficient notoriety criteria. And, as I previously mentioned, I've added articles and television appearances that focus specifically on the organization, its funding, and its principles - sources that are not, as you assert, "vague references to its ties or funding." Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, their studies are regularly cited by the media, and the companies personnel are regularly quoted.--Otterathome (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G7 Pedro : Chat 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meijwes[edit]

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

This family is not in any way encyclopedial, and the listed "sources" do not make clear why this family should be in Wikipedia. Mvdleeuw (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect to a nominated page:

Ok, can you delete both pages, the page Meijwes and House of Meijwes. The sources are fine, but if wou want delete this page, go ahead. --Jansma (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page, Meijwes and House of Meijwes, must be delete, as soon possible, so fast possible. Thank you. This page must be delete. Please. --Jansma (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServerPronto[edit]

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

There is no coverage of this server company outside press releases. Not notable. (contested prod, no reason given) Fences&Windows 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam masquerading as an article. No significant independent references given and no found. Author is single-issue and works for the company. Haakon (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trade sites cited as "references" are in fact blog-like[19], appear to regurgitate trivial press releases uncritically,[20], and just don't have the kind of readership needed to sustain a business as an encyclopedia subject.[21] It's too easy now for spammers to tart up their promotional pages with "references" of this sort. Hate to sound like a broken record, but until we require familiar and mainstream sources for tech businesses and their products, we're leaving our rear flank exposed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the above, and there's nothing really encyclopedic in the article, I think the most encyclopedic part of the article mentions where the data centers are! The word "dedicated" is mentioned 2 or 3 times on the page and being such a short article makes me think this is just spam disguised as an article. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Article is objective as possible for a corporate brand, and consistent in content to other brands in this space such as ServerBeach and The Planet Internet Services. Do agree that article needs more references.--Prieur3 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Company is notable in it's industry due to length of time in operation and number of customers. - psostre (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - biography of a living person with very marginable notability there the subject requested deletion Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent and strong demand for immediate deletion of Taraneh Javanbakht[edit]

I am absolutely baffled by the appearance of this article that looks like a real vandalism to dis credit wikipedia. This individual is indeed notable for hyperbolic and patently false claims. Example I: Her works are in physics, chemistry, biology, nanotechnology, engineering, cognitive science, philosophy, literature, arts and human rights. Just this line should be enough to delete the article. The sources that are given are Shargh, an obscure newspaper in Farsi; an interview by a Farsi radio, by the name of Zamaneh, and the student and employee page of the website of the Polytechnic of Montreal, which contains the name of all students and employees. It is obvious that numerous small radio stations or low budget newspapers need tabloid kinds of stories like this. Example II:The critics on the works of Taraneh Javanbakht were published by Etemad Melli newspaper,[50][51] Forough magazine[52] Peyvand magazine,[53] Vazna magazine,[54] Roozan newspaper[55][56] and Mardomsalari newspaper.[57] Her biography and works in sciences, philosophy, literature, arts and human rights were published by the media such as Shargh newspaper,[58] Jamejam newspaper,[59] Kayhan newspaper,[60] Etemad newspaper,[61] Hamshahri newspaper,[62] Mehr News Agency,[63] Iranian Students News Agency,[64] Kayhan of London,[65] Gooyanews[66][67] and Radio Zamaneh.[68]. Again, not one of these newspapers are peer-reviewed scientific or philosophy journals. I have checked the papers in a number of scientific journals that Ms. Javanbakht has been part of a team of researchers, for example, Nanoscale surface characterization of biphasic calcium phosphate ... by R França, T Djavanbakht Samani, G Bayade, LH Yahia, E Sacher in Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, or Minimally modified phosphodiester antisense ... by I Brigui, T Djavanbakht Samani, B Jollès, S Pigaglio, and A Laigle in Biochemical pharmacology. None of these researches are of a very significant scientific worth, although they are of some value. I also looked at her articles in "Falsafeh -e now" or New Philosophy Journal a monthly publication by Allameh Tabataba'i University (ATU). After the astonishingly stupid article about her claims to bring metaphysical philosophy methods closer to scientific methods, in which she argues the principle of repetition as a criterion for a selection of the right metaphysical theory against an alternative. Obviously, she has tried to mechanically introduce scientific method into philosophy without understanding or reflection that principle of time series analysis cannot be applied to normative assertions. The paper does not have any references to any other papers except two paper by herself. There are no footnotes. The discussion sounds like a delusional nonsense. After reading the article I was curious to learn more about ATU, which can be found here,http://en.atu.ac.ir/?fkeyid=&siteid=2&pageid=167 and is self explanatory. I urgently demand the deletion of this article. Jasonhaley (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Javanbakht[edit]

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

This person fails WP:BIO and no reliable source in English has pointed her notability. The only online source is this, which is not at all enough for notability. There are tens of people in that list and none has an article in Wikipedia. Professional Assassin (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

~~Strong Keep~~ (changed to No consensus until people on both sides of the argument back up their statements with facts.) This article has been nominated for deletion before; the discussion shows a clear consensus to keep. The nominator has not explained what, if anything, has changed since that discussion. In particular, I think the points made in that discussion by Mostafazizi and Alefbe are convincing. Also, looking at the current article, I see a sufficiently-sourced article to establish notability and warrant keeping on its own merits. If the sources are not reliable, they can be challenged, but that's a separate issue. Sources not being in the English language is not a valid grounds for deletion. I also want to point to the article on the Persian/Farsi version of wikipedia: [22]. That article is very extensive and has a large number of sources. I can't read it, but google translator does make it look legit to me: [23] Cazort (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in other language has been created by the Article's subject, herself. :) The sources in this article also don't show any notability. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have been interviewed by several Iranian newspapers but it doesn't show notability of them. Plus all of her books have been published by her own investment which doesn't bring notability. It is obvious that this person is not a notable poet and all of the Wiki articles in several languages are self generated propaganda to generate notability via Wikipedia, not to reflect her notability in Wikipedia! Everyone can make articles with very poor grammar in several wikis using Google translator or similar tools for him/her-self as this case probably has done.--Professional Assassin (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She was awarded the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran award and many other important awards. Her books have been criticized in many well-known newspapers and magazines. She has been interviewed at CJNT-TV in Canada, in Jamejam newspaper, Radio Zamaneh and many other famous media around the world. The interviews in a Canadian television and other famous media and critics on her works in various magazines are strong reasons of her notability. Zohairani (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The award was a minor award and doesn't bring notability. I know at least hundreds of people with such awards. Critics' review of her works are something more than negative and being reviewed by some critics is because of her extreme self promoting, propaganda-like behavior to show her notability. I can translate some critics' review in English if you like. If writing extreme nonsense as poem makes someone notable then we will have thousands of notable poets in Wikipedia.--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to people talking about her self-promoting activity as your describe? Cazort (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable. Some self-published books in Iran, books that publishing costs were paid by the author and published by small and unknown publishers, one minor award which can be granted if not to thousands at least to hundreds, no reliable English source on this subject, if an professional Iranian critic reviews her poems, it is merely to show her self promotion, and propaganda-like behavior and not because of her notability; honestly none of these makes somebody notable-WIMYV? (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate (instead of merely asserting) that the books mentioned are all self-published? Cazort (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the most famous critic of Iran once wrote a critism to demonstrate the self-promotion and propaganda-like behavior of Javanbakht. One of his argues was that all of Javanbakht;s work are self-published and Javanbakht is not a notable poets. Of course with a little knowledge about the publishing industry in Iran, you know that Javanbakht's books are self published book--WIMYV? (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These still read as assertions to me. The "most famous critics"--who? Can you cite this work? And..."with a little knowledge about the publishing industry in Iran"...well, can you show this in a way that? This discussion has gotten so far out of hand that I think any remarks not backed up my specific citations should be completely ignored. Cazort (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of critic is Mehdi Atefrad. in his article he wrote on quality of Javanbakht's work and her self-publish books: "if everybody has money like Mrs. Javanbakht to publish her books by her own expenses, any 5th grade school boy could publish a poetry book at the level of Taraneh Javanbakht's work". I have the critic's article. If you like I can email a copy of the article to you. Just email me (Do you read Persian?).--WIMYV? (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the requirements of WP:notability. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be well-referenced and shows more indications of notability than many others in Wikipedia. The claims of self-publication and the statement that the prize is of low value, are just that unsupported statements and claims. Dabbler (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete She isnt notable also sources of article arent dependable.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This user is an established user in fa.wiki)--WIMYV? (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions in Fa_wiki Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What being active in Fa-Wiki has to do with voting in En-Wiki? If someone is active or established in other wikis, Facebook, My Space, Yahoo etc... is in no worth in English Wikipedia. By the way if you have evidences against or in favor of notability of this article's subject, present them and stop bringing non-related material to this debate. Administrators do not COUNT the votes to see if consensus has reached or not.--Professional Assassin (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for AfD on the Persian Wikipedia and the outcome there was keep and cleanup, although there appears to be a great deal of contention/disagreement there: [24]. Cazort (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Gire 3pich2005's claim is not true. Although the most famous magazines and newspapers in Iran, in which the critics on her works were published, have been banned by the Iranian government, but some of these critics are findable in her website:

[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

As User:Cazort said, using google translator can solve the problem for the non english sources of the article. Her books have been published by famous publishers in Iran. As User:Dabbler said, the unacceptable statements that she is self-publishing or the awards she obtained are of low value are just unsupported claims. The sources of the article confirm her notability. Zohairani (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could demonstrate, and not merely assert, that these are published by "famous publishers" in Iran. Right now, the article doesn't even have the name of a publisher. A name of a publisher and a website would help. Also, do you have anything that can provide establish the notability of the awards presented? Otherwise we are just talking past each other. In the absence of additional information, I would be inclined to keep this page (on the basis of the past AfD and the AfD on the persian wikipedia) but I am changing my recommendation to no consensus until we can back up these comments with more facts or information, and I could be swayed either way. An AfD discussion is not a vote. I would also request all participants to address the points made rather than just stating an opinion and making additional unfounded assertions. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins in fa.wiki deleted the article many times. This article deleted 3 times by AFD. The problem is that the article was re-created. This is widely believed in fa.wiki that they are sock-puppet and meatpuppet of Taraneh Javanbakht (You can ask admins in fa.wiki)WIMYV? (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the evidence, looking at the edit history in fa.wiki, that this article was deleted three times. I only see a single AfD, and the outcome of it, although contentious, seems to point towards a consensus to improve, rather than delete the article. Please show the history of deletion or these prior AfD's that you mention. Cazort (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser was requested here by a Wikipedian and it can be repeated as many times as any other user resquests. The problem is not checkuser, but is that Behzad Bodarres, Gire 3pich2005 and Professional Assassin have have never been punished for having insulted me in fawiki. Javanbakht (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable. I made little research and found no serious oraganizatins of poets/writers/artists in Iran who do take her work seriously. Xashaiar (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article in fawiki is against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and includes some insults added by Users Behzad Modarres and Gire 3pich2005. It is really ridiculous that Behzad Modares and other insulters still insult me in their recent edits here in the article on my name in fawiki, and come back in the english Wikipedia to define personal attack! Despite the previous consensus on my notability, the insulters should convince the Wikipedians to delete the article in fawiki. I will be agree to keep the article in Wikipedia only if the insults added recently by Users Behzad Modarres and Gire 3pich2005 to the article in fawiki are deleted. According to the well-known sources of the article :

The book published by Atomic Energy Organization of Iran in 1993 about my award,
Reports published by the scientific institutions of France and Canada about my awards,
Other sources about my other awards,
Critics published on my works in the most famous Iranian media, such as Etemaad melli newspaper, Mardomsalari newspaper, Roozan newspaper, ...
Interviews with me in the famous media such as CJNT-TV, Radio Zamaneh, Jamejam newspaper, Mehrnews, ...
News on my books in the most Iranian famous newspapers such as Kayhan newspaper, Shargh newspaper, Roozan newspaper, Hamshahri newspaper, ...

which all have been cited in the article, the miserable are the persons who can not convince the Wikipedians in fawiki on my non-notability! Javanbakht (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete not notable. Neither as a scientist nor an artist or author. All the publications are self-published. Adler (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Self published sources and autobiographies in unreliable sources do not make a person notable. warrior 4321 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...(God helps me because I know that there will be a great hostility in Persian Wiki against me! ) , but anyway although I do think she is a very notable and respectable person in daily life , but does not needs a page in Wikipedia . We Wikipedians may not use this encyclopedia as tool for gaining fame . In this case , yes she is a very special person that I'm so proud of her , but her name can't be an introduction in an encyclopedia.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand to delete the article in Wikipedia[edit]

I demand to delete the article forever, because of being insulted so many times in fawiki and accused with false claims. Checkuser has been done before on my account, and I don't mind the false informations on me that have been claimed by Two of fawiki users, Gire 3pich2005 and User:WIMYV (User:Behzad Modarres) to make other users change their votes on the article.

I have all the human rights to defend myself against insults which can not be supported by anybody else, unless the persons who like bothering others. User:WIMYV (User:Behzad Modarres) and User Gire 3pich2005 have insulted me in fawiki many times. Gire 3pich2005 insulted me here and because I defended myself, User:Behzad Modarres blocked my user account in fawiki. The Two users Behzaad, who deleted User Gire 3pich2005's insults here, and Sicaspi protested, but one of them was blocked and the protests of the second one here in my talk page were never answered by Behzad Modarres.

Then User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 edited the article in fawiki and added some insults to it. In order to help you understand better the situation, I translate some of their edits in fawiki:

Somebody published an insulting text in his personal weblog (Ding Dang), which has been used by User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 in the article in fawiki. This person in his blog has insulted me with this statement: "Taraneh Javanbakht deliriums and makes wry mouth to her readers." User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 have not only linked to these insults in the article, but have also added some other statements to the article, never even told by the insulting person. They have edited in the fawiki article that I have opposite personalities and the critics this person published in his weblog are to search my opposite mental state in my poems! Mehdi Atefrad is the only person who insulted me and instead of writing on my poems, he wrote on my personality! All the other critics on my works are about my works, not myself. User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 insist to add Atefrad's insulting statements in the article. All these insults that these two users have edited in the fawiki article are against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Javanbakht (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- Subjects of articles can not DEMAND any change to be made in their articles, including deleting them. If the evidences show that this article's subject is not notable then it will be deleted by an administrator. So please do not try to appear innocent.

2- With this poor grammar in English language which is claimed by you that it is your second language, how could you be able to write poems in seven languages?!! Quite frankly, do you really consider yourself a poet i.e. in German language?

3- I really admire your enormous amount of self-confidence. :)) --Professional Assassin (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand to apply justice for all of the Wikipedians[edit]

"With this poor grammar in English language which is claimed by you, how could you be able to write poems in seven languages?!!", this is what User:Professional Assassin has written to me. Justice should be for all the Wikipedians.Behzad Modarres blocked my account in fawiki. According to his claim here, the reason of blocking my account was that I told User:Gire 3pich2005 could not understand my editions in science or philosophy in Wikipedia. This statement did not merit any punishment because somebody who has neither worked nor edited in science or philosophy can not understand articles in these domains. When Modarres has blocked my account in fawiki for such a poor argument, why User:Professional Assassin, whose meatpuppets have been blocked by User:Mardetanha in fawiki, can still insult me? Javanbakht (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fa.wiki has nothing to do with here. If you have problem with P.S. edits, go and inform admins in ANI. BTW, admins blocked you in fa.wiki because of meatpupetry and because you continuously violate WP:Civil. --WIMYV? (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are not true. Meatpupetry, which has not been proven, is not the reason of blocking my account. Users Behzaad and Sicapsy protested in fawiki, but you did not prove your claim and even blocked somebody else in fawiki whose IP is not related to me. You are responsable for all the insuting statements that you have added to the article in fawiki. Javanbakht (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This debate is not a place to discuss what has happened or still is happening in Fa-Wiki. All the participants should ONLY talk about the notability of the article's subject!--Professional Assassin (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't need the article in Wikipedia and notability does not mean that if an article does not exist in Wikipedia, the article's subject is not notable. I demand to delete the article, besause when these users saw that they can not delete it in fawiki, the began to add insulting statements about me to the article. Javanbakht (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you want or don't want is not important here. You can not demand anything. Show evidence that the article's subject is notable and the article will remain in Wikipedia, otherwise it will be deleted.--Professional Assassin (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Mrs javanbakht! Why you continually humiliaty me? You repetitve this sentence more and more:I told User:Gire 3pich2005 could not understand my editions in science or philosophy in Wikipedia.

