Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 July 16 July >

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) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Sonic[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure - but it is not speedy-deletion-ready: almost all of the artists are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster[edit]

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

This whole article, although perhaps well-intentioned, has become a repository for unsourced trivia of the worst kind. There is no encyclopedic treatment or commentary, it's just a list of mentions. At best, select and merge those worthy and sourceable sections to the main article, but meanwhile, this article does Wikipedia no credit. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is notable. For example, see chapter 4 of The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster which is about Images of Chernobyl - Arts and the Public. The rest is a matter of ordinary content editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the wise colonel... Johnfos (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all very well, as long as the article follows such principle. Presently, I doubt that it does. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but trivia in here. An article on this topic may be acceptable if written in prose and compiled through material found in reliable sources which discuss the cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster, but an indiscriminate listing of every element of fiction that Chernobyl has made an impact on is beyond our scope. ThemFromSpace 10:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what used to be called an "...in popular culture" article, and assuming that's what it was named before, then it needs to back to it if kept. At least the "in popular culture" tag was honest, but "Cultural impact of..." is pretentious and misleading and b.s. This has nothing at all to do with any impact that the Chernobyl disaster may have had upon the way people lived afterward. Certainly, it did have a major cultural impact upon the residents of Pripyat and other cities that had to be evacuated, but the sophisticated title doesn't change the fact that this is a list of comic books, TV shows and movies that either have a Chernobyl setting or mention it, in other words, an "in popular culture" article. One could rename a rerun of Hee Haw as "Country Music Comedy Retrospective", but it would still be Hee Haw. If kept, name it something realistic. Mandsford 14:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To be valid, arguments for deletion must be based on the notability of the subject itself. The supposed inadequacy of the content of current version of the article may be an argument for other changes, not for deletion.--Sum (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the problem with an article is the title, rather than the content. Honestly, does anyone see anything here that describes the "cultural impact" of the Chernobyl disaster? This one really was called "Chernobyl in popular culture" until last year, and it's possible that someone hit the panic button when i.p.c. articles were being nominated, but this article is definitely not about the cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster. We have lots of good articles that use the conventional "in popular culture" name, and perhaps it's time for this one to go back to calling itself what it is, rather than to be pretending to be something that it isn't. Mandsford 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Ofir Casting[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability requirements for Organisations, corporations, or products. One of the sources cited: "Who's the boss," by Liz Doup for the Sun Sentinel, has nothing to do with the company, Doron Ofir Casting, but it does have several two-sentence paragraphs about Doron Ofir working the door of a club in South Beach. While it may reasonably be argued that some of the projects it has helped cast listed in the 'Credits' section of the article may have achieved notability, according to WP guidleines, notability is not heritable. Further, it reads like an advert for the company, which is self-promotion, which is a violation of WP guidelines. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Home Residents' Rights[edit]

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

It's a catalog of the rights of nursing home residents, a sort of 'bill of rights.' Important? Yes. Interesting? Very. Sourced? Yes. But... I'm not certain whether or not it's an encyclopedia article. What do you think, o wise community? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is an encyclopedia article. A catalog of rights is something the public must know. And, the way I saw it, it was more than that. It described the rights -- in the way that many wikipedia articles do. Further, it contained a brief introduction of how those rights came to be. As such, it is more than what it seems you suggest. Also, if this doesn't exist, many nursing home residents will be abused with no knowledge that they are being abused or what to do about it. I say it should stay, and I feel strongly about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonychicotel (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Tonychicotel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I agree with Tony. And, I think this is the kind of thing that should exist. People need to know their rights. This is the best use of wikipedia I could imagine. How could this possibly hurt? And, it could be quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLowood (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — JLowood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Laws vary from country to country, state to state, province to province, adminstrative region to administrative region, department to department, etc, etc. Further, laws are not constant in time. And whether or not a catalog of rights 'is something the public must know,' wikipedia is not a directory or collection of lists. Finally, WP is not a substitute for legal advice. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. I just looked up List of human rights articles by country (as mentioned by Rosepicou), and it was a catalog of the law -- that's all. Also, the law applies only to U.S. nursing home residents in nursing homes that accept medical or medicare. As law changes, the site will be updated. And, in no way is this legal advise. Like List of human rights articles by country, this is an explanation of what the law says -- that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • But what is your position? Keep, Delete, Merge? Try starting out your sentence with that instead of "You're wrong." Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mtiffany mark nutley (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment. Rather than fight a losing battle to keep the article in sync with various nations' laws, we'd be better served simply adding the relevant external links to Nursing home and/or Elderly care. Also, I can't help feeling that this article does little but provide free web-hosting to the US government. TFOWR 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with the US government, and it does not compare nations laws. These grievances have nothing to do with what the page actually provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • If you're picking up on my glib comment about free web hosting, simply replace "US government" with "whatever US agency is relevant". My point still stands: that agency should be providing this information, and Wikipedia should - at best - be linking to it. You're correct that the article doesn't currently compare nations' laws - it solely focusses on a US perspective. I'd hope that that issue would be addressed if the decision was to keep the article. Frankly, I'm not seeing the article's topic as being notable of itself: it's an issue that should be incorporated into existing articles (such as the two I've previously linked to). TFOWR 00:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking !vote: argument applied to original article, prior to recent improvements. I'm still not entirely convinced, but I'm not unconvinced enough to justify a delete !vote. TFOWR 09:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is highly notable. For example, there are numerous scholarly sources devoted to the topic. The nomination makes no coherent case for deletion and so there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the topic is notable is irrelevant. The 'article' was nothing but a list, contrary to WP policy. Here's the text: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files #3) Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."What Wikipedia is not.Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was then but this is now. I went to look at the article and found it an overtagged and blanked mess. I have rewritten it completely and so your complaints are obsolete. There's nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed by ordinary editing and so it is our policy to improve it rather than to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you decided to offer your opinion on the subject before you even knew what was going on. If you check the diffs, you'll see that it was nothing but a list. The 'complete rewrite' you refer to consists of three sentences and two sources. As it stands right now, I'm sure that someday it could make a great article concerning the rights of nursing home residents in the state of Florida.Mtiffany71 (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now seven sentences and three sources and addresses the regulations at US Federal level. Sections addressing the topic in other countries are now indicated. Please feel free to assist. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take what was added by the good Colonel Warden, and add what the rights are in a more acceptable format -- should that be amenable to the administrator. I thank all of you for your helpful and insightful commentaries. Maxlivingston (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Starting with the letter A, I have added a section for Australia. This country has a well-developed program which seems quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afd is not about cleanup. The notability and scope of the topic are well-defined by the existing WP:RS sources and the numerous scholarly sources linked above. The topic is encyclopedic. While focused on US law at present, Colonel Warden has demonstrated the article can be expanded to cover relevant differences in other jurisdictions. See Freedom of speech by country for an example of an article on generally recognized rights that vary by jurisdiction.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Added Ontario, Canada. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now that the article has been expanded in scope to a global perspective, somebody needs to move the article so that the title is not a proper noun specific to the USA. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Moved to Nursing home residents' rights. I don't think it should have been was intended to be a proper noun in the first place. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't see why we can't have an article for each nation separately if there is enough information there. Some of the rights aren't listed in the current version of the article, such as the right to not be unfairly discharged. The previous version had a lot more detail [1] which someone interested in the topic would find of interest. Dream Focus 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree. I think much of that information had been blanked as possible copyright violation and the article's creator indicated above an intention to reintroduce the material "in a more acceptable format". I may try rescuing some of it myself. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not copyrighted, so there was no such violation. However, I will add the information in a more encylopedically acceptable format. And, I thank all of you for your hard work and encouraging/ insightful/ and kind commentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.230.45 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the last comment was added by me. While I'm in a good mood, I want to especially thank the good Colonel Warden. Colonel, you have been wonderful. And, it's clear that you care about helping those in need of assistance. For that, and for your wonderful support, you are truly deserving of the highest praises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm so excited by how the page has turned out. You are all wonderful people. And, many thanks to the administrator, because you were right. The page is ten times better because it was flagged. I have not only learned what a wikipedia page should look like, but I've had the opportunity to expand on the page in positive ways I never would've considered. For all of this, I'm thankful. Maxlivingston (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, well sourced. Thanks to all who encouraged the new contributor.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Már Ríkarðsson[edit]