Enjoy It?

This sentence has been your colloquialism when you talk about me. how many Link do you want?

BUT! I am not here for dispute. I come here to edit my opinions about this article. this is my argument to delete this article:

Self-published books, no reliable source in English, article that main contributors are closely related to Taraneh Javanbakht (WP:COI). Big self-claims do not make somebody notable. Do you believe it? On your website YOU called YOURSELF philosopher, Scientist in Physics Chemistry, biochemistry, also poet, writer, Script writer, painter, composer,...! You claimed that you say poems in 7 language! Some small media have been fooled once and interviewed her to see who this exceptional person is. But, all the times they never come back again! Because they realize that all those claims are empty claims. Now, it is time for Wikipedia to wake up! Self-claims do not bring notability!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still sleeping, because you have not understood that my notability does depend neither on Wikipedia nor on your false claims. You, who can not even read your mother tongue honestly, are not a reliable person to talk on my books!! Media have not covered critics, news, interviews on my works?!!! Neither on my poems in 7 languages?!!! You are sleeping, because you can not even read or hear your mother tongue in these links:

ترانه‌های ایرانی به هفت زبان دنیا. خبرگزاری مهر. بازدید ۱۹ می ۲۰۰۹
ترانه‌های ایرانی به هفت زبان دنیا. روزنامه همشهری، شماره ۳۷۳۹، ۱۳۸۴
CJNT-T

Where have you learned Farsi? In China?!! With this Chinese language that you (Gire 3pich2005), Behzad Modarres, Professional Assassin and Atefrad: the researcher of my personality, as he has claimed in his weblog, have learned in Iran! it is obvious that you can not see my editions in 7 languages! The above links are not medias, but cookies!!! Delete all the articles in Wikipedia about me and be happy, but never forget that whatever exists, exists even if you lose your honesty to deny it!!! Javanbakht (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil. You have violated WP:NPA multiple times. Please also see WP:COI. warrior 4321 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Hogg Outlawz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Previous nominations have resulted in delete and then later no consensus. I am still unable to find substantial coverage of this subject from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N Can't find anything that remotely qualifies as notable / encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clodagh Cooney[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Contested prod. External links do not appear to be directly relevant to the player in the article and the reference is to the club website. noq (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has played camogie at inter-county level for Dublin, which is the highest level at which camogie is played. Therefore subject meets WP:ATHLETE. Teester (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is that a professional level team? I don't think that qualifies as wp:athlete. Even if it does, more importantly, are there sources to that extent. if there are, I'll change my vote. (if my lack of a ! in front bothers you, then tell me, we'll chat.) Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless she plays at a fully professional level, she fails WP:ATH. She is not the subject of any of this coverage, so she fails WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO, subject does not warrant an article. This content would best be used in an article on several notable camogie players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RadmanCF. JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Sevian[edit]

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

No notability outside national level. SunCreator (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep His rating is less than 100 points below Kayden Troff, even though he is two years younger. He is far stronger than players like Bobby Fischer and Magnus Carlsen (both chess prodigies) were at age 9. As such, I think he is clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Troff notability isn't from his FIDE rating. In fact we've deleted IM's that have otherwise no notability. So this FIDE rating assertion is wearing a little thin. I would ask you to exmplain in what way WP:ATH is fulfilled by anything about Samuel Sevian. SunCreator (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I did pester the article's creator about the quality of the references provided while the article still had a prod tag (mine!), but in the end he did deliver the goods (see talk page), and this young prodigy has been noticed by enough reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. I'm the prodder, but I'm also the deprodder. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the talk page, it seems that the only sources he was able to produce were blogs - or are we counting the the LA Times article that doesn't appear to be online anywhere?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we're talking about the LA Times article. Most newspapers do not post their entire archives online, just the most important stuff. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually he did achieve notability outside the nation level. His current FIDE rating is 2119. Witch make him the highest rated player 9 and under (including 9 years, 11 months and 29 days). Plus he just turn 9 year old, less then 3 weeks ago. GSP-Rush (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what notability is there outside the national level? SunCreator (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like i sayed his the top rank player in world for his age group ( everyone under 10 ). And if you tell me that not inuff then you would have 2 other article to delete. Nicholas Nip, Kayden Troff. These guys have won game outside of the USFC ( like Sevian ) but haven't been publish or won high title other then in the USA. Ther are also many Rock Band that are restricted to Canada or the USA or even a states or a province. You would half to delete all of them.

Ther millions and millions of article about people who have achieved notability in a small states or a small province. If you delete this article because of that reason then your gonna half to follow true whit the million and million of article about local stars. GSP-Rush (talk)

Notability at a national level is still notability. Just because all reliable sources come from the same country doesn't mean they should be tossed aside as meaningless. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't quite understand the nominator's reasoning - one doesn't have to be internationally known to have an article on Wikipedia. A FIDE rating of 2119 at age 9 does seem to be notable. Some more reliable sources would be nice, though.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. For people that is WP:BIO and for a chess players being a sport that's WP:ATH. Chess players normally qualify by being a GM or in some way competed at the highest amateur level of a sport; for example a top tournament or an Olypiad. Juniors would normally be notable from World Youth Chess Championship, European Junior Chess Championship or simliar, although notice most of the winners don't have a wiki article. There is no notability from a FIDE rating as it does not help WP:ATH. Another way to establish notability from WP:BIO is to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is claim in this article of 'featured in an article of Los Angeles Times' although no such article seems to exist; as least not online. SunCreator (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jackson (businessman)[edit]

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

Delete No evidence that he meets WP:BIO guidelines. This was prodded with a prod2, but this was removed and instead a merger was suggested with Andrew Jackson, Sr.. However, this article is also up for deletion, and shows no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Hugh Jackson's claim to fame is that he was the grandfather of US President Andrew Jackson. Notability is not inheritable. Cnilep (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Also, article is unsourced, and I have a hard time believing multiple sources exist that have Jackson as their primary subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A completely ordinary, unremarkable small businessman. His chief claim to fame seems to be having a prominent grandson, but notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is the subject of an active merger discussion. I don't how splitting the discussion between three places (including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson, Sr.) helps us to come to a reasonable consensus about how to deal with these articles. I would note that Andrew Jackson already runs to 69K so it is ripe for the creation of some WP:summary style sub-articles. Let's have a discussion about how to organise the information about President Jackson's family in one place rather than have three separate discussions going on (maybe with a Family of Andrew Jackson article). I just checked out the speedy keep guideline and see that it doesn't include articles about which a discussion is already taking place elsewhere. It should do so to avoid us having multiple discussions about the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is indeed a legitimate concern, but note that no one has spoken in favor of a merger. Indeed, three of the four comments (from me, Boleyn, and JamesBWatson) argue that subject is non-notable. The fourth comment is from User:Dock26 Pwnage, an indefinitely blocked sock puppet of the page's creator, and recommends that the page remain independent. Cnilep (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the amount of discusion and Keep votes I thought this would be a difficult decision - however, there is no evidence at all for notability, no references, and no assertion of notability in the article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etchings in the Dead Wax[edit]

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

A non-notable self-published book. This was prodded, with the tag removed by the creator. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that this book passes any of the relevant notability criteria. (The author notes that it sold 1000 copies in the first 8 months, which while nice for him/her, doesn't really prove notability). Bfigura ^(talk) 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found nothing on google news or books. Polarpanda (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contest-Deletion, first in regards to user Polarpanda's comments; The book is included in google and is listed on over 5000 reputible booksellers worldwide including many noteable sellers such as Amazon, Chapters, Booktopia, and Barnes and Noble. In regards to user Bfigura comments; Article is noteable and meets many of the wiki noteability requirements listed in relevant notability criteria. The novel has 3 unique ISBN's. The book is listed through Ingram books in print. The book is available in many libraries across Canada and through Library and Archives Canada (see the following link for an example: http://catalogue.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12V33228D404R.15077&profile=hpl&uri=link=3100006~!2153534~!3100001~!3100043&aspect=subtab431&menu=search&ri=2&source=~!horizon&term=Etchings+in+the+dead+wax+%2F&index=ALLTITL#focus. The book also has a library of congress control number for US Libraries. The book was reviewed and accepted with Library Bound in Canada. In creating this article the author of the novel was contacted and he supplied sales reports showing over 1000 copies sold. Bfigura notes this does not denote noteability however research on many third party websites confirms this is extremely unique for a self-published book especially one by a Canadian author and certainly stirs public interest and defines the very essence of a noteable work. Although one of these many reasons does not stand as noteability, altogether these show the book is unique in its area of publication and confirm noteability for inclusion with wiki. asb2009 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one's arguing that the book doesn't exist, or whether it's been listed by LoC or anyone else. We're simply stating that according to our criteria, it simply doesn't qualify as a notable book (or really even constitute a borderline case). While selling 1,000 copies might be a nice personal accomplishment for a self-published author (I'm unsure of why being Canadian would make a difference), it doesn't make the book notable in any way, shape, or form. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no coverage of the title in any independent sources after searching Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest databases. Not even a trivial mention. I see no indication that the book has won a major literary award. With no mentions at all found in any sources available to me, it is a safe assumption that those sources do not consider the book to have made a "significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Google search for title limiting to domain .edu brings no results, indicating the book is not the subject of instruction at any, never mind multiple, institutions of learning. Searches for author's name in same sources yield identical results, indicating author is not of sufficient notability that any of his written works may be considered notable. The book therefore fails all criteria of WP:BK. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: According to this search, the book appears not to have been cataloged by the Library and Archives Canada. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It takes a publisher an average of 6 months to submit lists to library archives from publication date. It then take up to as much as 12 months for the Government of Canada Archives to be updated on-line from the hard files. Book was released less than a year ago, therefore couldn't possible be listed on a government website yet. It is however obviously in the Canadian archives and library system based on the aforementioned link provided. . -- [[User:Asb2009| (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. Self-published books are virtually never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contest-Deletion comments noted by Asb2009. Fact checked and confirmed. Agree this displays firm notability. Article also conveys public interest. Starblind’s comment appears judgmental and with prejudice and provides no factual support. As an author myself who has published both traditionally and self-published books I see no relevance in the above deletion comments to affirm the article’s lack of notability. Many self-published works are included as wiki articles. Firmly suggest inclusion to avoid bias deletion.candycorn77 (talk) 15.31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is indeed a non-notable self-published book. The key point is that it's non-notable, irrespective of being self-published. Until the book gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources (or meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOKS like being recognized as influential), it is just not encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggest keeping article. Although Internet sourcing appears to be abundant however mostly retail oriented, the book has been the subject of notable print media here in Canada outside virtual sourcing. It seems unjustifiable to suggest deletion of an article when every one of the users that have suggested deletion did so immediately after the article was launched making it almost impossible to do the appropriate research required to provide valid insight and reason for the articles deletion. In keeping with wiki's guidelines and standards an article should first have the opportunity to receive unbiased contributions to strengthen the article before ever considering it for deletion. The novel was subject to an international book tour in North America upon release with appearances in bookstores in almost all major Canadian cities and some US cities. The author is also quite famous in Canada in underground extreme professional sports circles of which a vast multitude of print articles, interviews, and photographs exist which pre-date the internet hence their lack of virtual availability. The article is well written in its subject and insightful despite lack of 3rd party virtual sourcing. Please do not make WP:Battles and WP:POINTs by nominating articles for deletion. swissmark (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)— swissmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Book appears to be quite notable as is the author. Found these articles which convey public interest and diverse notability: Book reading in USA http://eventful.com/buffalo/events/m-c-joudrey-/E0-001-022912770-9 - Online news coverage http://www.oakvilletoday.ca/news/article/267507 - In store book reading USA http://artvoice.com/issues/v8n35/literary_buffalo/lit_city - Autograph signing event in Toronto www.paradisecomics.com (this website also has a profile of the author as well)- There is also a series of articles about the author but no need to fill the screen here. Certainly appears to meet wiki notability criteria. jackson5alive (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)— jackson5alive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Notable. Novel and the author appear to be known throughout North America. Novel appears to have valid third party interest including Library cataloguing. The author also appears to host an online radio broadcast called the Vinyl Theatre creating public interest and directly relates to the novels content, this was revealed in a google search. Another google search revealed that the author and novel are featured on a well known Toronto artists conglomerate called the Beach Leslieville Artists. It is contrary to wiki policy to be nominated for deletion instantly after creation, noted in "WP:BEFORE" Suggest article full reinstatement and offer wikians an opportunity to research further and improve what could possibly be a very worthy article. blackvanillabean (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)— blackvanillabean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Not really. WP:BEFORE makes no claim that articles can't be deleted after creation, only that they should be fixed if they can, as deletion isn't cleanup. However, as I've asserted in a few places above, this isn't a fixable issue. This book simply isn't notable - it doesn't meet the notability standard for books, or the general notability guideline. The links provided so far show that the book exists, that the author has done a signing, and an in-store reading. All of those things are considered to be trivial coverage in terms of notability. What is required, and hasn't been shown is that multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss the subject in some detail. This simply doesn't appear to be the case. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is better to find some reliable sources and develop the article. If all the unresourced articles in Wikipedia were to be deleted, Wikpedians could not develop it as rapidly as they can now. Zohairani (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encouragement: Yes, the article was put up for deletion very quickly. There is, however, still time to produce evidence of notability, which is the main argument against the subject's inclusion. This is the beauty of AFD. Time is being allowed to demonstrate that the article meets criteria for inclusion. Searches by parties suggesting deletion is the proper course have indicated that no sources exist to demonstrate notability, and the links provided so far by those arguing for inclusion have not been sufficient demonstrate notablity. There are claims here of paper sources. These can be cited just as online sources can. this page may serve as a guide. If the sources are verifiable and establish notability, the article should stand in good stead. This editor agrees that none of the links provided so far is sufficient to establish notability. This editor would love to see a book review, especially from a non-local source. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In reality not much time at all. It is certainly easy to select what is most likely a viable and valuable article with sincere public interest for deletion noted by another user above. It appears that there is quite a large amount of evidence being provided to confirm this article's notability and little, if any, evidence to refute it other than relation to what user Jimmy Wales notes about quality articles listed for deletion: "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion." or "I've decided this ones not notable." I am not sure how any user can assume they have heard of everything. I would also be deeply concerned with wiki's validity as an online encyclopedia if this article were slated for deletion as more and more evidence surfaces to support "notability". Over time who knows how many perspective wikian's could contribute in a meaningful way to this article. See the following best of list: http://www.amazon.ca/Notable-Self-Published-books-2009/lm/R33SEOX3UESUBO/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_alt_1 -- [[User:Asb2009| (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.194.35 (talk) [reply]
Keep, IUniverse has a wiki article. Book was published by IUniverse. Many other POD published novels appear as notable wiki articles. Zarc9999 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — Zarc9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sounds like the book is worth having an article here.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That search doesn't show that it's notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, it does. In yours it does not. No problem with that! :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, it doesn't. What sources in that search do you think shows notability? Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the links in that search show the book has received considerable attention. I think it meets the requirements of WP:N, however from the article in Wikipedia and the description of the book, I think the book must be full of boring nonsense which doesn't worth wasting time, reading it. lol --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with last user talk. When an item or person of interest generates many pages in any search engine, despite their content in whole or in part, displays considerable notability. --Asb2009 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what "considerable attention" or "non-trivial mention" means. The amazon link above is just a user-generated link, not an amazon sales ranking, so it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. And the google search just turns up a number of SEO-type sites that briefly mention the book. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that the user who tagged this article as an AfD is calling the shots. It is also very clear that a decision to delete the article was made from the very beginning despite the pretence of "open discussion". Many wikians have weighed in to keep the article, but they have done so in obvious futility. There is no open discussion option only the pretense of open discussion. The argument presented by the party(s) to delete is that the novel is not notable despite a multitude of various sources of evidence that the book is quite prevalent worldwide. The user also keeps quoting that the article doesn't qualify WP:RS, it does in fact qualify just not that user's points of interest. So the book doesn't have a movie made of it, and it didn't win the Pulitzer, it is still an obvious point of public interest and quite reputable with irrefutable internet and print presence which is obvious from the buzz above. The decision to delete seems a sad case of "I aint never heard of it before and I don't like what I see." Smells like selective censorship to me. --Asb2009 (talk) 09.05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Found this review: [31] along with a lot of other coverage. Book seems very notable. dnd_arg (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Dnd arg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unaware Ghost[edit]