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

Hoax. The article is made up from start to finish. There is no one by this name listed on the faculty of Reykjavik University. I can find no reference to an entity named "Fannarfell Thinktank", nor to a journal named the Journal of the Iceland Society of Neuroscience and Psychology. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Looks unusually well-developed for a twelve-year-old. Deor (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. I too have made searches, and there is no record anywhere of a professor of this name at Reykjavík University, nor any other verification of other "facts" stated in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles only source, as I write this, is a trivial mention of the subject and does not establish notability. Other sources do not verify the articles claims. Akerans (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax per this search. The original speedy tag was removed by an IP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that all the claims made in the article are truthful and backed up by credible sources. I too could not find 'Einar Rikarðsson' listed in the faculty of Reykjavík University, but after calling the Office of the President, I found that he was recently laid off because of the economic despair in the Icelandic economy and thus the funding for the Icelandic higher educational system. He does, however still do research at the Fannarfell Thinktank in Reykjavík, Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) — 89.160.128.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it ridiculous that one of the editors found a random Einar Már Ríkarðsson on Facebook and holds that up to be proof that this article is invalid. IT IS A VERY COMMON NAME IN ICELANDIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the website for the Icelandic Society of Neuroscience and Psychology: www.isnp.webs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "found", do you perhaps mean "made"? Two pages just created on webs.com don't really qualify as reliable sources. Deor (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn´t someone try to contact the Icelandic Society for Neuroscience and Psychology?? Or the Fannarfell Thinktank for that matter? I´m not sure why the websites were not found on google... they are however listed in the references section of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's your rationale for keeping the article, then you need to find those sources yourself and add them to the article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The IP is going to some efforts to refine the article to get rid of obvious misinformation (the reference to the faculty position at Reyjkyavik is now gone) but this still looks like a hoax to me. Regardless, in the absence of reliably published sources confirming its information, it fails WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax. And block the IP if the disruption continues. Nsk92 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a hoax. I referenced all of my claims. I contacted numerous organizations mentioned in the article, including the Reykjavík University, Harvard University, The Fannarfell Thinktank, the Icelandic Society of Neuroscience and Psychology, the Icelandic Coast Guard, the Icelandic Ministry of Health, and the Offices of the Registrar of the following Universities mentioned in the article: Mansoura University, Abant Izzet Baysal University, University of Khartoum, University of Balamand. All institutions that were contacted confirmed the claims made in the article. I await patiently a legitimate explanation for why this article constitutes "a hoax" and why it has been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertbrennemann (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because your personal contact with these "institutions" (the existence of which is not universally accepted) do not constitute verifiability. Citations to quickly created websites at a free webhosting service (webs.com), or to the home page of a university, do not verify the claims made in this article. Sources must appear in published materials that can be verified by others. Since there is verifiable evidence of this person, or of the existence of a "Fannarfell Think Tank" or an "Icelandic Society of Neuroscience and Psychology", the article appears to be a hoax. And you appear to have too much time on your hands. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. A discussion on whether to merge is of course possible on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars between democracies[edit]

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

Article is full of wp:synth and wp:or This is - and always will be - an indiscriminate collection of information; and is not for Wikipedia. Suggest merger to Democratic peace theory as a subsection mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Democratic peace theory, as the information would best be presented as a section of that article, IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It doesn't have to be OR and SYN. There is one or two ways to avoid it:
  1. Only list those conflicts that has reliable sources that explicitly lists the conflict as a war between democracies. This may possible violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:OR.
  2. Find all reliable sources that list wars between democracies and list their lists, separately. This would violate nothing.
However, user Pmanderson has in practice take WP:OWNership of the article, and he has rejected both, and instead adds conflicts with sources that doesn't support the addition of the conflict, or adds the based on WP:SYN (that is source A calls the countries a democracy and source B calls it a war, hence it gets added as a war between democracies). As Pmanderson also doesn't want to engage on consensus building (he has been blocked numerous times for revert warring) that makes discussing the issue tricky. This means that I'm going to be for delete unless Pmanderson accepts a path forward that can avoid SYN and OR, or promises to keep away from the article. The first would definitely be preferable as he is good at finding sources and knowledgeable about the subject. But that doesn't help if he refuses to follow policies. I'll await Pmandersons reply. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This article has been plagued by users who have been removing sourced material because they don't like it. They have been repeatedly asked to find sources for their points of view, which include such claims as that the Greeks had no democracys [sic] and that the United States had no elections before 1789. They are unable to continue this today; the article is protected: and so they come here, and ask that the whole article be deleted.
Then perhaps the rest of us can get back to the task which has been widely endorsed as appropriate: compiling a list of those conflicts which reliable sources consider wars between democracies.
Do you not think the removal of said material was due to the fact that it was Synth and OR? Whic his why the AFD has been brought, a merger is the obvious choice here mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was due - as the edit summaries will prove - to the fact that the blankers disagreed with the reliable source. Had they had reliable sources which disagreed, we would have included both, as policy requires - but they didn't and don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My deletions are because the source didn't support the statement, ie it was SYN or OR. This has been explained to you multiple times. Your fail not only to assume good faith, but you completely refuse to accept that there can be good faith even after explanation of the delete. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Democratic peace theory mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were on topic, and would get rid of these blankers, that would be worth it; but this has only the most tangential relationship with democratic peace theory; almost all of the many theories of the democratic or liberal peace deal only with established democracies with wide suffrage - precisely to avoid the wars between young democracies or democracies with limited suffrage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close, nominator is asking for a merge, not deletion. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No i a masking for deletion, and suggesting a merger to preserve what little content is there mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, the nominator does not seem to describe an issue that is appropriate for AfD. BigK HeX (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is pretty interesting, and should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepicou (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Rosepicou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - Per above. There aren't that much to merge currently. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (again) - Although the content as it is now is a source of never ending disputes, the content, when merged into Democratic peace theory would *not* be that. The source of the content dispute is the desire to use synthesis/original research (which I also fell or in the beginning) namely the desire to use one definition of democracy and apply that to one definition of war, and then list the resulting outcome. But as a part of Democratic peace theory the article do not suffer from that problem, as you simply list the most prominent researchers examples of wars between democracies there. The definition of democracy then becomes irrelevant. (The same would go for my solution 2 above, but I seem to be the only one who likes that, so I guess that's a lost cause. :-) ) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a promise not to vandalize this material, if most of it is removed and the remainder is inserted in an article to which it does not belong (and in which it is already mentioned in passing). If sincere, it might be worth considering such blankmail. But I would prefer to find that it was not so intended; OpenFuture may wish to rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it reads like nothing of the sort. Your comment however reads like you call me a vandal and fail to assume good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close no valid delete rational, this is not the appropriate forum for requesting a merger. Verbal chat 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD appears to be part of an ongoing campaign on the part of the nominator of forum shopping, edit warring, and generally doing anything but actually resolving the underlying content dispute through discussion. --erachima talk 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ever hear of wp:agf? You accuse me of edit warring and now forum shopping? Please retract your accusations mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retract them, and I have assumed good faith. Your recent actions could indeed be the result of ignorance of policy and process if taken in a vacuum, but you have demonstrated familiarity with policy in our conversations and my review of your general editing behavior. As such, speaking as an editor uninvolved in this dispute, it is my assessment that you are deliberately attempting to game the system in order to circumvent the need for editorial consensus. I welcome you to disprove my assessment by abandoning these inappropriate behaviors and engaging in proper dispute resolution. --erachima talk 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m not gaming anything. I`ll look through the dispute resolution stuff. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Democratic peace theory, or Delete. This article seems to have WP:POV and WP:SYNTH issues; at the very least, it should be renamed to List of alleged wars between democracies, as the inclusion of some or all of the conflicts here is contentious. Preferably though, it should be merged into Democratic peace theory as a list of alleged counterexamples, but only the parts that are sufficiently referenced as such. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an interesting and well-sourced list, with a topic that is both coherent and interesting. It dovetails nicely with the Democratic peace theory; merging to that article is not appropriate: the article is an explanation of the theory and this list is a list of counter-examples.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The References section clearly shows that numerous academic articles have been written about this very subject. Since those articles don't list every war ever fought, clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information. There certainly are edge cases, where it's debatable what should be in and what should be out, but few lists don't have those. --GRuban (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userify as incurable ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing" - no prospect of improvement, and no prospect of regular editing, short of banning all the editwarriors). I don't see much use for Democratic peace theory either - this historical curiosity had already demonstrated its falsifiability so there's no need to shovel more arguments into it.
    • We have lots of articles on disproved theories, and democratic peace theory is in better condition that Phlogiston - except for the attention-grabbing extremists, most theorists hold that wars between established democracies are less likely, not impossible, and there is non-trivial evidence for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to the "list": This is just another case of abstract humanitarian science where collation of different sources in one list is unacceptable: evidence provided by A dilutes the arguments of B, entries from B contradict the theories of A etc. Such lists must be, ideally, limited to a single author, or, if wider presentation is preferred, a single school of thought, a single theory. If the holy cow of NPOV requires a second opinion, this must be presented as a separate list, not inserted into the main one. East of Borschov 04:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Finally somebody else that gets this. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lists like this are inevitably POV fests with cherry picking of sources. Basic problem is that there are multiple definitions of democracy and even where 2 people agree on a definition it is still often difficult to decide whether states come up to scratch.Dejvid (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a fair description of Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes, which was kept. Here, however, there is consensus of all who have seen it (mark nutley and OpenFuture excepted) that all sources are welcome, and the test is whether there is a reliable source that such-and-such event was a war, or was between democracies. If there is a dispute between sources, and in some cases there is, we should, and intned to, include both sides. This nomination arose from two editors who have strong opinions and no sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it would not be a fair description for that page, and your description of the content dispute is completely incorrect. This is about your WP:SYN and WP:OR. There is nothing wrong with your sources, they just don't support the assertions you make. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matters to be dealt with (were they genuine) by normal editing, not by deletion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting things that should not be on Wikipedia is perfectly normal. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there are multiple definitions of communism the definitions of communist regimes that have actually existed is far less problematic. In any case Mass killings under Communist regimes is not a list. Lists require a yes/no for inclusion. Finally even were the two cases the same, it would still be open to say that decision was wrong and vote for delete in this case (but note the unreal conditional).Dejvid (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with redirect. This information is useful, if not perfectly presented. --Yopienso (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 Macropædia articles[edit]

List of 2007 Macropædia articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, this could be construed as a copyright violation of Macropaedia's intellectual property. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a summary of contents, it's a Table of Contents. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's arguably a little bit more because it has a little bit of additional info, but in any event, it's not copyrightable content.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Intellectual property attorney hat = on). Yes, it is. The author of the original work exercises creativity in selecting coverage, and this is reflected in the recitation of this list in the table of contents. If the author had said, "here is a list of things I think should be covered in an encyclopedia", there is no question that list would be copyrightable. bd2412 T 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Essentially this is just a table of contents, do we realy need one of these for every year? I propose we also delete the 2007 one also. --Deathawk (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deathawk. This is basically just a table of contents, which isn't particularly useful without having the Encyclopædia Britannica nearby ... and if you had it nearby, you wouldn't need this list. Due to the Britannica′s structure of having mostly very broad topics in the Macropædia, I don't think one can learn anything significant about their coverage or non-coverage of certain topics from this list. There may be some topics that are not listed in this list, but which are included in other articles, that have more extensive coverage in Britannica than some topics that do have separate articles of their own. Furthermore, the selection of 2007 appears to be arbitrary; the Britannica began the major revamp of the Macropædia in 1985, and there does not seem to have been a significant change to it in 2007. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and notability of this particular list is sparse. ThemFromSpace 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Harbinger[edit]

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

This article lacks notability and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan233 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1974 Macropædia articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of 1974 Macropædia articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, this "article" has been here for three years without having gotten past the "A"s. And this could be construed as a copyright violation of Macropaedia's intellectual property. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all those reasons - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless article, although there is no legal precedent for the posting of tables of contents being a copyright violation. --erachima talk 21:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1974 Macropædia articles. As a summary of contents, it is not a copyright violation. As to the rest: The Britannica's choices of what to write about in Macropædia are informative, and this list (with its links to the corresponding articles in Wikipedia) could be useful as one way of identifying and evaluating articles on key subjects; this list could thus be seen as a significant top-level organizational tool. In contrast to my "keep" !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2007 Macropædia articles, however, my !vote here is "weak", because of Everard Proudfoot's legitimate observation that this list is still stuck in the A's after 3 years. Given the much larger number of articles in the 1974 edition of Macropædia, it is concededly questionable whether this list will get to the point where it is truly useful. Still, if WP:NORUSH means what it says, the incompleteness of the list is not grounds for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This a directory. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does not fall under any of the definitions of directory as specified in WP:NOT. It is not, as is alleged in the opening statements here, a directory. NOT links that entry to our article Directory (databases), where it is described as "as used in computing and telephony, refers to a repository or database of information which is heavily optimized for reading, under the assumption that data updates are very rare compared to data reads". As this is not a repository of information heavily optimized for computing or telephony reading, it is not a directory. Nor is a table of contents necessarily a directory; the pair serve separate purposes, the former reader-focused summary and structure, the latter for index and search. This is a list, which, under guideline and policy, is an eminently acceptable category of items, and has been recognized both in our Manual Style and the Featured Content processes. It is, moreover, a list on a culturally and historically substantive subject: the content and coverage of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the most important encyclopedia of the twentieth century. The notion that this constitutes a copyright violation is incorrect and invalid. G.W. (Talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WillowW's comments at the first deletion discussion are worth reproducing in full. They address all the substantive criticism leveled here.