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

Proposed deletion contested. Article is Original Research consisting of primarily unverifiable claims. blue520 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, junk entry, mumbo jumbo. Hairhorn (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I can't believe we are even discussing it! Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Maybe they thought they were submitting to this encyclopedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Even if this had things like verifiable claims and references it would still be an unnecessary content fork of Ghost. Simonm223 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-fashion[edit]

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

Delete. We've been promoting this "article" laced with original research since 2008, I think that's long enough now. JBsupreme (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the current article may be entirely OR, there seem to be more than enough google book hits to write an article on this topic. Polarpanda (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable. Click on the links for Google News and Google books. It is an actual thing, and people who come here to find out what it is after reading something in the news, need to have an article to explain it to them. Dream Focus 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 700 mentions on google books, for example: "many studies of fashion and clothing have included a chpater or section about 'anti-fashion ( for ecample, see Konig, 1973; Wilson, 1985; Evans and Thornton, 1989 Davis, 1992)" from Samantha Holland book on google books i checked a couple and they seem a bit intellectual and so it might take time to distill an article, but the sources are there to make this topic noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This discussion has been open for two days now and that's more than long enough for this flimsy nomination which fails our deletion policy - no talk page discussion, no source search, no due diligence. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There has been much assertion in the discussion that Jayen Varma is notable, however, we rely on verifiable sources to prove such notability, and no sources have been provided. The recordholdersrepublic website is a doubtful source as it accepts submissions from anyone. Even if the site were reliable, the listing on that site alone would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:BIO SilkTork *^YES! 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen Varma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. The only aspect in the page claiming notability is a Record Holders Republic record. Assuming that the record itself is not notable as I can't find references for it. Unable to find any other sources that assert notability of the individual either. Raziman T V (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Oh, didn't know that the article has been deleted once. Concerns then seem to be same as mine now. Can this be speedied as G4? -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to support notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without access to the deleted article I can't say whether this is significantly different, but I can say that it seems to still have the characteristics which led to its deletion, judging by teh comments in the earlier AfD discussion. It was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayen Varma, re-created 2 days later, deleted again under G4 (Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion), and then re-created again 3 weeks later. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Need not be deleted~~ The eveidence for notability is his official record with Record Holders Republic.

Link: http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 . In the article it is said that “..according to …… he is the fastest…” So the article can be retained. --Musicindia1 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote, as the editor has !voted keep below. -SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my nomination I am also questioning the notability of Record holders Republic itself. I had a glance at their form to be filled in to "get" a record and it doesn't look like a big deal. -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have found no substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. The claim to a Guiness record in The Hindu should be supported by an official Guiness source, because the Hindu sometimes does vanity reporting. Hekerui (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a study

Now I made a study about bass guitarists. Bass Players are not much noticed by masses, especially in India. That could be the reason why notability is less in this case also. Though Jayen Varma is known for his speed, his unique slap bass playing is more notable in the international big bass guitar community (especially among great bass players in the west and in Japan). The technique developed by him is emerging as a new genre funk now a days which is called “Indian Slap Bass”. This is being subjected to study. I also saw his profile where bassist like Bootsy Collins, Jeff Berlin, Marcus miller, Michael Henderson(of Stevie Wonder and Miles Davis), James LoMenzo (of Megadeth), David Pastorius etc have commented on his bass playing skills. In the meanwhile, I am surprised to see that there are hardly few Indian guitarists in WP, though there are many great players. Please consider this article to be retained. Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they've commented on his skills, where are the references? Come to that, where are any real references? As to Record holders Republic, I might be more impressed if they had used a proof reader on their site, and find their advisory panel somewhat unusual. It's not often a cardiologist and a sword swallower are found together. I'd never heard of this 'authority' on records before, and probably won't hear much more. Apart from which, 36 slaps per second? So what? That's gimmickry not music. Going back to references, we have this record site and a record, about the value of both of which I have reservations, a totally irrelevant book (in terms of the notability of this subject), and the subject's own website. External links are to the same personal website, MySpace, and a submit-your-own site. Peridon (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve

It’s hard to get the comments of each and everyone who appreciated him. Its available in http://www.myspace.com/jayenvarma profile, where all these bassists are in his friends list. I managed to get the comment of the legendary bassist Bootsy Collins. Pl see it here in this page http://comment.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewComments&friendID=299471028&page=42&state=5031!50!45!837830!834595

Also, if ‘fastest bassist’ is searched in FIND A RECORD in Guinness World Records official site http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com his name is displayed from his Guinness member profile. But I say that his innovative slap bass style is more important than speed. Please approve the article. Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but MySpace doesn't count as a reliable independent reference - because, like Wikipedia, it is editable. Guinness Book? Sorry, no. It is not listed by Guinness as a record. There is a 'community.guinnessworldrecords.com/' reference, but it consists of a picture and

"Uploaded By: jayenvarma

10 months ago

Level: Bronze

Points: 515

Description:

Jayen Varma from India holds the World Record in Bass Guitar as Fastest".

(This was copied and pasted from this page, which says © Copyright Guinness World Records 2009 at the foot. Pasted here as a fair use quotation.) Self-published and not Guinness verified. The Guinness 'Find a Record' takes you to a Google search, where this 'community' article was at the top. I can't see this as being any different than just Google searching. If you want your article to survive, you need reliable independent references, not blogs, forums, or indeed any self-published stuff. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where those boxes have come from - they weren't there and I certainly haven't added them. I also don't know what the 515 points mean. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm barmy, the boxes have gone again. Don't care who took them, thanks... Peridon (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The boxes are from spaces before the text. So the Guiness record is made up. All about vanity. I sustain my Delete vote. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really discouraging

I am only the creator of the page ജയന്‍ വര്‍മ in Malayalam language. I wanted to do some more translations about some great Western and Indian musicians to Malayalam language. But my initial experience was bitter when a user immediately tagged my article along with the original English article for deletion. I do not question the sincere intention of the user who proposed it for deletion. The fact is that I only translated a clean English article Jayen Varma to Malayalam. The same article is also there in Italian language. It seems that the English article was restored after deletion and a long similar discussion. In this context, I was forced to enquire more details of it. The record of Jayen varma is by ‘Registry of official World Records(Record Holders Republic)RHR(USA&UK). This is an official organization for human record holders and record attempters, by record holders (from Guinness, Alternate book of Records etc. Also in my search in WP, I could see many other articles quoting references of Record Holders Republic with the records of certain individuals. The description in the article which was restored on an earlier occasion after similar discussion is very neutral and true with the available reference. “…..According to the Registry of Official World Records (Record Holders Republic) USA and UK, he is the fastest percussive bassist, slap bass playing 36 percussive notes per second…”. Jayen Varma is of course notable in the music world for his innovative bass playing technique. The big land of India has 100s and 1000s of amazing guitar players. But around 10 are only listed in WP and the only bass guitarist's name Jayen Varma is also to be deleted now. Is this discrimination!! I hope you will look in to it again take any decision. I wanted to translate more, but just one is more than enough for me (since my time is now lost to establish even the original article). All the best to you all --Musicindia1 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Record Holders Republic is NOT official. It's a privately run site. Anyone could start up a similar thing. Guinness isn't official in the legal sense, but is so well established that they can be regarded as such - but not the 'community' section where the records are not Guinness verified. Guinness verification is normally rather strict. If you know of other articles that you have doubts about, please feel free to tag them. But their existence has no bearing on this one. We do not want to put you off contributing to Wikipedia - we do want to make sure that the information in articles is accurate, and also notable enough for an encyclopaedia. And that requires evidence in the form of references, but not self-published ones. I could easily claim a record for, say, balancing wine bottles. I could create a website, and submit my 'record' with several friends witnessing it (after helping to empty the bottles). Guinness wouldn't accept it in their main section. The community bit probably would, and who knows about the Republic. I hope you can see where we are coming from. We can see your disappointment, but we have rules and guidelines. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot You are having so much guessing. LIKE:- “..Guinness verification is normally rather strict..” “..I could easily claim a record for, say, balancing wine bottles….” ”…I could create a website, and submit my 'record' with several friends witnessing it…” ”…Guinness wouldn't accept it in their main section. who knows about the Republic…”. I respect you all since you are all more experienced in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. You asked me to tag the other articles. But, I do not want to do it, since I don’t think ..’how to delete an article’- but I think, 'how not to delete an article by modifying it with available evidences.'. I believe that this was the strategy the users/administrators adapted in making the article to the present neutral position after a similar discussion in 2008. The man in the article is very much notable in the international world. The user who translated it in to Italian language may be knowing more, coz he seems to deal with musicians (Bass Players) articles. I do not want to go deep in to it anymore. And let the administrators decide the future of the article in question. Thanks a lot my friends.--Musicindia1 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make us feel guilty doesn't work. A lot of us would much rather salvage an article than delete it. Remember it is up to YOU to produce the evidence - evidence that fits our criteria. We have looked for it ourselves, and not found it. If you have it, put it on the table for us to see. If you can't, or won't, there's nothing we can do for you. Peridon (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offending you my friend. Before translating the article to the language Malayalam, I also had checked the reference. And I was convinced about the neutrality of it as well. He is one of the greatest bass players of Indian origin and notable in the International world of music. In the following articles Record Holders Republic has been cited as a main source as well as additional reference. Doug Pruden Yard (beer) David Straitjacket Mohammad Faisal Lucky’s Lake Swim Paddy Doyle Liquid Blue. This is the reference in the article in question also. The article has been existing here for more than a year. So please feel free to edit it if you can so that the article won’t die.Thanks a lot.--Musicindia1 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in RS to show notability. I'm tempted to delete this as G4, as the only content not present in the old article is that inspiration section and the associated ref, not germane to the article. -SpacemanSpiff 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Bowing to the above suggestions, I made few minor changes. What is written down now is very much neutral and factual based on the reference quoted. The same reference book is accepted in Wikipedia in many other articles(which are shown above). I am still strong in this matter since I know that the entire Bass World knows that this Indian bassist is the fastest in the World and has got an innovative style. Thanks to all of you--Musicindia1 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksHere is an interview with Varma appeared in Indian Music Lovers Headline today. http://www.indianmusiclovers.com/2010/01/19/interview-jayen-varma-the-fastest-bassist/ . Its just for reference. Thanks. --Musicindia1 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. It is interesting, but... That is the only interview on the site, which looks fairly new (22nd December 2009 so far as I can tell). The site looks like a good idea, and I wish them well and would urge anyone with info to spread - or required - to look at it. However, "This site is a collective and the role of the audience and the writers is as important as the editors. The editors will beg, plead, threaten, maul to squeeze articles out of a list of featured writers on any theme that the writer would like to explore in.", and so it may well not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Sorry, I hoped you'd got one there. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not place this link as an official reference. Indian Music Lovers http://www.indianmusiclovers.com/2010/01/19/interview-jayen-varma-the-fastest-bassist . It came up when I did a search today. Thats all. You are persuading me to do more search my friend. I will do it since I am convinced about the subject. I got another one from American Blues News, which is also an interview. Please have a look at this link. http://www.ameriblues.com/2009/10/guest-writer-jayen-varma-guest-blogger.html . Thank you. --Musicindia1 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my search, I could get links of two uploaded items:DNA news http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=494404648&albumID=1003385&imageID=11814590 New Indian Express article http://shevlinsebastian.blogspot.com/2008/05/king-of-bass.html I think these news/articles are not alive now. I am not producing these as official evidences. Still, these show the notability of the bassist. Thanks.--Musicindia1 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the news article of IE uploaded today by a renowned lead guitarist. This was appeared in Indian Express daily in India in 2008 May 19. http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=333630949&albumID=0&imageID=16832183 . Since it is an uploaded materiel, I don’t know if you will reckon it. These are not live now in the internet. And so many such news articles were there in different news papers in 2008 and it was also featured in Indian TVs(But I have no proof for that). I believe these news items were alive in the internet during the detailed discussion in this matter following the 1st nomination of the article for deletion. And that might have been one of the reasons why the article was kept safe after the discussion. The Hindu daily dated 5th Feb 2009 is but here in the news archive http://www.thehindu.com/mp/2009/02/05/stories/2009020551050400.htm .The Musician is a very notable person in the Indian and International Bass Guitar World and he is accepted by the bass guitar world as Fastest with his innovative style, especially by the Greatest Bass players in the world.Thanks again --Musicindia1 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer[edit]

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

Delete, unclear notabiltity and appears to be promotional. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just removed a long copy & paste of copyrighted text (see edit history for URL), so it's a lot shorter now. MuffledThud (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move the article to the correct name minus the title. Now the promotional stuff has been removed this should stay. This is JD Weidenhamer who absolutely romps WP:PROF on citations. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not made up my mind one way or the other yet, but the case does not appear to be such a shoe-in for passing WP:PROF. The citation data in GScholar[32] is OK but not all that outstanding. Top citation hits are 125, 96, 92, 90, 53, 35,... with an h-index of about 15. That's good, but for an active experimental area like Chemistry, with 20+ years of research career, this does not strike me as a particularly outstanding record. He holds the rank of Distinguished Professor, so one could argue for WP:PROF#5. However, his university offers almost no graduate degrees, and no M.Sc. or PhD degrees in Chemistry or related fields, so it is not clear if Criterion 5 of WP:PROF is applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. He is a distinguished professor with a personal chair (PROF5) just because his institute has less of these should not exclude it. The Web of Knowledge backs up google scholar but showing citations his articles have recieved in academic journals 105,89,88,76,63,51,37,37,36... (he is first or second author on most of these). So because we can make a good case for passing not one but two of the counts of PROF I think it is a fairly safe keep. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On web of science (also counting one paper under JW not JDW) gives an h-factor of 16. However, I feel uncomfortable with h-factor as a rating (especially as mine is only 4) and I think it is better to just look at the spread of citation numbers and journals. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually agreeing with Polar we should keep it. When I nominated it it was a jumble and hardly in context. It has been significant;y pared down and a policy pointed out. in good faith I withdraw this nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce Kelleher[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. "Hymen Missari, Young Wealth" is a book/reference used for much of it, but it doesn't appear to exist or to be googleable. The rest confirms that Mr. Kelleher exists, not that he has this fantastic company. Google News hasn't heard of him. Kelleher Capital doesn't seem to exist online. And there's certainly nothing to back up "man of letters, and international playboy."