Keep with rationale. Thank you for bringing these articles to AfD, since such articles should be considered scrupulously, especially when there is a hint of WP:NOR and copyvio. However, I feel that deletion is not justified, for the following reasons:

  • WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here, since it does not mention this category of information. Moreover, these articles are not merely database dumps, but place the information in context, with links to other, more explanatory articles.
  • These article are not original research, unless looking up the number of pages or the year of references is. If that were deletion-worthy, a vast number of other WP articles would have to be changed; how often do we read something like, "X published a 370-page book in 1976"? If the consensus is that page numbers and year references are OR, I could delete the offending columns from the tables.
  • These articles are not copyvio, per this memo. Facts cannot be copyrighted, a principle that allows Tables of Contents to be copied, as we often see on amazon.com and elsewhere. The titles of these articles are drawn only from the Macropædia's Tables of Contents.
I hope that these answers address all of your concerns. Thank you for your carefulness in maintaining Wikipedia's quality, Willow 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Reproduced. G.W. (Talk) 16:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not facts, they are Encyclopedia Britanniaca's arrangement of those topics it considers worth covering. In addition, how useful is a list that contains less than 1/20th of all of the material it should cover, and hasn't been updated for three years? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not these are "facts" (a word that is nowhere used here, in the article, or in the relevant policy documents) has no bearing on this discussion. That said, it is a fact, however, that the editors chose a particular arrangement of topics it considered worth covering in the encyclopedia. It is a fact that each of those multivolume works was published with a consistent collection of articles. Other than that: uh, what are you talking about? :S G.W. (Talk) 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much effort do you think a person puts into a work that is threatened with deletion? This is labor-intensive work, and you would delete it even if it were complete, as you did in the case of the 2007-series article. G.W. (Talk) 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is just a table of contents, how is this helpful to anyone? If it's been here for over 1000 days without even getting 1/20th of the way finished with this, when would this be finished? Besides, Wikipedia is not a directory. Tavix |  Talk  17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and notability of this particular list is sparse. ThemFromSpace 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. WE ARE WP:NOT A DIRECTORY. LOTS OF PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK SO BUT WE ARE NOT. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really? How is this encyclopedic?--LAAFan 01:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tealeaf[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company. No references to independent coverage given, and I have been unable to find any. Haakon (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (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) 00:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate corporate shilling, but this article includes product description which makes it of potential use to users. While additional sources are no doubt desirable, the information here indicates to me that this one happens to be worthy of continued inclusion. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisted for some guidence on whether the sourcing is now up to requirements. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization[edit]

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

I just restored this after I deleted it as A7. Further info given on my talk page is enough to get it through A7 I think, so restored and brought here for wider consideration GedUK  20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources clearly show how notable this organization is. I would like to have the opportunity to fix this article and will start immediately if it stays.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable and fringe. The two sources listed were to the group's webpages. It needs references to independant, reliable, thirdy party non-fringe sources to establish notability. Even so, it still is fringe. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of reliable, third party references they just need to be added.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now and here would be a good moment to bring them forward.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the easiest example is to make one click on the Books tab above just past find sources. The BFRO is referenced many times in many books and in many news story's. If you need more help finding any just ask me and I will fetch you some.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know how to use google. The problem is to filter out something that indicates lasting notability of the organization itself and you were the one asserting that. If I take e.g. those found by Prsaucer, all refer to one expedition in 2007 which is by itself only interesting in the context of the search for Bigfoot. From which the weblink for this very organization has been removed in the past. More below. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no credible assertion of notability; suspect a COI, but that may be my experience triumphing over my optimism again. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have changed my recomendation based on the following references to independant, reliable, third party, and non-fringe sources that I found. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With respect to independent non-fringe sources, the organization is simply covered as part of the general topic of the search for Sasquatch and possible sightings and explanations, i.e. the bulk of Bigfoot, the only notable topic here. No objection to a redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a redirect is better than a delete at least if someone needs to search Wiki for it they'll find some material about it.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the club gets passing mentions in a few "mysterious mysteries" books and "news of the weird" stories about Bigfoot, no serious non-trivial coverage of the type needed to justify its own article found. Redirect per Tikiwont. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 effectively withdrawn with no arguments to delete. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri, 2010[edit]

United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The author argued that it might be notable given the short time away from the election, but I'm not too sure, so I removed the PROD I originally put on the article to list it here for larger discussion. elektrikSHOOS 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I should point out too that the article right now is also nearly entirely speculation, as it consists of poll averages and whether an incumbent is expected to keep their seat - sourced speculation, no doubt, but speculation nonetheless. elektrikSHOOS 19:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I comment in opposition to deletion. Waiting until after the election has occurred to create the article which consists primarily of the names of the candidates, party affiliations, and links to campaign websites is not helpful to those who wish to determine which candidate to support. Since the primary election is less than three weeks from now it seems to me that this is exactly the point being debated. I also disagree with the statement that the article is also nearly entirely speculation, as the speculation portion consists of only a single sentence for each of the nine districts and does not contain any poll numbers, but merely links to other sites which provide them. That single speculative sentence is sourced to an organization that has election forecasting as one of its routine tasks and I would argue that having these forecasts is useful in getting a better understanding of the district. Hald (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Meets the first exception to WP:CRYSTAL- Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. The election both notable, and almost entirely certain to take place. The article could use some better sourcing, but thats an issue for editing, not deleting. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. As Umbralcorax explains, this nomination is based on a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is full of articles about specific elections, and usually they are started well before the vote and expand as more information and discussion appears in the reliable sources. See Category:2010 elections in the United States and the numerous subcategories thereof. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: These articles aren't so much about the election themselves as they are about the race leading up to it, it's various challengers and various contreversy, therefor it's rather vital that this page exist before the actual election, if not then Wikipedia could be said to be doing a disservice to it's readers by not keeping them informed. --Deathawk (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside opinion was the reason I listed the article for Afd in the first place. Move to close with speedy keep as consensus overwhelmingly supports retaining the article. elektrikSHOOS 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IOLAP[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Non notable company. Despite the article's claims, I can find no reliable sources that confirm any of the text here. Fails WP:COMPANY. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This article resembles an advertisement and fails WP:COMPANYand is not notable. - Pmedema (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could find no reliable sources, either. Press releases and directory listings sure. I notice that the article creator's name includes the name of a social marketing firm, which is sad since he seems to have messed up the firm's claim that they "are used by Fortune 1000 firms" by claiming they are a Fortune 1000 firm. I hope they're not paying them a lot, and that they start to incorporate press proofs. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cvision Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. This article was previously started by a COI editor and speedily deleted as spam. A COI editor then recreated the identical article. I have spent quite a bit of time fixing the article, removing spam language and referencing it, but have been hampered by a lack of third party references, despite the article creator looking for them and extensive searches myself. Currently it has only two non-company/non-press release refs and both are very weak for establishing notability. One is a National Science Foundation grant listing and the other looks like a press release interview. I invited an assessment of the article for notability by a non-involved admin who rendered the opinion that the company is non-notable and that the article should be taken to AFD for wider input. Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually the article has been flagged for rescue by the editor who created it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless multiple non-primary sources can be found. Currently all sources are press releases and internally generated documents. SnottyWong confess 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attached the most notable sources I have been able to locate so far.There is are multiple good third party articles in the document imaging report, but it is a suscriber report only so I am not sure how to reference it. Any suggestions would be helpful. The Document Imaging Report is one of the most prestigious sources in this field. This is the website about the report.
http://www.documentimagingreport.com/
Here is another link from the document imaging report website with a cvision company description, this is different than the actual Document Imaging reports which Cvision is mentioned in
http://www.documentimagingreport.com/CVISION_Technologies__LLC.1079.0.html
independent third party article about Cvision
http://www.dclab.com/cvision_compression_technologies.asp
independent third party article about Cvision and one of its products
http://www.appligent.com/2006-04-13
Cvision featured in the inc 5000
http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2009/company-profile.html?id=200939400
Cvision in Bloomberg Businessweek
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=38949656
Business Management
http://www.busmanagement.com/article/Getting-savvy-in-the-digital-age/
NSF Award
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0924549
I will post more references as I find them, and I would appreciate information on how to post subscription reports Silverturtle1 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for posting those. Pretty much all of those have already been either incorporated into the article or reviewed on the talk page. Most are only incidental mentions of the company or else company press releases. Some of them would be useful to establish notability for products like PdfCompressor. None establish notability for the company however. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is another reference I found: http://www.dpsmagazine.com/content/ContentCT.asp?P=541
also I dont understand how these sources in particular do not establish notability, they are not press releases, they are focused on the company not its products or ceo, and they are not incidental mentions of the company: http://www.documentimagingreport.com/CVISION_Technologies__LLC.1079.0.html http://www.dclab.com/cvision_compression_technologies.asp Jake08041990 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news shows results, all of them from sources Google news search says are reliable news sources. They wouldn't mention the company at all if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 01:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google News turns up a variety sites. Not all of them are reliable sources for establishing notability. Can you point out anything that isn't a press release? I looked and couldn't. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. All references are its own website and press releases. No reliable third party sources prove notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Expansion: Indian bid[edit]