Turning to unreliable sources, Mr. Kelleher seems to have a motorcycle (or at least a picture on a motorcycle), and both Facebook and Linkedin indicate he is at a small shop named "EJB Capital". In other words, it doesn't counter the FUTON bias to indicate Mr. Kelleher is anything more than an average b-school graduate, certainly nothing to pass WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete as this article violates WP:ENT and WP:BIO and is apparently a hoax. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ratner[edit]

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

No evidence this person ever played professional baseball on any level. Page is apparent self promotion. Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've googled him, there are to sites about him and they both are unable to supply us with informations about his career. Even if they did so, he stills fails WP:N --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Alex (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Baseball Reference does not show him as even a minor leaguer, so there does not seem to be any basis for notability as a baseball player. The url provided in the article does not support notability, but appears to promote the subject's business. Rlendog (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N plain and simple. I can't find him on Baseball-Reference either, the only player I can find is a last name only player from 1920 here. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazes and Minotaurs[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing establishing notability of this topic. It's a free online indie role-playing game with only minor mentions on the web. Certainly nothing like mainstream or expert coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, nothing relevant on google news or books, rpg.net reviews appear to be user-submitted. Polarpanda (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This articles is partly copied from the sources used, which cannot be seen as sources, and is totally non-notable and appears to be promotion. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cna't find significant coverage for this web game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save This game has a living Yahoogroup/community (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mazesandminotaurs/) and has been brought up twice recently on a very popular gaming blog (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/). Possible reference confusion with Mazes "and" Minotaurs and Mazes "&" Minotaurs?--forvalaka (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save This game has a thriving (and growing) user-base and is a popular example of the current trend of Old School Role-Playing. (And, as for its reviews on rpg.net appearing to be user-submitted - all reviews on rpg.net are user-submitted, that's how rpg.net works).Johndesmarais (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But keep in mind that neither Yahoo nor rpg.net are neutral reliable sources, so you can't bring them up here. And even if this game has a growing community, it is not yet big enough to pass WP:N. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yahoo and rpg.net are not used here as *sources*, but evidence; if lots of people are talking about an artwork, that is evidence of its notability. There seems to be a fairly significant amount of discussion of the game in weblogs as well; since noncommercial games are not well covered by print magazines or academic journals, some leeway in detecting WP:N is common sense. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Save When dealing with a indie game, Yahoo and RPGNet.com ARE VERY IMPORTANT!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.4.168 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your head, but they're not encyclopedic, which is the important part for being listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Save Actually you are mistaken regarding whether rpg.net is an appropriate source. Per WP:WEB we have:

“

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

”

Also, as this game is also published as an e-book, we have in WP:NOTABILITY (books)

“

The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (or e-books). However, the notability of e-books should also be evaluated using the notability criteria for web-specific content, as well as a determination of whether the book is covered by Project Gutenberg or an analogous project.

”

Rpg.net is an important source in the context of an article about RPGs. You might notice from its own article that it is itself considered notable enough for Wikipedia, besides

“

RPGnet is the second largest roleplaying forum, after Wizards of the Coast.

”

And besides several articles in rpg.net, a quick google search unveils other articles on similar rpg sites. It is scheduled for OwlCon XXIX (referenced here) and Origins Game Fair (referenced here). I think it is important to rate Notability in context, which is clearly at issue here. The context here is Indie RPGs, and in that realm sources like RPG.net are particularly important. The fact that M&M is referenced by sites and associations which are considered notable for Wikipedia standards is notable. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Also, regarding a previous complaint on this page, it would seem that neither of the reviews on Rpg.net were submitted by the creators, maintainers, or anyone associated with Mazes and Minotaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifter0x0000 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, not to invoke the Pokémon test, but per the positive version of WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might note that there are many indie RPG articles on Wikipedia, and references used tend to include RPG.net and theRPGsite, if not using them exclusively. M&M was discussed on the latter (although I haven't tracked down a review of it there yet), and I have mentioned in my other posts the reviews in the former. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that a Yahoogroup might not count content-wise, yet if there is an appropriate number of members, this should constitute a reasonable amount of popularity within the community. However, RPG.net not being neutral or reliable? I would question that statement. Also, a site like Grognardia is relevant and neutral, and has given reviews. I would suggest that rather than be stricken that Mazes & Minotaurs could be mentioned among other "retro-clone" or simulacrum games at the very least.--forvalaka (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bold "Save" from the beginning of this comment so that it doesn't look like you are trying to vote twice. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not have mattered anyway since Afd discussions are not votes. Outcome is based on the merit of the arguments provided. Putting Save or Delete in the comment would, I think, help a reviewer find arguments for each side more easily and is their main purpose. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge/Transfer I agree with the preceding comment that, while it may not by itself meet the recognition level to warrant a separte entry on Wikipedia, it certainly should be listed/merged with other pen and paper rpg articles already on WP, some of which are btw no longer played, recent/updated nor have the "following" evidenced by a simple Google web search about the game, which list 4 250 results for the exact wording "Mazes & Minotaurs RPG"; not bad considering the exact wording search for "retro clone rpg" gives out 12 500 results, while the whole "pen & paper rpg" category list 292 000 results. --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Save I came to the Wikipedia entry to find out more after reading an article on Futurismic. Clearly people are talking about this thing. Might as well have a definitive source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.122.235 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few people talking about something on the Internet means nothing when trying to show something should have an encyclopedia article. By your standards every fart joke in the world should have its own listing. That's not how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Futurismic article is here. I don't think articles on established websites for a subject are the same as "a few people talking on the internet." And anyway, your criteria do not match WP:WEB, which would be the relevant policy here. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several more reviews have been brought to my attention, so I am linking them for consideration at least on impact of the game in its field, if they cannot be considered sources. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made and will continue to make some improvements to the article, adding more links and references that can be used as potential sources. I think a better solution rather than deleting the article would be improving it, and adding sources which would tend to defend its notability. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Save/Merge/Transfer As this article seems to be destined to be deleted for reasons unknown (I have made more obscure Wikipedia entries that have not been marked for deletion), I move that this matter be taken up higher up the ladder than between editors. Obviously this article is targeted for deletion even after evidence (more evidence than for some other entries) has been provided. Let's take this up the ladder--forvalaka (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Actually, that's what this discussion is for. An admin will look at these arguments and decide consensus based on the arguments provided. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We wouldn't want to spoil the fun of Wiki-wanker nerds now would we? Better they fuck up Wikipedia (further) than actually fuck up the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.72.224 (talk • contribs) signed by Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation encouraged when notability has become a bit better established. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Seguin[edit]

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

Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's ice hockey player notability essay. Players at this level are routinely deleted. No predjudice against recreating when/if he gains more notability. DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's pretty clear he fails of the notability hurdles so far. No prejudice against recreation, especially since he'll likely be a first round pick this summer, but a lot can happen in six months. Ravenswing 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per faily ATHLETE. I've userfied and would move it to the creators userspace if they return and desire it. Grsz¹¹ 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he indeed fails 'notability' standards, then the standards need to be reanalysed. Anyone that remotely follows hockey knows the 2010 NHL Draft has been described as "Taylor or Tyler??" Numerous reports comment on that he is a blue-chip prospect for the NHL. E.J. Maguire, the director of Central Scouting said Seguin, Hall, or Cam Fowler could be the number one overall draft pick based on the team's needs that hold the first overall pick. Anyway you slice it a potential number one overall draft pick is 'notable'. I saw that Jerry D'Amigo's page was deleted as well and even though I don't agree with that, I can understand it. Plenty of players had and amazing WJC and are out of hockey, especially sixth round picks. (if it's possible to userify his page, I'd like that :) I digress. Unlike D'Amigo, however, potential first overall draft picks are 100% notable. If players like Benjamin Conz and Nino Neiderreiter are 'notable' because they were on the WJC all-star team, being mentioned as a potential number one overall pick with a high likelihood of NHL success is notable. Captain Courageous (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. We don't create articles based on potential. Once they are playing and once they have had success we add them. Alot can happen in 6 months. He could have a car accident and die, or any number of things. Or he could be a complete bust and never play professionally which has happened with 1st round picks in the past. As for userfying, once he is drafted if he is drafted in the first round I would be more than happy to undelete the page as we have done in the past in such cases. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks mate. Although being a second Len Bias would be noteworthy, I get what you're saying. Maybe I just have 'lower standards.' ;) I still think he is most certainly noteworthy and will be noteworthy if he were to falter out of the NHL picture or (obviously) if he became a perennial all-star. He's been talked about for years, so I would see him being noteworthy regardless of how his career turns out. Would the same thing (undeletion) be done for D'Amigo if he were to make the TML? Captain Courageous (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I undelete any of the junior players we delete once they meet out standards. We usually delete a huge number around the World Juniors and the Draft, so we are pretty used to it. And you are right, he may end up notable either way. This nomination isn't a reflection on the creator of the page or the quality of the page at all. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly understandable. I love seeing seventh rounders get wiki pages, ha ha :) I'm also not the creator, I just thought that he seems quite notable to me (and most hockey fans). I respect the standards; doesn't mean I cannot disagree with them :) Captain Courageous (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As DJ's said, there are any number of "can't miss" prospects in sports history that never have done anything; give me ten minutes, for instance, and I'll feed back a list of top ten first round draft choices who've never been in a NHL uniform. Just picking at random (the 2005 entry draft), the 2nd highest ranking goalie by Central Scouting - and this is the final rankings, not the mid-season rankings - is a rookie pro this season who's the backup goalie for the Laredo Bucks and the 3rd highest ranking European skater's never played North American pro hockey. Go back a year to the 2004 midterm rankings and the top fifteen turn up never-weres like Vaclav Meidl, Ryan Garlock and Evan McGrath. Ravenswing 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ohh certainly. Goaltending positional rankings is very sketchy at best. I think someone by the name of Marty Broduer was drafted after the mercurial Travor Kidd. And certainly there are plenty of mid-first round picks that don't pan out. But Hall/Seguin/Fowler will likely all be in the NHL next year. The top three skaters rival Kane/Turris/JVR. And if one of them turn out as the next Patrik Stefan, well that is indeed notable :) I just think if you have that much hype following you for a couple of years in the junior ranks, translating into a top draft pick, you're notable, especially if all you need is a first round draft pick to be notable a la Steve Bancroft. :) No worries, mate :) Captain Courageous (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he achieves some notable accomplishment as a junior (he's currently tied for first in the OHL for scoring) or is a first round draft pick, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clear consensus, after good-faith research by two editors, that the organisation does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Militia Corps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable organization. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss (not simply mention) the organization. Article was nominated for deletion in 2005 here [33]. Angryapathy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete There is also a little on them under a different name e.g. "Members of the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia, for example, gather daily on the Internet to share conspiracy theories. They mutter darkly that the feds invented foot-and-mouth disease so they can declare martial law." Daily News and the Indianapolis Star and this book Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I don't see any any reliable sourcing that says these two groups are the same group using two different names. It is reasonable to guess that they are different groups with different names. If it could be sourced that they are the same, I would favor an article move, and the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia does appear to meet notability standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve judgement on this. The only strange thing is that the "Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia" website now directs to "Indiana Militia Corps" so they are likely the same or one arose from the other but as you say if we cannot find any reliable sources for this then we cannot assume it here. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay some searching shows that although it is a very closely linked it does not appear to be the same thing. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote as I am unable to find independent verification of their notability. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One clue that these are two different organization is that when you check the html Meta description of the ICVM organization's redirect page[34] it states that they are in no way affiliated. Code snippet cut and pasted below:

<meta name="description" content="The Indiana Militia Corps is a constitutional, 
patriotic organization dedicated to preserving and defending the constitutions 
of the USA and Indiana, and our way of life.  Pro-God, Pro-family, anti-UN, 
anti-racist, pro-liberty. This organization is in no way affiliated with the 
Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia!">

It is pretty reasonable to guess that these two organizations are different and the ownership of the old ICVM webpage belongs to IMC now, after a schism. That said, guesses have no place in Wikipedia, and there remains a near total lack of reliable sourcing about the IMC group, and we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been thoroughly discussed over on the article talk pageTalk:Indiana_Militia_Corps#notable.3F, in summary, after much looking there is not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources for this group to be considered notable per WP guidelines. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated some content showing there is current notability to the Indiana Militia Corps, and I hereby invoke WP:IAR against calls for deletion. The very fact that citizen militias are in the news makes it currently notable, even if nearly all third-party sources refer to militias in the aggregate and not by name. I am finding third-party sources that mention the IMC by name and this should satisfy the concerns presented; but I must also point out that within militia social circles the Indiana Militia Corps is every bit as notable as the Michigan Militia. If the paucity of objective third-party material regarding militias creates the appearance of a lack of notability, we should act in good faith and find the NPOV sources; the restrictive ruleset some here want to apply to the sources for establishing notability won't work with militia groups because advocates for these groups don't publish books the way the anti-militia people do!! The sources you cite are all POV and we can't go that way. The arguments regarding notability are restrictive and exclusionist, and the comments made in that regard evince a bias against this organization. If the Indiana Militia Corps page alone is deleted, then WP may as well delete the Michigan Militia article as well, but I do not see anyone trying to do this.

Also, the Indiana Militia Corps has become truly notable within militia social circles, but only AFTER the ADL, SPLC and Homeland Security gave them free publicity (My inside sources explain that membership is BOOMING since early 2009). With new members joining, their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... it is just a matter of time, and I bet we won't have to wait long. Deletion anytime soon would be premature, to say the least.

Also, the extreme controversy over the beneficial/malicious nature of militia groups almost guarantees that there will be those with POV intentions seeking to either delete or alter this article in a POV manner. But the niggling citation of a rule without a good supporting explanation is NOT good enough for me. Wikipedia exists to create and deliver content to web users, and deleting articles on controversial subjects is a form of censorship that I will not tolerate and will most assuredly appeal to the highest arbiters.

Presently it seems to me the rules are being used as an excuse just to delete content, that while neutral, is still apparently objectionable to some. This is itself a violation of policy. How can I say this? Anyone who takes a few hours to study the subject of modern citizen militias will see that 99% of what is being published out there is highly POV against militias, and based on my own research (which I will not discuss here) it is becoming clear to me that the people who are publishing against militias have an agenda; people I interview who are not in a militia but are interested in them also see an agenda at work. I am a political science major (concentration in law enforcement) and I can tell you that politically, where there is smoke there is fire. I have monitored the talk pages on everything relating to citizen militias and seen some pretty uncivil talk go on there, and those with anti-militia views, not acting in good faith, ultimately lost out in their edit wars. If the anti-militia people can't have homogeneity in everything relating to the subject of militias, they want to censor it (read: delete). Playing into their hands in that regard is tantamount to going POV all over this. It is far better to keep the article, keep it neutral, and include new content as frequently and as soon as possible... which I am prepared to do myself as I am paid to study the subject (but I pledge to still uphold WP:NOR).

In the interest of neutrality, fairness, and acting in good faith we must take all of this into account. WP:IAR is a PILLAR, notability is merely a guideline!! PLEASE let's not niggle this and let's NOT be deletionist! Thank you for your time and patience. I am confident that we can continue to improve the article. Barring that, I believe that the articles on these specific militia organizations ought to be merged into the page for the constitutional militia movement. JP419 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place to publish your own research about militia groups. The Wikimedia has a sister project for the purpose of publishing original research, Wikiversity, which seems to be a more suitable place for your work. That said, I would favor the suggest that this article be moved there instead of deletion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salty, didn't I just get done telling you that I am not putting my own research into this?!? I KNOW that original research isn't allowed!! Sometimes I think you're not listening to me at all. I'll say it again for effect: I'm not adding my own work, I'm researching the subject for third-party content. Got it? Now, would we PLEASE stop niggling and misdirecting? Thank you!!! JP419 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. In your 13 January explanation just above you wrote "based on my own research". Whether or not you discuss your own research, it is apparent that you are bringing your conclusions into this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the question is not original research, the question is the notability standard. The fact remains that there is very little found in independent reliable sourcing discussing this group. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm to JP419 one of the main reasons for this notability standard is to ensure we can cover the subject in a balanced encyclopedic way. This is not some deletionist attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is not here to repeat what an organisation says about itself on its own websites and blogs along with a few basic qualifications. Polargeo (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there's any external references. Otherwise Delete. Most of the refs seem to be self-refs or fairly close to self-refs. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. I really have made an effort to find some after originally voting keep. So I take it this means a delete vote. Polargeo (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, unless somebody finds some. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have looked very hard and have been able to find only four small mentions in independent sources. I have found zero significant coverage of the group. A single sentence in a 2004 publication by the Anti-Defamation League[35], and a simple mention of the name of the group in a list of militia groups in a publication by the Southern Poverty Law Center[36]. The simple name of the group is also mentioned in a 2008 election manual[37] as a militia group. Recently, JP419 found another mention of the group, which includes a single sentence quote from their website in a background paper[38] by a professor at Stanford University, but that paper appears unpublished and not peer reviewed. The standard[39] here is not simply any coverage, but rather the standard we must look for is significant coverage. There is nothing near to significant coverage here. If we are to follow this policy, we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Change me to Weak Delete after Salty's work. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talib ibn Abi Talib[edit]

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

Very non-notable person from Islamic history. Happens to be Muhammad's cousin but that is it. Even the article does not make any other claim of notability or significance. And when I try to do a google search about this person all I can get are Wikipedia mirroring sites. Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see notability. We do not supply articles for all people mentioned in the bible either. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His 'fame' seems to be by association, which means not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. To any newcomers who may post here, please note that it is Wikipedia's standards not those of any outside body or system that apply. Peridon (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlankApplication (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Was unable to find any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note that this describes itself as a free-software content management system written in Ruby by thinkDRY as a Ruby on Rails web application. Your guess is as good as mine. It also contains the happy thought that BlankApplication is extendable using extensions, but the page seems to be more a basic doc page than an encyclopedia article. Google News, Books, and Scholar haven't heard of it, either with the (software) extension of the title or without. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find signifiant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too cannot locate significant coverage of this product. JBsupreme (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Tsonev[edit]

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

Non notable Bulgarian footballer. Does not appear to have played professionally as the senior clubs listed do not appear to be in the Bulgarian professional set up or the top level amateur set up. Only claim to notability is Champion of Bulgaria with a youth team. Seems like a promising youngster that failed to make the step up to professional. noq (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Todor →Bozhinov 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ATHLETE Alio The Fool 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:NOTAGAIN previous AfD was just closed, if disagree with previous result bring to WP:DRV. This is a non-admin closure. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of timelines in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting for further discussion.

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: The timelines in the articles listed in this article are user-created. They are similar to "list of fictional characters in..." articles. This is as absurd as have a "list of list of fictional characters".

WP:SELF: This is article is merely a list of other articles. Hence, delete and create a category of those articles instead.

Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The 1st AfD was closed earlier today, as "no consensus". If you'd like to dispute that, take it to WP:Deletion review. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as was pointed out in the last debate, lists of lists are accepted on wikipedia. Polarpanda (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wp:NOTAGAIN (it finished earlier today, so it's waaay too early for another discussion about it). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Close - This is not a relisting in the traditional sense - those are extensions of an ongoing discussion and are typically used when there has been very little comment. This is a second nomination within a few hours of the closing of the previous one. —DoRD (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Birnbaum[edit]

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

Vanity page. Subject is non-notable by wikipedia standards. Sources to not meet WP guidelines despite request. THD3 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This page doesn't meet notability guidlines and contains no sources--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mark Birnbaum is not notable as a musician.--Karljoos (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet any reasonable notability standard. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough. Also doesn't have sources that tell of his notability well enough. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources (and the NY Daily News articles don't discuss the subject) - fails to meet musician notability guidelines. —DoRD (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Agency (franchise)[edit]

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

From the deleted PROD: Non-notable youtube series that would seem to fail the general notability guideline. Eeekster (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to say that the claims of DVD release and submission to the Cleveland Film Festival are enough to prevent speedy deletion. However, if that film festival is enough to give them film notability, there should be secondary sources covering the film. There are no secondary sources in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked; it appears that anyone can submit an application, and anyone can make a DVD. Acceptance and exhibit is another matter. If and when it is exhibited and covered in other media, it could be eligible for inclusion. Acroterion _(talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, more red links than a sausage factory. Anyway, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Hogan[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Non notable individual. Nothing from Google, GNews or archives. HJMitchell You rang? 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a worthy educator but does not exist in sufficient RSs. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If one peels away the resume-like cruft and off-topic description of the New York state school systems, one finds that he seems to have been a minor functionary in the state school bureaucracy. For the period that our article lists him as having the impressive-sounding title "Supervisor of Independent and Religious Schools", I was at least able to find a small local newspaper article mentioning him [40]. It can't be used to support notability since his role in the story is so minor, and the story identifies him only as "an associate in the [state education] department's Office of Nonpublic School Services", not as a supervisor. So I think this fails WP:V as well as WP:GNG, and WP:PROF doesn't even really apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nor can I find anything, which is expected, as the position is not intrinsically notable. An analogous article on Carmen Perez Hogan is now prodded. If unprodded, it should come here also . I also call attention to the article on Salamanca (city), New York; I just purged a number of similarly non-notable people without articles from the "Notable Residents" section there, but left some without articles who might actually be notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trout Lake, Alberta[edit]

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trout Lake Airport (Alberta). 117Avenue (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable settlement of the Bigstone Cree Nation that consists of more than just an airport. (Aerial views available here: 56°29′35″N 114°33′29″W / 56.4930°N 114.558°W / 56.4930; -114.558 (Trout Lake, Alberta).) Nominator is free to replace "hamlet" with "settlement" in the article if he wishes. Deor (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unambiguous copyright violation from a website with an unacceptable licence. Also repost of deleted material, original research, advertising, and etcetera. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street's Iconic Power Shirt: The Gekko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Gekko - Wall Street's to Main Street's Ultimate Power Shirt

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

Repost of an article already deleted in August 2009 for lack of notability and spam. Untruthful claims about the movie's shirtmaker (actually another one) and the meaning of the -shortlived- expression "Gekko shirt" (actually a white collar shirt as shown here). The article on the movie is sufficient. Delete. Racconish (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC) A rehash of this press release. Racconish (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Misleading article, redirect to the film would be good enough and avoid any further confusion.—Ash (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would still give some credibility to the product spam in the title. Racconish (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A generic striped shirt finished with white collar and cuffs does not qualify it as a "Gekko" shirt, as mistakenly noted by the Greenwood Encyclopedia's errored attribution. Instead, its original nickname, "The Arrow Man Shirt," dates to the early-1900s. In the 1987 movie, Wall Street, there only a small handful of scenes that feature Michael Douglas wardrobed in shirt finished with a white "contrast" collar and white "contrast" white French cuff. They are not striped. Instead, all are solid colored bodied. The most prominent and memorable image features Douglas in his office with a solid, mid-blue bodied dress shirt finished with white collar and his sleeves rolled-up as: (1) he stands with his hands in his trouser pockets or (2)barks trading orders to assistants while reviewing financial data. That scene is also renowned for its Albert Thurston braces worn by Douglas.

History of the white collar and white cuffed shirt dates to the late-1890s. In the late-1800s to early-1900s, any striped or solid colored shirt finished with a white collar and white cuffs was nicknamed an "Arrow Collar Shirt" or the "Arrow Man Shirt," a moniker won from Arrow Shirt Company's unbiquitous domination of the debactable collar and cuff shirt business from the late-1800s through the early-1920s.

In the late-1970s to mid-1980s, the white collar and white cuff shirt, whether finished with a striped body or solid color body, gained still another nickname: the (1) "Lee Iacocca Shirt" or (2) "Iacocca Shirt," these later monikers earned from its on-screen favor with Lee Iacocca, then Chrysler's CEO and media spokesman. Beside worn countless times in network TV commercials by Iacocca during which he "touted" Chrysler's hugely successful turnaround and the company's entire re-payment -- plus interest -- of its government-backed bailout by American taxpayers, Iacocca also wore the white collar and white cuff shirt that the Greenwood Encyclopdia mistakenly calls the "Gekko" in hundreds of additional TV commercials between 1979 and 1984 while "pitching" the sale of Chrysler's product line-up to American buyers. The shirt style won still added fame from Iacocca's near constant news media coverage during countless nCongressional hearings and meetings. In nearly every newspaper photo image or broadcast news sound-bite from 1979 to 1984, Iaccoca is shown in either a striped or solid colored shirt finished with white collar and white cuffs, hence the shirt style's well-earned and media saturated nickname: "The Iacocca" or "Lee Iacocca Shirt."

Specifically, "The Gekko" refers to a (1) dress shirt (2) with a horizontally striped body, the (3) stripe pattern/weight typically called a "pencil" stripe. Even more specifically, it refers to a horizontally positioned, pencil striped shirt with its collar and cuffs finished in a vertical stripe motif whose diretion travels opposite the horizontal body stripe. In fashion-speak, this collar and cuff stripe format is called a "reverse stripe," thanks to its un-traditional "setting." "Setting," in fashion speak, refers to a pattern-motif's traditional design format.

The Gekko won it own fame -- as well as its nickname -- from a pivotal scene in Wall Street shot in New York's 21 Club that features Douglas and Sheen during a lunch meeting. In that scene, Douglas wears the black and white, horizontally striped dress shirt with reverese-striped collar and French cuff that retailers, fashion editors, journalists and writers, along with fashion-savvy consumers, all call "The Gekko." The Greenwood Encylcopedia's author, by the way, was never a fashion editor, fashion journalist nor noted fashion commentator at any major fashion magazine.

Please, re-watch 1987's Wall Street. Please, Wikipedia sooths, research the history of both the detachable collar shirt, its origins in Troy, New York. Then, research Lee Iacocca's photo images from the late-1970s to mid-1980s, all pre-dating Wall Street's 1987 debut. In addition, please call Karen Alberg, the editor-in-chief at MR magazine, menswear fashion trade magazine. Her number is redacted phone and e-mail.

I have two more suggestions: First, The Greenwood Enclyclopdia is riddled with errors. I would not use it again for accurate attribution. Second, Alex Kabbaz's claim to have created Michael Douglas's Wall Street shirts has been discredited, over and over, since his 1988 NY Times' claim as self-serving falsehood.

Alan Flusser was retained by Oliver Stone as Wall Street's wardrobing consultant. Beginning in the early-1980s, Mel Gambert created Flusser's branded shirts as a private label maker. To this day, Flusser's line up of Alan Flusser dress shirts are still Gambert made. Not a one made by Alex Kabbaz. Contact info redacted

Before handing out "Racoons," willy-nilly, my final suggestion is that Wikipedia's expert editors do both their homework and due diligence by consulting industry experts. My own book is now being considered for publication by both Fairchild and Assouline. I'm more than happy to provide chapter drafts for review. My apologies for not reviewing for either grammer or spelling.

Andy stinson (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The tone of the article is 100% unacceptable for an encyclopedia - it reads very much like advertising copy or the verbatim text of a magazine article. And now I know why - it's word-for-word copy from a press release here. The PR website licenses its content under creative commons, except that it must be adapted for news coverage (which this isn't), or else it "Must not be altered if redistributed". So it's entirely unsuitable. The only reason I did not delete immediately was this debate. I'll let another admin handle that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - clear copyvio and wholly unacceptable material. —DoRD (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. User:SRELY&P( talk), the author of the article, wrote here the article was posted so that the people he created it for could see it and used Andy Stinson as a reference, whom he described here as a "frequently quoted fashion historian and author", while Andy Stinson presents himself here as a partner with Stinson/R. Ely & Partners, the PR firm for the "Gekko shirt". Is it just a coincidence that SRELY&P is the acronym of Stinson/R. Ely & Partners? Could User:SRELY&P and User:Andy stinson be one and the same? Racconish (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have raised COI notices on both user talk pages (Andy stinson (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and SRELY&P (talk · contribs · logs · block log)). If you believe there is a direct violation of the guidance of SOCK, please raise the evidence at SPI.—Ash (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the close, I redacted phone and e-mail contact information posted above. It remains in the history, and may be oversighted upon request. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPM Live[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable business, a provider of project management software and Enterprise Project Management solutions based on the Microsoft SharePoint platform. Unambiguous advertising: With these features and its flexibility, EPM Live has been adopted by many enterprises around the world.... Google news archives yield minor trade awards, new product or financing announcements, and research reports: nothing of the sort that confers actual notability on a business like this.