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

It's not clear what this is, and it may fall under deletion guidelines for no context, but it certainly doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. If there is no copyright concern, it may well belong at Wikimedia Commons. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this seems to be a draft for a proposed request for India's summit to the UN security council. It's a breach of WP:NOTESSAY, and has no encyclopaedic value whatever. Claritas § 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Claritas.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not an encyclopedia article, and likely copyvio. See [2] which has text that is copied in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Gold Rush[edit]

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

No indication of WP:Notability. Limited coverage on google of a university program. noq (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoogyzugelder (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I would like to counter the limited coverage on Google claim & notability. Here are some examples of coverage via media.[reply]

All of these sites were found via Google & the program is very well known and relevant in university. I will add these links to the article to help prove its Notability.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation's tears[edit]

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

PROD removed by author. This article is about an unsigned band who have yet to release a record. They have very minor press coverage, mostly for using some notable session musicians than for the band themselves. I do not feel that the notability criteria in WP:BAND has been met. There are a lot of reference links listed but it is hard to see how some of them support the content of the article. DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Radio lawsuit[edit]

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

Delete/Merge

This incident is not notable enough to have it's own article, and at present is a terrible non-neutral piece. What can be salvaged should be merged back into the Vatican Radio article and this article deleted. -Royalguard11(T) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the article needs at least to be rewritten. I cannot see any notability.--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race Wars[edit]

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

Clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Artist's website at [3] says the album is coming in Summer 2011 and nothing else, so it's way too early for a WP album article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshmellow Playground. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no coverage about this album in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of reliable coverage, or that it meets music criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian Church United with Rome,Greek-Catholic from Boian[edit]

The Romanian Church United with Rome,Greek-Catholic from Boian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this is simply a small village church about a decade old. Nothing about its architecture or history indicates any particular notability. Plus, the content is entirely unreferenced. Biruitorul Talk 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Not a notable mma organization, sporadic editing, no linking pages Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Spinks[edit]

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

This BLP gives no evidence of why subject is notable. Claim of being one of the world's best kickboxers in the 1980s isn't supported by any sources. Article has been tagged for 18 months, so it's had time to be improved. Astudent0 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Cobra (album)[edit]