This page has been deleted three times before, twice as blatant spam, once as proposed deletion: suggest WP:SALT on this one. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daultan Leveille[edit]

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

Player has not played at a professional level, nor at the top international level. Thus, he fails to meet the criteria at WP:ATHLETE. The article can be recreated if/when he ever does play professionally or in top international competition. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the Ice hockey notability essay at WP:HOCKEY in that he was drafted in the first round. And a quick look through google shows that there is probably enough sources to pass notability anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references will need to be added to the article to confirm notability. Currently, the only references are from the OHA and his OHA team (the latter just points to the team's website, not any particular article), and a brief mention from the OHL that he was drafted in the 9th round of the 2006 OHL draft. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done two newspaper articles with significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above. Consensus and WP:HOCKEY/PPF have held that first round draft picks are notable. Ravenswing 15:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's a first round pick. Captain Courageous (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure being drafted in the first round imbues notability. Do first rounders from the 60s (e.g. Alec Campbell and Andy Culligan, 2nd overall in 1964 and 1965, respectively) each deserve an article, when there are almost certainly no reliable sources with significant coverage of these two? Conversely, is a player drafted 30th overall nowadays (i.e. first round) more notable than a player drafted 7th overall from 1963 through 1966 (i.e. second round)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now-a-days? Yes, you can almost completely be guaranteed that someone in the first round of the draft will have had atleast 3 articles about them which would make them pass WP:BIO and WP:V. As for first rounders back a long time ago, I am thinking there probably would have been articles written for them as well to pass, but I haven't personally gone looking. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL entry draft was a different animal in the 1960s; before 1969, many players were signed by NHL clubs as teenagers or even as pre-teens, thus making the talent pool very slender. For instance, in that 1965 draft you cite, the closest thing to a substantive NHL player in that was Pierre Bouchard ... but among Bouchard's agemates were Bobby Orr, Rene Robert, Mickey Redmond, Guy Lapointe, Glenn Resch, Walt Tkaczuk and Garry Unger, the likes of whom would've dominated the draft had they been subjected to it. Beyond that, you had anomalies such as Montreal's right to select up to two Quebecois players as prior selections in lieu of their normal picks. The first genuinely open draft was 1970. Ravenswing 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First round draft picks are generally considered to be notable. Patken4 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question – Supposing he never plays professionally, are the two TSN references enough to warrant inclusion? (The WILX and LSU references are local news; the OHA and OHL merely mention his name with no coverage.) In other words, if this was a player drafted in 1990 who never played any profession hockey, would two brief articles (from a single author and single publication) that boil down to "scouts are interested in this guy" convince you that the person is notable today? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the point. The point of notability criteria, either explicit or consensus-driven, is that hitting one or more is a qualifier, whether or not others are met. Leveille may indeed never play professional hockey, but no one advocating Keep claims that as a reason to do so. We claim that he does so by reason of being a first round draft choice, and that remains. Ravenswing 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he passes [[WP:HOCKEY/PPF] but not WP:N (based on the references currently in the article). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does pass WP:N based on the references present. There is nothing in WP:N that says local references are no good. The papers are both independant from him which is all that is required. And both are considered reliable. Nevermind the national TV station and website which is oen of the biggest hockey media organizations in the world. Really there is no case for claiming he doesn't pass WP:N. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for what its worth I just picked the first two articles that popped up in google with decent coverage about him. I could probably find non-local ones if necessary as well. First rounders are generally profiled in magazines like the hockey news and on stations like TSN. All of which are acceptable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noob tube[edit]

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

Twice prodded article; I placed 1st PROD and removed the 2nd, replacing it with this AfD. PROD rationales were: (1) WP:NEO; (2) No real content, no references, dubious notability I42 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the editor who placed the second PROD, my views on the matter are pretty clear. The article has many problems, from notability to lack of sources, but the biggest one for me is that it's lacking in any semblance of encyclopedic value. It may deserve a mention in Urban Dictionary (has one), but not here. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:N --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above but with Comment - PROD tags are not supposed to be placed on twice, even if they are removed in bad faith... Blodance (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. Wasn't aware of the first when I applied the second. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure gamers term not worthy of an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, particularly WP:NEO. —DoRD (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exceedingly minor slang term that apparently applies to a single game, article is apparently an excuse for the author to complain about the mechanics of a certain weapon in said game. Ludicrously unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, it's a pretty common term that applies to First Person Shooters in general rather than to a single game or even a specific weapon. As the article, without sources, suggests otherwise, there's not much point in keeping it around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Sender[edit]

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

This is the guy who designed the Barack Obama O-shaped campaign logo (this one). He does indeed have a decent amount of news coverage (though a surprisingly large amount of the GNews archive was false positives, like the Sol Sender who was killed in an Indiana bus crash in 1955). However, unless I'm missing some significant coverage not related to the logo, this seems to me like a pretty clear BLP1E, where all his notability derives from one thing he once designed for someone else, and he is otherwise a low-profile individual. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Glenfarclas, pretty clear BLP1E. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think 1E is so clear-cut when the one event is the creation of a work that's significant enough, for example writing To Kill a Mockingbird or designing the London tube map. The logo might not be an achievement of the same scale but Frieze features it in a round up of visual culture in 2008 [41]. There's an interview in the online edition of The New York Times [42]. An albeit passing reference in a book [43]. An online account of the designer's awards also supports WP:CREATIVE [44].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, and I'm not sure whether I'm meant to weigh in, since I created the page in the first place, but looking at the arguments here, I'm on the fence and leaning slightly towards keep. I did check the notability guidelines before I created the article, and Sender certainly seems to meet the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE: 1. Sender's work on the Obama logo is widely cited in the graphic design community; 2. Similarly, the design of the logo is considered a significant departure from previous presidential campaign identities; 3. There have been multiple mentions in periodicals such as the New York Times, as well as trade publications; 4. The logo is featured in the most recent edition of the textbook "Designing Brand Identity" by Alina Wheeler and in the forthcoming book "Designing Obama". On the other hand, it's definitely true that Sender is known only for one thing; however the guideline for BLP1E doesn't seem to provide much of a bright line for determining whether "the event is significant" and whether "the individual's role within it is substantial". It seems pretty clear that Sender's role in the development of the logo was substantial. Is the logo itself significant event to warrant inclusion? From the point-of-view of the graphic design world, I lean toward yes. From the point-of-view of the general encyclopedia population, I guess I don't know. --Gotophilk (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. To my thinking, the issue is that although Sender designed a well-known logo, there's really not much to say about him beyond that—as the article currently reflects. There's already an article about the logo, and Sender's role in creating it is well covered. Is there anything else about his biography that needs to be contained in an encyclopedia of global scope? You're right that the logo is significantly covered in secondary cources, but that doesn't mean anything about Sender's life is covered in secondary sources; it's not as though he's suddenly become independently notable. Maybe redirecting his name to Obama logo makes the most sense (a merge would be unnecessary because the relevant info is already there). Thanks for your reply-- Glenfarclas (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I find this persuasive.--Gotophilk (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ethicoaestheticist's good research as above. This information[45] is significant and is not included in the logo article (nor in the Sol Sender article at the moment). It reinforces independent notability. Ty 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist, seems particularly significant to me...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phibion Nyamudeza[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. Searching Google Scholar I find an article cited by 15 others but this was co-authored with several others (in fact his name does not appear as an author or editor in catalogues), his other publications have a trivial number of citations. Google News gets no matches and a more generalized search shows nothing to establish notability through wide public recognition. This page reads as a résumé and has little promise of being turned into an appropriate article that will meet the guidance of WP:BLP.

He has co-authored [Syers, John Keith; Nyamudeza, Phibion; Institute, International Water Management (2001), The sustainable management of vertisols, CABI, ISBN 9780851994505 {{citation}}: Missing |author3= (help)] but this is a collection of conference proceedings and so is unlikely to demonstrate his impact on the field. Ash (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his notability or impact cannot be proven. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as an academic (he's not even an academic anymore according to the entry) and not notable as a manager at an accounting/consulting firm. Two non-notable activities do not add up to make one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The notability cannot be proven unless any award, prize or distinction is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PriceWaterhouseCoopers keeps the records of its employees as secrets so a search on the firm's website will not point Dr. Nyamudeza as their employee. However this site "http://www.linkedin.com/pub/phibion-nyamudeza/17/685/481" will point out that indeed Dr. Nyamudeza is employed at PriceWaterhouseCoopers as a Consultant. Anyone can contact PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Harare and be told that Dr. Nyamudeza is one of their Consultants, which in itself is sufficient proof, according to the Policy, that Phibion Nyamudeza should be kept. Also a simple google search will reveal that the man is of impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potipha (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not express your opinion multiple times in an AfD discussion. If you wish to clarify a point you can add a separate dated comment to your original opinion or add a new comment and mark it clearly (Comment). See WP:GOODARG for examples.—Ash (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Linkedin fails to meet WP:ELNO #10, it also fails the self-published sources guidance and was removed on this basis.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect, the above argument (the article should be kept because his employer will vouch) is nonsense. WP:PROF seems the closest fit, since he's a scientist and since the article lists publications. However, GS shows an h-index of at most only 4. Also, there are no obvious notable awards, distinguished titles, or anything else that would satisfy the criteria in WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Agricola44, there is nothing to show passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe WP:PROF for the notibility of academics is satisfied in the entry in that Dr. Nyamudeza's 'research has made significant impact in [His] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources' presented in the same article
- Potipha (talk · contribs), please do not express your opinion multiple times in an AfD discussion and remember to sign off your contributions. Ash (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any of the categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7, blanked by creator Closedmouth (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vichay Phommachan[edit]

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

Actor/singer with no valid claim to notability. Article de-prodded by creator (who uses same name as subject). No sources, no released singles. Only claim to notability is that subject was the first deaf person who auditioned for American Idol, but apparently did not make it on the show. Delete. Crusio (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:MUSICBIO Nancy ^talk 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Burkhardt[edit]

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

I speedied this, which the author then detagged, but on second thought I think I should put this here anyway. This is a Bollywood actor who's appeared on one movie, so I really don't think he can meet WP:ENT's guideline of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." GNews turns up two mentions of a sentence or two in articles about the movie he was in, and beyond that I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. By and large I don't nominate Bollywood-type film articles (or Thai fims, etc.) since I don't know how to evaluate what I find, but this one seemed pretty clear-cut, and when I searched his name in Hindi I got . . . well, not significant coverage. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:ENT --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon for this young actor. One role and lack of coverage fails notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one film so far and that too in a supporting role. doesn't meet WP:ENT.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Mamić[edit]

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

Hoax, created by the user whose sole [undeleted] contribution is this. Ante Mamić is not listed in KK Split official website. Google search in Croatian does not yield any significant results: [46]; in English, it reveals only wikipedia and its mirrors. [47]. The author is apparently on a hoax-vandalism mission [48]; blocking and/or warning would be in order. No such user (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that Ante Mamić meets WP:ATHLETE. I didn't find any evidence in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player does not seem to exist. Anyone who plays for KK Split would have some Google presence. Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abarat#Islands of the Abarat. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idjit[edit]

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

One entry on this dab page is a sort of word definition, the other an obscure reference to a novel, hardly enough to justify this page's existence. Wouldn't object to a redirect though. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abarat (as proposed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Idjit). Idiot article does not mention "Idjit". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abarat#Islands of the Abarat. When I Googled idjit the main references that came up were for it meaning idiot, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is no discussion of the word 'idjit' in the 'idiot' article. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sency[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance (a lot of blog entries). Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has some coverage in SEO and tech blogs, e.g.[49], but not in the reliable tech media. Fences&Windows 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This site has a 6 page rank, is a top 100k site in the US - and it is growing steadily. Plus, the real time web is one of the most talked about topics in the internet industry right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.221 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) — 76.94.16.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Unfortunately none of this supports Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does establish notability for a website if not traffic and page ranking?

Comment – As described above, see WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this search engine. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the wikipedia standard for a website article simply or primarily having news or press coverage? It seems to me that press coverage is a poor standard of notability. Actual use of the website IE traffic and page ranking is, by nature of the actual purpose of any website, a significant measurement.

Comment – Unfortunately, popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. Also see WP:POPULARPAGE for a discussion of the fallacy of page view stats in determining notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Twomey[edit]

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

Delete. This article fails WP:BIO and, if he's still alive, WP:BLP as well. I am unable to find reliable third party sources to corroborate any of the information presented. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting subject. The content is verifiable with various reliable sources, e. g. this article in the Chicago Tribune, another article in the Schenectady Gazette, Anchorage Daily News called him the Heifetz of the Hands. I think the offline search in magazines and newspapers from the 1970s could be more useful. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you finding these magazines? JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic suitable for Google News Archive search. The subject was known in the USA in the 1970s and a lot of US magazines and newspapers from that time are archived there. It isn't perfect, but sometimes it is helpful. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last two articles you are linking to are the exact same, are they not? I'm not entirely convinced that GNG is "clearly established" as Wolfowitz suggests, but I'm trying to give this the benefit of the doubt. JBsupreme (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I fixed the link here and in the article. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Vejvančický.--Howard|SF 12:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage meetng GNG clearly established. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Hussein Abdul Hamid[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, simply being a chief operating officer does not mean you're notable. there is not significant indepth coverage about him. some of these articles merely verify his existence. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For me, this is a tricky one. He's arguably not the subject of any coverage, as WP:GNG requires. He's merely cited in news articles on various subject matter. He does get a mention here, but it is only an entry in details of his company. I'd lean towards delete per application of WP:GNG as I see no reason to depart from its objective standard. But not strongly, as this guy clearly holds and has held very senior business and quasi-public positions. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (Joshua Tree Rules)[edit]

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

Not a notable cribbage variation, see e.g. at Google. Not mentioned in the sources cited, not found in any reliable sources. Possibly a case for WP:NFT. Author contested my PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My attempt to AfD this edit-conflicted with the nominator's. I too was unable to find any sources at all for this, so it appears to fail WP:V. Deor (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the link it claims as a source doesn't even mention it. Probably a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt rising[edit]

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

Non-notable future novel, completely fails WP:NBOOK. Author removed another editor's speedy tag, and I'm willing to accept that the article is not entirely blatant advertising, since it does discuss the author and plot. Author contested my PROD, so here we are. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article does not meet the criteria for a notable future novel, but don't you all think we might appear biased to remove this considering the tense political nature of the novel? Maybe the potential for a lawsuit? --SonofLiberty1 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — SonofLiberty1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats and immediately retract or clarify this before you get blocked. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL too. Lawsuit? On what possible grounds? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to clarify my comment. I am not threatening any type of lawsuit; I was simply pointing out the potential for one. However, based on what I see here, it appears there's nothing to worry about. In regard to the basis for a potential lawsuit, I thought it might appear discriminatory to delete this due to its political nature. But since the author clearly didn't meet the requirements for a legitimate article, I presume he wouldn't have a legal case. Thank you and I apologize for any confusion.--SonofLiberty1 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — SonofLiberty1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. No indication of notability; not even published yet. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 634[edit]

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

Really minor incident and fails WP: AIRCRASH...No injuries (even minor), no damage to the aircraft (only the engine will likey need to be repaired), etc. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fairly minor incident, for now looks like a WP:NOT#NEWS case. If six - eight months from now there are still examples of continued coverage, creating an article might be appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor occurrence not noteworthy other than a trivial mention in the news. Blodance (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' ~~without prejudice for re-creation. There is a possibility that the aircraft will be declared a write-off, which would then possibly raise the accident above the notability threshold. At the moment,~~ the incident doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. It is covered adequately elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed as minor damage to engine only, wing undamaged. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if it fails WP:AIRCRASH that is good enough for me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, minor incident. TouLouse (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor damage just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too minor to be included. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:AIRCRASH. Wikipedia is not place to tell if something happens to an airplane so that it COULD have crashed... No reason for own article if landing gear fails. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor incident. Not news, nobody will care/remember this even a month from now. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not showing any signs of notability to qualify for an article by itself. It's really only relevant on United's article. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely a blip on the radar. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing significant about this flight. It doesn't seem to have prompted any fundamental changes in any kind of aviation safety. --Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Looks to be snowing. RadioFan (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to draw attention to wikinews:Talk:United Airlines flight makes emergency landing at Newark Airport for further reasons why this was a non-event. Sure, it was news, but that's of no value here. WP:AIRCRASH failure. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip Studios[edit]

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

A 6 employee game developer that is developing an, apparently popular, iphone app/game.

The game they made, paper toss, perhaps is notable (it has a page of its own, along with some forks, which are of questionable notability), but that doesn't inherit to the parent company.