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

Completing procedural steps on behalf of User:A. That person's reason: "Well ... basically what the IP edited the page to say. There's no confirmation of this album. It's just blank." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one step in the AfD process was missing. I fixed it. The deletion reason above is from original nominator User:A. Also this is not really the 2nd nomination because the first is technically the faulty one that I replaced. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Heading[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, non notable local politician Nuttah (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Courcelles (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable indie film; only references provided are transcripts of lawsuits (!). User who created this article, Fourdee, has been banned permanently by Jimbo Wales himself. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep while the creator was banned for some serious issues, and the current article is badly done, the film itself does appear to be notable, with coverage found in various books[4] and in the news. Weak keep primarily because of the bad start it got by an editor banned for his constant attack speech, and the obvious non-neutral nature of the existing article, but alas, AfD is not the place to deal with the clean it up it needs. Someone also posted some review links on the article's talk page. Together, it meets WP:NF and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and send to WP:Cleanup per User:AnmaFinotera's insightful comments. JiImbo may have banned the author[5], but as has been noted, we are discussing an improvable article and not a banned editor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment A slightly different Find sources search reveals dozens of articles dealing with this film.[6] Cleanup, improvement, and sourcing have begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Looks like this subject is notable after all. Since the article is now undergoing cleanup, I've decided to withdraw my nomination. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am closing this as delete, because many of the keep !votes are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, the re-release of the press release does not count as non-trivial independent coverage. There is no bias against recreation, but consensus says that there just isn't adequate coverage at this time. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epic browser[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable product, and no indication of significance or importance is given. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7 per nom. —I-20the highway 17:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A7 isn't for products, or I woulda tagged it as such. — Timneu22 · talk 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Mozilla Firefox. A stub should be more than one sentence, and it's in an improper tone at that. Google doesn't say much about it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic (web browser), it appears to be just an advert, not notable Tedickey (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has reviews. Reviews are what makes products notable, even newly developed ones. Tone is descriptive, and I see several paragraphs, not just one sentence. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regurgitation of press releases are not reviews. Miami33139 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The browser has received several good reviews from reputable sources. It is also touted as the first browser from India targeted toward Indians as well as the first browser to have integrated virus protection.Smallman12q (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD has turned into a bit of a mess. There is a duplicate article on this subject named Epic (web browser), which also had an AfD started on it. That AfD was speedily closed by a non-admin (because only one AfD is necessary on the duplicate articles), and the closer redirected Epic (web browser) to Epic browser. Another editor reverted that redirect, and instead redirected Epic browser to Epic (web browser). I have updated the AfD template on Epic (web browser) to point to this AfD, as it was incorrectly pointing to the AfD that had been speedily closed. All this speedy closing, redirecting, and reverting is quite confusing and mildly disruptive. Just calm down until the AfD is over. SnottyWong talk 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong squeal 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite it launching only yesterday, it appears to have a lot of press already. SnottyWong comment 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait, as Snottywong mabdul 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Already covered by major Indian newspapers. We can revisit in 6 months if needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You obviously didn't read the references after reading the company press releases. It has not been covered, their press releases have been re-issued. Self-promotion does not make anything notable. Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The browser has already been launched and is gaining popularity. The reviews can be found in leading tech news forums and news papers.Drharishc (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is gaining popularity" isn't really a valid argument. Is it already notable? — Timneu22 · talk 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (most of the notes are press-release style). And the personal attack made by Drharishc puts a constraint on considering NPOV Tedickey (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What attack now?--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (looks like edit conflict, see the link I added to his post) — Timneu22 · talk 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not ideal, but Miami33139 has provoked similar before with his noms. I don't know if its his noms, or because they are computer software related.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even the article agrees: "Only time will tell how much of this browser will be accepted by the Indian population and outside India (if at all !!!)". The ability to generate buzz in the media is a sign of good marketing, not of notability. - Simeon (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Browser is great... with lot of info in a centralized location.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep veni (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Moved from top of pageto correct place. Peridon (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep : It only been a forth night since its release and it has got a significantly good reviews. It will be too pre-matrue to delete this post. That explains " Only time can tell its success...". Rakesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshchalasani (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preceding editor has only made this edit. — Timneu22 · talk 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of the comments for "keep" are predicated on allowing a nonnotable topic to be used by saying that it's too soon to tell if it's nonnotable. That's contradicting the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Tedickey (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :The mistake is that most people are assuming that it is not notable only because it is a new software. This assumption is clearly wrong. Another point this article has been reviewed by google news http://news.google.co.in/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=in&topic=t —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdunnoor Patankar (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preceding user has few other edits. — Timneu22 · talk 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The google link is automatically generated, not a review, and consequently not a reliable source Tedickey (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It might be useful to run checkuser on the single-purpose editors who are in this discussion, to see how many are distinct individuals Tedickey (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with checkuser. I'm going to start some research of my own. — Timneu22 · talk 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Browser is notable! --JovianEye (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reference section in the article shows links to news coverage of it. Dream Focus 01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you examine that "news coverate" you will see it is simply re-writes of the corporate press releases. That is not "news coverage" Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Playing racist cards ? Seems to be a prejudiced attempt to delete this article.117.201.66.59 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be precise as to the 'racist' allegation? I can't see anything racist here. Peridon (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see news writing about it. --Adam Hauner (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article is a good entry. I do not believe it can be deleted because it is not notable till now. No doubt it did not have any prelaunch show to highlight the software launch but the features in it says it will be a great browser. I recommend it to stay on the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh742598 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preceding user has few other edits. — Timneu22 · talk 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to new posters No matter how good you thing this browser is, that won't affect the discussion. Your personal opinion will be ignored at the close. There is also no value to saying 'It will be notable - give it time'. Wikipedia does not work like that. You are in effect saying 'Delete' if you say 'give it time'. You need to produce references to Wikipedia's requirements - and that might not be easy yet. Trying to batter us down by numbers also won't work. This is not an election; it is a discussion and only valid arguments will be considered. Note that I haven't !voted here. I'm just trying to get things on an even keel. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then what's the meaning of this discussion ? The question is whether to keep or delete. If the majority opinion carry no face value, then close this discussion and delete the article. "To make known the least known" should be the policy for projects like this. If an article is well known to all, then what is the need for an encyclopedic reference ? Arrogance of reviewers tamper with the 'good faith' and discourage from posting new articles.Drharishc (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're clearly missing the point. In no particular order:
    • If it were just majority rules, then anyone could convince (or worse, create) a number of accounts to skew the results one way or another
    • "To make known the least known" is absolutely contrary to everything on wikipedia. Should "Bob and Joe's band" (created yesterday) get an article because they are barely known? That's what you're arguing.
    • Wikipedia is built on references and reliable sources.
    • This discussion isn't majority, but rather for the quality of the arguments. In short, a bunch of people can't just come on here and say "it's notable!" and be done with it. If they can provide sources that establish notability, that's the way to go. Similarly, someone who wants it deleted shouldn't just say "never heard of it"; instead, a valid argument for deletion is required as well.
    That's all. — Timneu22 · talk 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To make known the least known" is most definitely not the policy of Wikipedia. Encyclopaedias do not promote things. It's up to the person, company or whatever to do their promotion (but not here), and when they achieve the notability we require they get an article. I can see this browser getting an article in the future - but not yet, perhaps. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on the other hand, the rules at W{:N are guidelines only, and explicitly permit exceptions and say they do--we are not constrained by them in any particular case. The basic policy for making exceptions is WP:IAR, whatever will improve the encyclopedia. An argument that this is overwhelmingly likely to be of importance, and that therefore we should cover it from the start, is a good argument. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, DGG, that the article is going to be deleted. I think a couple of us are just frustrated with 5-edit users popping in to say "what a browser!" or other related nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 10:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I noted in the other AFD nomination the "press coverage" and reviews of this browser are simply rewrites of the company press releases. This is not independent coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful discovery...description of features might be same, that doesn't mean that reviewers are simply quoting the company press release. Try to make the article better, rather than panning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.72.202 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, then. Feel free to have a go. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. Despite the number of "keeps" above, there is actually very little substantial "keep" argument. Firstly, many of the arguments have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's criteria. For example, "The browser has already been launched", it "is gaining popularity", "Browser is great... with lot of info in a centralized location", "It only been a forth night [sic] since its release", "It is also touted as the first browser from India targeted toward Indians", etc. Then we have arguments that effectively amount to "it may not be notable yet, but we should keep the article in case it becomes notable in the future", such as "Only time can tell its success", "I do not believe it can be deleted because it is not notable till now", "this is overwhelmingly likely to be of importance, and that therefore we should cover it from the start" and so on. We also have such comments as "'To make known the least known' should be the policy for projects like this", which is in effect claiming that we should keep the article because it is not notable. Then we have straw man arguments, such as "The mistake is that most people are assuming that it is not notable only because it is a new software. This assumption is clearly wrong." In fact nobody had suggested that it was not notable because it was new, so this comment is totally irrelevant. Finally we have comments such as "Keep:Browser is notable!" with no explanation at all as to why it is notable. OK, so what do we have left in favour of "keep" when we cut out all these non-reasons? We have a small number of editors saying that it has received press coverage. I have looked at every one of the press mentions to which links have been provided. All of them are brief reports of the release, without any substantial coverage. In addition, as mentioned above, they are so closely based on the press release that they are scarcely independent coverage. The amount and type of coverage do not come near to what is required by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my argument for keeping the article was a quite weak. But, that was because I felt the discussion did not need strong arguments for the article to be kept. Consider for instance the page view statistics here as a starter. Additionally, there has been press coverage about the article (perhaps not too much), but then you must bear in mind a browser will not receive too much attention from the press in India. Wikipedia does have articles regarding other small browsers in Category:Free web browsers. So, I think that the article should be kept. --JovianEye (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers keep on panning the article, because it was developed in a third world country. They are not at all bothered about any the other crappy browsers which are not at all notable. Visitors can very well appreciate this bias. There has not been any extensive reviews written about Epic, but it has received nation wide attention, and almost all the national news papers covered it's release(we don't want to "convince" the reviewers about it) as evident from the internet search results about this browser. Remembering a popular saying, "never preach sermon to buffaloes, they just don't listen". Now, reviewers may delete the article, if it irk them so much. I think reviewers have their own policies, which are not Wikipedia's policies. 117.201.73.164 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To both of these: WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this is quite obviously WP:POINT, the main AfD based reason for deleting, as articulated by many of the editors commenting here, is that it is WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Capitalist regimes[edit]