The news search reveals 2 sources in the past month, both of which talk about the game. Lots of social networking presence for the company, but not a lot of third party rs links. Shadowjams (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I just did a Google search and there are lots of game reviews for the games the company developed, as well as reviews for the company itself. Paper Toss, Paper Toss: World Tour, and Ragdoll Blaster are very popular iPhone apps. This company could have potential in the future. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 05:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post those links because my google search showed a bunch of promotional marketing by the company, and then 2 google news hits, that I mention above. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Just so many reviews and news for the company and its apps. The company is certainly noteable. If you need more links, I can find more. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 14:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, they don't just develop a 'game', they develop multiple games. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of the links supplied by Nerdy above, this Venture Beat interview/piece and this Pocket Gamer interview cover WP:N IMO. There's also this 'new year' interview on Pocket Gamer. Should be OK. Someone another 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is pitiful, but it stands to reason that a publisher with multiple notable games is itself notable. That said, I'd probably vote to delete or merge if it isn't fixed within a reasonable amount of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article is fairly poor but the developer is notable and has a lot of reliable sources to back it up. I Smashed TALK! 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM advertising controversy[edit]

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

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM advertising controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management[edit]

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

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Controversy[edit]

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

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, take to WP:RfD -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy[edit]

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

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion AfD is the wrong place to discuss redirects. – Eastmain (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An angel fell through my window[edit]

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

The article was speedy deleted as {{db-A7}}, recreated by the same author, and appears to fail WP:NBOOK. While the book is indeed real, the only secondary source I could find was a blog. The official description used on bookseller websites claims it is a "Quizilla Mibba and Wattpad classic", but I couldn't find any sources backing it up. Liqudluck✽talk 04:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't mistake the first book in the series, "Snapped", for similarly titled books by other authors- the author of this series is listed as "brntpopcorn". Liqudluck✽talk 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for (probably self-published) books. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be self-published and I can't find any sources that would support notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Colton[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy notability. Article was prodded before, working as a crew member on some TV shows doesn't make someone notable and there are zero references establishing notability. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much other than an interview on a Family Guy fansite.[58] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 9 months and no notability established via sources. DP76764 (Talk) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to satisfy WP:CREATIVE due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombax (software)[edit]

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

I can't find any significant independent coverage of this Mac OS software. In fact, +bombax "mac os" -wikipedia returns only 104 GHits. There's this page from ciol.com, which looks like it could maybe be a tech news site, but as it turns out the entire article is just this press release from PRWeb. Fails notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a genuine software app with some niche potential. The notability at present is questionable. The hype around this software (still in beta) seems to have begun in the past week. This thread [59] clarified some aspects for me. Annette46 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would appear to be software in beta, and describes itself as a Mac OS X web server and web application framework that allows the creation of a special type of Cocoa application called a "BxApp" to run as a web application by transparently interfacing it with a modified nginx web server through FastCGI. Google News, Scholar, Books: all blanks; Google groups discussion boards would not appear to be reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't seen any substantial change in the article since I posted the original Nomination for Speedy Deletion that would make me think this is a notable piece of software. It may well develop into one, but coverage is slim and it's very niche. Bagheera (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No signficant coverage in secondary sources as far as I can tell. Pcap ping 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GVMC Dutch Bungalow[edit]

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

No indication of notability in that it fails to show significant coverage in multiple independent sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient evidence of notability in reliable sources. To the extent this is mentioned elsewhere, it is in passing or on a local site as news of a building renovation. Should be mentioned if at all on a page about the Visakha Museum or the Maritime Museum of Visakhapatnam, whichever one the building actually houses. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Visakha Museum - A 150-plus year old colonial era building does have historic value. Frontline (U.S. TV series) calls it "locally famous" [60] (in a city of over 1.3 million, "local" doesn't mean a tiny village). The Hindu has written bout its preservation efforts and difficulties.[61] While there isn't much written about the bungalow itself, the museum does have more coverage, from both Frontline and other sources like The Tribune and The Hindu Business Line. [62][63]--Oakshade (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, "GVMC Dutch Bungalow" is a term made up for this article because "Dutch Bungalow" was considered "too general." Since it sounds like Dutch Bungalow actually is what they call it, I could support a redirect from that term, or from that term with an appropriate parenthetical, but not from the invented "GVMC" title. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aladna[edit]

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

Although this looks like a plausible article, it ~~looks like~~ seems that the Aladna is just completely made up. None of the ten references given mention it (or mandon, or nyolin), and my other searches find nothing. The author is also responsible for contributing the made-up religion Taakatism, which is itself at AfD here. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to nomming this! It's definitely in the same league as Taakatism; before tagging as G3, I looked at all 10 refs and not one even remotely mentioned any of the three names. Nothing on Gsearch either to show that this exists. -SpacemanSpiff 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: to add irrelevant references without compunction shall not save articles from destruction. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter nonsense. No relevant Google hits for any of the names, and no such mandolin is sold by Duke of Uke.[64] Fences&Windows 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I guess the page creator (no stranger to Afd [65] or constructive editing [66]) got emboldened after Chapey and the "string" of other south asian luths went undetected. Annette46 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maryse Schembri[edit]

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

Delete, non notable. Seems self promotional Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for this offends our preferences that articles should have sufficient references. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's creator is also its subject, which leads to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI problems; no reliable sources, no verifiability, and only the vaguest assertion of notability. Apparently she just copied her website over, announced that it was her property on the talk page, and left it at that; no real attempt to deal with the WP:COPYRIGHT issues that were the first problem noted but certainly not the last. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess she was too busy "enjoying that million dollar view" to incorporate significant reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, per WP:CSD G4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Hernandez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Twice previously deleted article continously added back by disruptive editor. Non notable new soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbybass[edit]

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

No RS, no assertion of notability, appears autobiographical. PROD challenged. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Twitter and MySpace do not reliable sources replace. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He apparently is part of the team that produced Jay Sean's song, "Down". However, I can not find significant coverage for Bobbybass in independent, reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will leave the renaming and merging as possible editor decisions via consensus and talk page discussion. :) Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethernet Way versus IEEE Way[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO and its all WP:OR. As an aside the title fails WP:TITLE KelleyCook (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in horrible shape. And its current title came about due to a move that probably shouldn't have happened. The article was originally titled "5-4-3 rule" and likely should go back to that title. [67], and [68] show this to be a networking design concept that is notable. Note that the current article also looks like a copyvio of the book source that I found. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum: - forgot to mention that this is also known as the "5-4-3-2-1 rule" as seen here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a "How To", nor is it original research since you can easily find mention of this in computer literature everywhere. Dream Focus 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite, and move article appropriately, since the topic is extensively covered in RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not in the present form. See the talk page for a comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article is relevant to the history of computation, networking, and the internet, but there is so very little information here. I'm sure a better home for it can be found. - JustinWick (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Wphq. Notable principles and rules of thumb have articles here, see Category:Rules of thumb for instance; that's not what WP:NOTHOWTO is about. Discussion about merger should take place on its talk page; given the large number of separate articles this has [69], [70], [71] I'm inclined to think a separate is justified, but a merge in some an article about network topology, could also work [72]. Pcap ping 11:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per discussion above. Use one of the bold text names in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Brady[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Caroline Brady (2nd nomination)

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

previously deleted article by disruptive new editor, non notable soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least pending review. There's something odd going on here. This isn't a second AFD, the recent deletion was a copyright speedy. That may not have been correct; it's unusual to see an article that was around as long as this one wasto be deleted that way. The logs indicate a history of vandalism, and I think someone with access to the deleted version should check to see if there was a salvageable noncopyvio version in the edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be merged somewhere so we don't have to try and figure out if it's notable or not? Polarpanda (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central character on a major network show for 25+ years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNotability issues aside the article at the very least needs to be heavily copyedited and referenced / cited. There are no citations in the entire article and the only references are soap opera blogs and IMDB neither of which pass muster for notability. Delete article and recreate a section under the soap opera's main page or the brady family article is the best solution in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Starblind. Edward321 (talk)
Keep key character to the soap opera days of our lives. Matriarch of the Brady Family, regular cast member since 1983, she deserves her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [REDACTED] 03:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the article. I added more references, all the information is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Luv[edit]

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

Non-notable person based on WP:PORNBIO. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty large filmography, but only a couple with her name in them (but one interactive), one of them screened at the Erotic Heritage Museum, did a Brady spoof movie Christopher Knight commented on, and one (maybe only one) magazine cover, Panty Play January 2005, some online interviews, some personal appearances, seemingly no awards, overall doesn't seem to have the kind of coverage needed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Virtually all sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancap Productions[edit]

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

Originally tagged for CSD under A7, however, I am retracting the tag based on the creator's updates and talk page comments. However, I think this might require wider scrutiny in terms of general notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:RS and WP:ORG, thanks to a surplus of coverage in the Canadian media: [73]. The article needs better referencing. Warrah (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The notability seems to be established because it is one of Canada's major corporations. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Beran[edit]

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

While Beran's deeds are laudable, there are over 22,000 recipients of the honor of "Righteous among the Nations". Surely not all of them are notable solely for this honor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not enough information or distinction for notability , but I want to point out that there is no limit to the size of Wikipedia. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are many heroes within every tragedy. I have no doubt that this individual qualifies as a hero, but in addition to the notability criteria, I would rather respect the privacy of the individual. A simple name listing in the article of the award is sufficient; if the individual is discussed in other reliable sources then I would reevaluate but we should respect individual privacy as well as notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced BLP that doesn't meet GNG. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I salute the subject's actions, but noble does not mean notable by Wikipedia standards. Edward321 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision World[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable website. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing insufficient for notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Copeman[edit]

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

This is basically a CV / autobiog. I am bringing it to AfD because I cannot find good independent sources that cover Philip Copeman as an individual, only news hits are short quotes from him to do with software. He previously upped his role in the TurboCASH article with this edit. He seems to be a very good self promoter so sources will need careful vetting. His book God's First Fisherman is self-published. Polargeo (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayttm[edit]

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

Delete. Ayttm, or "Are you talking to me?" is one of many many free instant messaging clients available today. I am unable to find anything particularly notable about this one. The most substantial thing I could find was in the book "Deploying Linux on the desktop‎" which has a passing blurb about it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There’s a lot of mentions of Ayttm in the press linked at the bottom of the page — I wonder why the nom doesn’t consider any of these links notable? Also, it’s GPL, and, yes, that is very cool. Samboy (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two Indian full-lenght articles have tint of national pride [74] The Tribune, [75] Express Computer but they are coverage nonetheless. Also appeared in a round-ups IMPlanet, Unixreview, Deccan Herald. All that plus blurbs in two books: [76], [77] appear enough to me. Also, this the successor of Everybuddy (mentioned in the article, but not maintained since 2002), which has coverage of its own, although I'm not going list it here because ayttms' own coverage is enough. Pcap ping 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This nomination, like a number of software noms by the same few editors, seems outright crazy and WP:POINTy. This software is cited in multiple independent sources, indicating notability. Moreover, the tone of the article is generally neutral, factual and informative. Any moderate improvements to tone or content are just normal editing. LotLE×talk 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Make that three mentions in books. The book Open Source Ecosystems has a case study on the architecture of three messengers, one of them being ayttm [78]. --Siddheshp (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ayttm is default messaging client in Puppy Linux [79], which is listed 8th on Distrowatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.170.92 (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 24 Google news hits, and some of them seem pretty significant/reliable. Seems like it's valid for inclusion in my book. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Angel Hypothesis[edit]

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

Non-notable book published through a vanity publisher. I can find no significant independent coverage of this work at all. Also nominating the new article on the book's protagonist. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources writing about this book. The sources in the article aren't what I would deem reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Deletion-There are reliable sources noted. The publisher, Xlibris, has a Wikipedia page. Can't independently written novels that have received national reviews have a Wikipedia page? How were the sources deemed unreliable? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you research them? The book has been reviewed nationally, and are considered very reliable and respected LGBT sources. Are they unreliable because they are LGBT sources? If so, that's a problem. If this is not the case, please explain how you deemed them unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk)
- Comment' - Xlibris is a self-publisher. That means that anybody who pays money to them will get their book published. As such, being published by Xlibris does not establish notability. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact checking an editorial oversight. I don't see any of teh references provided meeting this. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Contest Deletion - Yes, Xlibris is a self-publisher. The problem is: "The sources in the article aren't what I would deem reliable." The Gay Independent Writer is not a reliable national source? Patricia Nell Warren wrote in the issue this book was reviewed in. This is not a reliable source and not significant coverage? Can you tell me why? Why do some articles have much less or no "reliable" sources than this one, but they're not nominated for deletion. I just find your arguments interesting for a book that's been used in LGBT courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Contest Deletion - It's interesting the way this article has been targeted by Wikipedia "workers", including Moonriddengirl replacing a positive review with a negative one. Why is this article being targeted like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Moonriddengirl (who seems to have been concerned by the overly long quotation), but for my part I "targeted" these articles only because the subjects are just not notable. I mean, there's absolutely no need for a separate article on Tysin Nagel (check the Google hits on him, for instance), and after my PROD there was removed I considered whether to suggest merging him into the book's article, but ended up concluding that it did not meet WP:NBOOK in any way. If you're worried about anti-gay bias here, check today's Articles for Deletion log, I assure you people suggest the deletion of everything under the sun. I hope this helps explain my thinking-- Glenfarclas (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: You asked "Why do some articles have much less or no 'reliable' sources than this one, but they're not nominated for deletion[?]" I hear you, but check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short of WP:NB lacking reliable sources. No - Independent Gay Writer is not a reliable source (The Gay Independent Writer even less so) Lame Name (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Islam - Ridda Sufism[edit]

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

There is already a detailed article about Apostasy in Islam. This article seems to cover one minor aspect of that topic. A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as this is an unlikely search term. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be covered in Apostasy in Islam and/or Sufism. At present this is an unreferenced and unverifiable stub with little useful content beyond dictionary definition. Article is also poorly named so leaving a redirect there is not useful. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ThisGirl. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThisGirl Discography[edit]

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - see my comment here on the worthiness of the band to survive in WP. The articles for this group need some work and a few sources can be dug up with a little work. However, I admit that there is little to go on for this particular discography page, especially under the protocols of the WP:DISCOGRAPHY project (of which I am a member). The information in this discog article can be merged to the artist page, which I recommend keeping based on my comment on the AfD over there. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ThisGirl per Doomsdayer520. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep. The band are notable, so a discography is appropriate. Merge may be best.--Michig (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ThisGirl per above. The band appears notable, so I don't believe deleting this would be the best option. That said, this page is completely unsourced (except for two YouTube videos), and there is very little material to source, as no albums or songs appear to have charted anywhere. The group has few releases to their credit, and since they split up four years ago, that figures to remain the case. I feel that a merge to the artist's main article seems most appropriate here. Gongshow ^Talk 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Outline of Sudan. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sudan-related topics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. This was last discussed back in September 2008 and the result was no consensus. It should probably be noted that Portal:Sudan has also since been deleted. I do still believe that this list is not helpful as a navigational aid, as it is simply too broad a subject with the potential to list thousands upon thousands of different articles. This fails WP:LIST and lacks both prose and proper sources, not that it would help the scope problem. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would some of these thousands upon thousands of extra articles include? Polarpanda (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that most of this could be incorporated into Outline of Sudan. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too unwieldy to be useful or to be properly maintained. Tag {{historic}}, Move to Talk:Outline_of_Sudan/List of Sudan-related topics and redirect to Outline_of_Sudan. The outline is superior for all purposes. Note the recent "outlines vs lists" battles (WT:Outlines]], which seem to have gone cold, and, as per User_talk:The_Transhumanist#Heya, an apparent need for software development before this aspect of the project can take off. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of Sudan too broad to be an appropriate topic for a list. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any relevant information to Outline of Sudan. Both articles are about the same general topic, and we don't need duplicates. The goal of outlines is to provide a general overview of a topic and the goal of lists is to provide an encyclopedic investigation into a topic. This topic is too broad for an encyclopedic investigation, hence my preference for the outline. Them From Space 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the outline article, which is about the same topic. A list of all article related to this would be too long and unnecessary, as there are categories for this purpose. However, the deletion of Portal:Sudan doesn't appear to be relevant here, and the consensus there was not that such a page should not exist, but that the page being discussed was not suitable for the English Wikipedia. snigbrook (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThisGirl[edit]

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and improve) I will have to disagree with this AfD. I think the band achieved some slight notability by playing at large venues and associating with more famous bands (though I realize that others may disagree with me on this). A more targeted Google search also reveals some reviews of various albums and performances. I will add some text and references to the article to help it out a bit. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Kittybrewster. Per the protocols around here, it would help if you said something more that just "not notable" when starting an AfD. Did you do a targeted Google search or an inspection of guidelines like WP:BAND or WP:GNG? If so, please add more on how you came to your decision on notability or the lack thereof. Sincerely, Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have made several additions to the article, which hopefully will help with the notability question. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this group meets any of the WP:BAND criteria. Opening for other, better known bands does not convey notability: it is not contagious. It says they were signed by Drowned In Sound, but Drowned In Sound is a webzine, not a major or prominent independent label. — Gwalla | Talk 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage found from a Google search: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], although some are not great sources. A search on the News UK archive brings up further coverage from the Coventry Evening Telegraph, The Sun, and The Independent, and they were shortlisted for a Kerrang! Music Award as Best British Newcomer (several sources).--Michig (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Drowned in Sound successfully ran an independent record label through the Silentway/Simply Red Group of London [86] and released the groups' 2nd full length album. This band were heavily featured in the print press of the era and have since been cited by many modern music artists as heavy influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.19.125 (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Continued merge discussion on the article's talk page would be encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uno (ThisGirl album)[edit]

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and improve) - see my comment here. The articles for this group need some work and a few sources can be dug up with a little effort. Give it a little time and I'll see what improvements I can make. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have made several additions to the article, which hopefully will help with the notability question. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose the wager was that no one would read the sources cited: "Whatever this band are on, I don't think I want any" (MusicOMH), "catastrophic lack of imagination makes for a joyless listen" (Gigwise). A lukewarm review from a self-published fanzine (Vault), one fan who bewails the injustice that thisGIRL was still only playing pubs in 2005 (Sputnik Music), and a bland pre-release announcement by the band's label (Drowned in Sound) round out the citations in the article. This last primary source was added by user:Doomsdayer520, "hopefully [to] help with the notability question," so it seems doubtful he can produce better sources with which to improve the article. Still it's a very funny article, a backhanded compliment to a favorite pub band. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did assume good faith. I assumed that you did your best to find reliable sources, that you added the best you found to the article, but the best source available was the pre-release announcement by the record label. That's why I don't believe that this article can be improved. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to the band's discography. If it can be expanded, all well and good. If not, the tracklisting can be incorporated into the band's discography.--Michig (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Varde[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very popular Argentinian actress in a very popular Argentinian movie. Reject Google News criteria.--Howard|SF 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment – So you are saying that she does not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. You do know that popularity does not equal notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two minor roles fails to satisfy WP:ENT, and there is nothing available indicating that the subect might meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtacrux[edit]

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

Very non-notable student radio program. I can find no remotely significant information, setting aside two or three spurious references in medical journals. My PROD was contested by a SPA IP. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majin[edit]

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

Consists only of a list of examples of usage of a term in fictional works. Does not assert or display notability. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that, without the list of cultural references, it would just be a dictionary definition. Maybe that's how it should be tagged. Deb (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild at wiktionary with just the definitions. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Wiktionary already has an entry for 魔神. I am hesitant on creating one for 魔人 though because, while instantly understandable, it is a fictional term created for anime; it is apparently not listed in any large J-J dictionary. But citations could convince me otherwise. Bendono (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Association of Dental Students[edit]

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

Already deleted once due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADS, however that was early 2006. I can't see any news or books which mention this organisation using its full name. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Malta Dental Students was a duplicate; I've redirected it to this article now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil T. Patterson[edit]

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

Contested prod. Martial arts expert. Notability is asserted, but not established through third-party reliable sources. Google returns nothing of substance. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of references are provided. In addition, those web sources have their url. When you click on any of the urls, you are taken to the web source being referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiJuShiHo (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that they all qualify as primary sources and are therefore inadequate to show notability. What you should look for is third-party reliable sources, that is, the kind the USEWF cannot get any changes made to without contacting their attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I understand what you mean....a lightbulb moment. Only three of the sources are hard copy published texts...even so they are vanity publications. I fear that I would not be able to find any sources outside of the few that I reference. I will see if I can find other sources on the topic. Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiJuShiHo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google did return references, including two in Black Belt, which I've added to the article. The man was commended by the governor of Tenessee for bringing karate to Tennessee, so I don't doubt that other sources are available in print. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article asserts that "Patterson was a master equal in stature to American karate pioneers Robert Trias and Ed Parker." If this turns out to be an accurate assessment, I would consider the subject to be notable. Given that it is a new contributor working on the article, I advocate keeping the article at least until a reasonable amount of work can be done on it. Janggeom (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "He served as both the State Representative and the Regional Director for the United States Karate Association, serving also on that organization's Board of Research. In addition, he became one of the most recognized and respected consultants to federal and state law enforcement agencies, lecturing and instructing on Police Defensive Tactics at the Tennessee Law Enforcement Academy, and serving for 40 years until his retirement as Director of the Arson and Fraud Division for the Department of Commerce and Insurance for the state of Tennessee"([87]), suggests notability. Icewedge (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure, RESULT Speedy Delete A7 ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason flick[edit]

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

I can not find any reliable sources to support the claims of notability. Nothing on Omaha Domino Association either. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkin Magalona[edit]

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

nothing in gnews [88]. only the IMDB listing proves his acting roles but no evidence these were significant roles to meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if or when his career grows... though a few like GMA News are suggestive, its just too soon. Perhaps Filipino Wikipedians may have more luck in searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5 by NuclearWarfare. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kronenberg[edit]

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

Article about a child actor with only minor roles and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not to be confused with David Cronenberg. This one seems unnotable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he passes the test. He's been in a few feature films. I fixed the imdb link, by the way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no doubt that he has appeared in notable productions, but none of these were "significant roles" (as per WP:ENT), and there seems to be no third-party coverage of him or his roles in reliable sources. (There are articles that mention "David Kronenberg", but these are other people, often misspellings of the name of the director David Cronenberg.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete roles appear to be only very minor bit parts... claiming that appearing as a baby in One Night At McCool's was a "main role" is silly bordering on downright false. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been speedy deleted by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) for reasons unrelated to this AFD (it was created by a banned user), so it seems the discussion is moot. --RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbridge Academic Programs[edit]

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

I can find no significant, independent coverage of this organization, and see no other signs of encyclopedic notability. Having notable guest speakers does not make a group notable by association. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is in Peterson's [89] ; of course the info is derived from themselves, but so is everything else in that widely used manual. It's also in other apparently independent sources--see the GBooks result above. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Peterson's [90] and other other publications [91] of respected organizations. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As User:DGG mentioned, the info in these publications is derived from the organisation itself. Merely posting a googlebook search link and palming it off for notability establishes nothing. The majority of the GBook search results are Peteresen in some form or another - and the publications should be reliable not the organisations behind the publications. Why is this organisation notable ? I have no quarrel with (and considerable respect for) User:DGG who openly declares his biases/POV on his User page ("keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion"), but I can't say the same for you as yet because your past editing history is hidden. Annette46 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. No Notability whatsoever. Even the "Petersen" ref (Summer Fun Travel ??) exposes how shallow and non-notable this organisation is. User:Werner_Heisenberg is a one day old account with an illuminating edit history. Annette46 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors who've accepted the invitation to contribute without registration often face such accusations... Werner Heisenberg (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wondered as to the reliability of the Peterson's-related book results, so I read through the early pages of one of the search results to find their editorial policy[92]. While the entries in their books are based on the results of questionnaires sent out to program directors, that information undergoes editorial review and secondary research by the Peterson's staff and the final entry is written in a standard format by Peterson's rather than simply being a reproduced press release (which is what I was concerned about). They also actively invite feedback earlier in the book, so I'm satisfied that, in addition to being a widely used source, they are also a reliable source for the supplied information.

A search through Google news archives also returns numerous local news articles, the editors apparently finding it newsworthy that local pupils have passed the entrance criteria and been accepted for these programs, or received awards while participating in them: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. Apart from being secondary coverage, it's also evidence of the international scope of the organisation's activities, satisfying the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations, which seems to be the best-fitting section at WP:ORG, with the book results and news articles being some evidence for general notability. Holly25 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Glenn Cannon (bassist). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Cannon (bassist)[edit]

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

Non notable. Simple google search plus "bass" reveals primary sources only. Shadowjams (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on Google news to indicate that he passes WP:ENT. I'd be open to considering changing my vote if anyone else succeeds in finding some good sources, but I'm coming up empty. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate I would say userfy but the creator doesn't seem to still be active. Technically he meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO as an active member of Hellion (band) and a former member of Steel Prophet but the page has to be rewritten and I'm not going to !vote keep unless I plan to rewrite it or am reasonably sure that someone else will. Considered WP:ARS but it's been here for two weeks already without hardly any notice. I believe incubation is its only hope. J04n(talk page) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson, Jr[edit]

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

Non-notable former college athlete. Article just appears to be a list of his triple jump records. OCNative (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No reliable sources are able to prove this subject's notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly sourced BLPs are attractive nuisances. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latense[edit]

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

This is an article about a Swedish band that fails WP:Nas it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It also fails WP:BAND because it has not released any hit songs nor has it impacted its genre significantly. I think this squeaks by db-band if only because of the (poorly) sourced statement that the band has received positive reviews. Them From Space 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to demonstrate notability. That reference is no good at all and Google News offers nothing to replace it. Also, no article in the Swedish Wikipedia, which might offer us some references in Swedish. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no resource in the article to confirm the notability. The weblog which belongs to the Swedish band is not a valuable resource and can not be used in the article. Independent resources are needed to confirm the notabality. Zohairani (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by SatyrTN (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A5: Article that has already been transwikied to another project. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belt Tightening[edit]

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

Prod removed by article's creator. This article fails WP:NOTDICT as it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. It lacks sources or any material showing why the subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Also I can't think of any place to suitable redirect this. Them From Space 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - According to this it meets A5. smithers - talk 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. Them From Space 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Thank you! By the way, maybe for the future, you could use this template to help ya out! smithers - talk 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Them From Space 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasco Jamaica[edit]

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

I don't believe that this grouping of companies meets our notability guidelines because they haven't received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage appears to be related to their sponsorship of a non-notable award. Them From Space 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored several references that I had added in April 2008 and which User:Clarifying2009 removed in September 2009. (That editor's contributions were limited to this article.) At this point, I think that the references clearly show notability. - Eastmain (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to keep I'm assuming good faith that the three articles no longer available would satisfy WP:N's significant coverage clause. I'll go ahead and close this because no other delete votes are present. Them From Space 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One of the keep "votes" was issued by a now blocked user. Another comes from an account with previous COI issues. With that in mind, the arguments for deletion appear to be strongly backed up by policy. Although this discussion is somewhat borderline, I think consensus is clear enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris C. Kemp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

COI issues, sources only mention him in passing, sources do not reference the fact being cited, little improvement in 3rd party sources, writing style makes me believe there is some sockpuppetry going on here User:Velvetsmog (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chris Kemp is a well known and respected member of the NASA family, and plays an important role in bringing NASA and the US government into the 21st century. He is a regular speaker at US government cloud computing seminars and leads the government's efforts in cloud standards. (Note: I originally put up his article. After the first nomination for deletion I've worked with the nominator to update the 3rd part sources in this article (e.g. spacenews) so I am a bit surprised its being nominated again). Navarenko (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user is the author of the article, and while not quite a single purpose account, the only other articles they have contributed to are that of the subject's director, their employer and blatant advertising for their primary project. Seems overwhelmingly likely that this is a sockpuppet of the subject themselves. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, here is the result of the first nomination.)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only blogs and passing mentions do not amount to notability this time. (HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.) JBsupreme (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough references to him in Google News: Chris C. Kemp and Chris Kemp NASA to indicate enough coverage for notability purposes. --Jayron32 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center appears to assert notabilty. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center didn't assert notability in the first AfD, according to editors. 76.104.199.0 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which coverage are you referring to specifically? The nominator clearly stated that passing mentions are not really coverage of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about this profile article at spacenews for example? Navarenko (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - yes, he gets plenty of mentions on Google, but the coverage is remarkably trivial - there's virtually nothing that amounts to 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources'. 'Weak' because there are some references nonetheless, perhaps only enough for a stub article. Robofish (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I still believe all of GlassCobra's comments from the original AfD hold: "Kemp is not the CIO of NASA, he's the CIO of one research center that belongs to NASA; quite a large difference. COI concerns, sources only mention him in passing, not significant enough coverage. GlassCobra 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)". How have these been addressed? With references from spacenews? 76.104.199.0 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't think whether he's the CIO of NASA or the CIO of a NASA center has much to do with the relevance of the article. He's an important figure in the Agency and certainly worth having an article on wikipedia. Innovation usually tends to come from the trenches. Navarenko (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning from the previous AfD; as the IP above mentions, the issues from last time have not been addressed. ~~(As an aside, why was this re-brought to AfD instead of deleted by G4?)~~ We should also take borderline BLP concerns into consideration. GlassCobra 14:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Salt per nom, per previous AfD, per various policy violations including verifiability, notability, neutrality, suspected conflicts, possible sockpuppetry, per interference with AfD process (keep vote above), per blatant advertising and per piss taking in general. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamón (card game)[edit]

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

Fake/Hoax. No Google hits, the cited sources proove nothing. See also this discussion at dewiki and this deletion debate. PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be either a hoax or WP:ONEDAY. Nothing on Google news to verify this even exists. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wrote this article back in 2006 about a game which I had been introduced to around a year earlier, and had played numerous times since then (the original revision of the page can be found here). It looks as if a number of people since then have added 'dubious' content such as the section on the world championships. I can vouch that this is a real game, although perhaps it is not an actual Spanish game as I had previously thought. I propose that we keep the article, but remove the 'Strategy', 'History of the Game' and 'The Jamón World Championships' sections and the reference to it being a Spanish game. Ukch (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this is a notable card game. Edward321 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax. Jamón postponed because of the swine flu? Very funny. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kepple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These are the reasons I think this article should be deleted: a) Article has no reliable sources to prove notability b) It seems a bit self-published judging by the fact that one of the references was a facebook page until I removed it c) The only important thing I can see in the page is that this artist won "first place in their annual Tournament Of Flash Artists (TOFA) in 2008". Checking the Tournaments page this means the artist won "$200, and Crysis and Bioshock for the PC." I think this tournament is not notable. I 'll withdraw this AfD if article is covered by 3rd-party sources. If there are any we can work after that to remove peacock terms. Magioladitis (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. —Dark 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, makes internet cartoons which themselves fail WP:WEB. Extremely unlikely any significant coverage in independent reliable sources could possibly exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No serious mentions in reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Alio The Fool 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:GNG - no search results from the NZ Herald, stuff.co.nz, TVNZ. XLerate (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only hits on Google news were for an engagement and an assistant admissions director. Hard to know if it's the same person, and wouldn't meet notability guidelines anyway. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Charles Phu with an {{R from alternate language}} template. The article was no more no less than a translation of its new target. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Чарльз Фу[edit]

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

Not English iBen^discuss/_contribsHow's my driving? 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate and keep. "Not English" is a valid deletion rationale only if an article has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks or more without progress. The Google automated translation suggests a notable architect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have an article on him: Charles Phu. Redirect? Jujutacular ^T · C 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK #2 applies. The previous AfD was closed as keep just 8 days ago, and another AfD right after the requested move discussion did not end in the nominator's preferred outcome (renaming) is forum shopping. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was no consensus to moving the page. I argue that it either be deleted or moved, as it continues to be libelous to a BLP of which very little is known or can be sourced Hoolio9690 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690[reply]

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