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

Created to make a wp:point no sources to support title, all ref`s currently are about communism. mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, such renaming makes this article even more problematic, with an inherently POV title: the new title suggests that mass killings were caused by the market economy, something not supported by any academic sources. The older title suggested the same, but only more implicitly.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped there would be sources out there (Marxist or socialist) which would have something along these lines, ca nyou think of a name which would be non problematic? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here simply do not want to check what "capitalism" means. Some of the content could be recycled as political repressions related to colonialism, imperialism, militarism or anti-communism, but that would be very different subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basicly no hope then, pity really given the effort going into it mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, can't find the guidance, but think it is acceptable for you to close this as a keep if you want, particularly given the name-change which arguably makes the nomination moot.
For what it's worth, I think the new title is less encyclopaedic. For the title to attribute a cause in that way makes it even harder for the article to avoid bias. --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and improve. There may be some merit in the WP:POINT claim, but the creation of the article does not appear to me to be at all disruptive, so this is not in itself a reason for deletion. The article is in a poor state, but it is possible that it can be made viable (let's see). It may be that refs cannot be provided to show that the phenomenon it is set up to describe exists or is notable, in which case eventual deletion would be the right thing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no such government type as Capitalist is there. But if sources can be provided then hell ya, keep it mark nutley (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for the article talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT unless serious improvements, including sourcing, are made soon. The article as is is more than half about mass killings under communist regimes and we already have an article on that. The other examples that are given are essentially those of Mass killings under colonial regimes. So possibly move some of the content to Mass killings under colonial regimes. But there's not going to be sources which link capitalism (not a type of "regime" anyway, but an economic system) to the examples given except in most superficial ways.radek (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note that there is in fact (a very badly written, problematic, POV) article on Anti-communist mass killings (though it doesn't seem to pay attention to the "mass" part). It's strange how editors who are so up vehement in their desire to delete "Mass killings ... communist regimes" and create "Mass killings ... capitalist regimes" haven't even bothered to fix that one first.radek (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it says here that there are hundreds of thousands of articles in need of various kinds of fixing. I'm sure you'll want to deal with those before engaging with any more creative tasks. .... On a less sarky note, the Anti-communist mass killings article is a bit of a mess, and might possibly be at least partially mergeable with this one. Thankfully, since I have a billion hours in a day and nothing else to do but WP, I'll get right on that! Rd232 talk 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You created it to make a point: [7]. Here you argued that Mass killings under Communist regimes should be deleted, because it would be no more valid than Mass killings under Capitalist regimes or Mass killings under Jewish regimes. You therefore, even before you created the article, stated that it was your opinion that it should not exist. You probably created it in the hope of getting an AfD, so it gets deleted, so you can claim that Mass killings under Communist regimes should get deleted as well. It's disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't vote Delete on the Communist article, your attempt to Assume Bad Faith falls flat on its face. I argued for a radical rewrite with a different approach - and an equivalent approach will be equally valid here. (Did you actually read what I wrote or did you deduce what I must have written from your assumption that the article is POINTy Bad Faith?) Rd232 talk 13:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - I think the issue of whether this should be deleted should be considered in the light of the outcome of the current AFD for Mass Killings under communist regimes. I personally believe that both of these mass-killing per economic system articles are ridiculous, but if we have one, we should have the other. Claritas § 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Remember that Communism is not an economic system, but a political and ideological doctrine.Biophys (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The pointy article first says "capitalist governments" then changes to "capitalist economic systems." It lacks a distinct and defined subject. Come back when you figure out what the topic of the article is supposed to be. I would be happy with articles about mass killings by "Western democracies" or by the United States. Edison (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting point. Can a capitalist economic system be divorced from a political system which endorses, supports and maintains it? I don't think so. There is much literature showing how capitalist economic systems depend crucially on the role of the (supportive) state - for example in enabling primitive accumulation, even at the cost of many lives systematically lost. This is perhaps the key theoretical point in the article, and it merits in depth examination using the relevant literature. That's time I don't have, but I hope the article survives and someone does it. Rd232 talk 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The rationale for a procedural keep assumes that the Communism article has the same issues this one does. It doesn't. They're unlinked in that sense. This is also a gross violation of WP:POINT, and the fact that people vote Keep here (a pointy creation with certainly more SYNTH concerns than the sister article) but Delete on the other is a blatant declaration that the votes are based on political ideology, not any actual wikipedia policy. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Intentional disruption to prove a point. It is most likely unsourcable, and the creator has refused to present sources even though he claims it should be easy and loads of sources exist. The only purpose of this article is to waste peoples time and lose focus from the discussion about Mass killings under Communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echoing what I said on my talk page: I said I thought it was as valid as the Communist one. Since plenty of people argue that the Communist one is valid, in can hardly be POINTy to act in agreement with them. Furthermore, doing so opened up the genuine possibility of a worthwhile article developing from it, which would disprove my initial feeling that neither article was really valid. This is not POINTy, it is the opposite - explorative and constructive in the best sense. Rd232 talk 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources are even in the article which actually relate to the subject matter of Capitalist regimes and mass killings. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Shock Doctrine is mentioned in it, and now various sources relating to Native American genocide are included. Lack of included references is anyway not in itself a reason for deletion -it's sourceability, not sourcing, which is key. Rd232 talk 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Shock Doctrine is mentioned in it" - lol. You also didn't even bother to properly format your references so that there's a whole number of "Cite error: Invalid *ref* tag" messages in the references section, which I think illustrates pretty clearly that this is just a WP:POINT exercise.radek (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't have time to clean up the bizarrely complex reference system that came from the Communist Regime article it was adapted from (adapted from because a lot of the points are similar, or at least indicative of what might be developed). Rd232 talk 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is WP:SYN. "Capitalist system" means merely market economy. I am not familiar with any academic sources claiming market economy being responsible for the systematic extermination of people. That was always something else, such as Nazi ideology, for example.Biophys (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If capitalism is merely "market economy", what is market socialism? And there's plenty of literature on the relation between capitalism (particularly in relation to colonialism/imperialism, but not just) and mass death (eg through war or famine). Rd232 talk 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that there is plenty of literature relating capitalism and mass killings, but yet no-one, most notably you, can come up with even one example. And you created this article even though I pointed out to you before that I didn't believe that there is any reliable source on that. Don't you think you should have checked up if at least *one* source existed before you created the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was sufficiently sure that much literature exists on this not to check beforehand, due to time constraints and to this being Wikipedia, which is to say, a collaborative endeavour in which articles are rarely born fully formed. If I hadn't been so sure, I would have checked. Again, Assumption of Bad Faith seems to be the order of the day. Rd232 talk 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have bad faith, I'm sure you are genuinely convinced that literature exists. However, as I told you, I don't think it does, and the only example you could come up with was one about colonialism, and not capitalism. That *should* have been enough for you to check before creation, but you didn't. At this point you of course have no interest to check for it, and blame it on "collaboration". Well, nobody else will be able to come up with the literature either, because like you, I'm convinced. But unlike you, I at least tried to find it, and I can't find any literature that connects capitalist regimes in general and mass killings at all. While we, as you know, have plenty of literature that connects communist regimes and mass killings. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've just added a little bit. I've previously quoted the colonialism article saying "Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change." I've now added a quote from Marx expanding a bit on that. We can hardly argue about colonialism being responsible for mass deaths; a lot of that probably exists on WP ripe for importing (or should). You (and others) have deleted some of the sourced material I've added, which obviously makes it easier to claim that there aren't any sources that exist. Rd232 talk 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see, doy. As of the time of my edit, the article has existed for 15 hours and 27 minutes. It is a little too early to tell anything much, but not being in possession of the facts never stopped anyone from proposing an article for deletion, that I know of. Mass killings under Communist regimes was first created one year, 12 days, and 15 hours ago. Equality is not a WP rule, which is just one molecule of water in an endless sea of why I mostly loathe despise disdain and for the most part eschew WP and most who purport to contribute to it, but it is nonetheless something to value. True, dat. Ok, you want process? Fine.
Comment. Every argument to ditch that article is an article to ditch this one, except the one I already wrote (go have a look for yourself): Capitalist governments were only in a very small number of cases formed by revolution. Revolutions are by their nature bloody (as explained there); capitalist massacres are also to exert control, but for less reason. Every argument to ditch this article is an argument to ditch Mass killings under Communist regimes, except the parroting of: POINT. Point is a stupid rule among stupid rules, meaning even less than usual and requiring a leap of faith to use; it is quite obvious all who use it here want to believe, but what exactly it is they believe is less clear. It is a stupid rule because any behaviour that is unequivocally POINT is unequivocally something else (3RR), whereas it allows free rein to hordes of amateur psychics who can just tell that someone editing 'center' to 'centre' is trying to disrupt WP to prove that British spelling is better. Point is well named, tho', if you look at it ironically, because it is usually invoked when one person does not like the Point that the other person's facts make. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the practice is a short cut to saying what really matters, and so should properly be frowned upon, but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the rule is a shortcut for people who have never have anything that matters to say, and so they fail to recognize what is missing; a short cut to the lecturn via the trashcan. Well, whaddaya want, deletors are used to doing things with one Undo button, they have to have things easier, right? Thanks to OpenFuture for the best reason why it should not be deleted immediately, as that would add wind to the sails of those who wish the other article deleted, and again, rotsa ruck proving it was disruption that was the objective of someone who saw that another article with the same deficits was allowed on WP and perhaps ended up believing that those deficits were not something WP cared about. Little did he realize that the in WP's battle of the unemployed vs the independently wealthy, all care deeply about anything on WP that does not reflect their viewpoint, let alone things that might shed a bad light on it. I have my doubts about how much the Deletors here care about those deficits, after all, two of them (so far) voted to Keep the other article: OpenFuture, Shadowjams.
Full list of Keeps (so far, and hopefully it will keep the rest honest) on the other article:Collect, OpenFuture, C.J. Griffin, Marknutley, Darkstar1st, Johnbod, Wikidas, Jclemens, WereSpielChequers, MyMoloboaccount, Närking, I-20, Colonel Warden, Teeninvestor, DGG, Shadowjams, BigK HeX, Ginsengbomb
Finally, I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys. One or the other is in critical shortage, if he cannot see/pretends not to see that Communism is an economic system. Is there a way to restrict someone's use of WP for being that stupid? Or lying that much? There should be. And I would like to know which it is, too, I never get to find that out. I concede that there are problems with declaring Capitalism a form of government, but then, it did not stop people calling governments Communist (because it was inconvenient to classify them as having elections with a unified party doctrine, like a more streamlined Electoral College process?), and they have been doing it for 93 years. I would be quite happy with abandoning the designation of 'Communist' governments, but as I doubt it is going to happen any time soon, the precedent stands.
Anarchangel (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chill the fuck out with the personal attacks like "I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys" - I'm really not into reporting people but this is just first order shittiness and statements like that are just sheer scumbaggery ("smear your opponents"), particularly given the propensity of communist regimes to label dissidents as "mentally insane". Archangel is just following the practice of the Stalinist regimes that he is defending here. Also. Funny how whenever you scratch one of these so called "anarchists", a Stalinist-apologists always comes out. Where are the real anarchists? Oh, I forgot, they were all "mass killed" by Communist regimes or their proxies (like in Spain). Cut the personal attacks out plz.radek (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchist forces were not, by some estimates, not fully supported by the Communist forces they allied with in the Spanish Civil War, 1937, a CNT post was taken over by Communists, and four CNT prisoners were found dead in circumstances linkable to the Communists. 'Mass killings' is entirely in your imagination, and 'betrayal' is sour grapes by Orwell and wishful thinking by those eager to gloat at a conveniently ironic fabrication. Your 'points' are hypocrisy and/or rhetoric and are unanswerable. Anarchangel (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Yes, "capitalism" is simply a market economy (see book "Reflections on the Ravaged Century" by Robert Conquest for example). Even Marx criticized capitalism from a purely economic perspective, as a system where rich can rob the poor (I guess the killings would hurt the profits). And even if you look at Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, it does not really support this article (I had to read a lot of Marxist literature in the past).Biophys (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be wanting an answer to your points at some point. Which would suck for you, as I do not feel obliged to give any now, as you declined to address your error in declaring Communism not an economic system. Your offense in not conceding or rebutting and the only practical (unilateral) solution I have ever found to deal with it are both reversible. Anarchangel (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion is not about Communism. Neither it is about me. OK? Biophys (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Remember that Communism is not an economic system...Biophys 16 July 2010" You, first on this page, attempted to make the discussion about Communism. I do not have a problem with that, nor, as they are so transparent, do I object to additional lies. And it has never been about you. It is about bad behaviour; it is never "OK" to disregard valid points against one's arguments. I imagine that AGF and Ad Hominem have been very effective indeed for you against those who do not appreciate the finer points of them, but your abuse of them will not work against me.
How to concede a point: "I concede that there are problems with declaring...Anarchangel 16 July 2010" Anarchangel (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in a textbook, and it tells that "communism" can mean three different things: (1) ideals/ideology, (2) a program, and (3) a political regime. But certainly not an economic system.Biophys (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neeah.... Capitalism in it's minimal definition is private ownership of means of production. It's at least theoretically possible to have in a non-free economy. So just saying its' the same thing as a market economy is doubtful. The Marxist view of it is of course more complex, as it there is not only a mode of ownership but also a historical stage. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't even Marxism. It's like a 16 year old's caricature of what they think Marxism is.radek (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This?" --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ideas that the article appears to be based on.radek (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not argue about the precise definition with OpenFuture, but I fail to see in reliable sources that the "private ownership of means of production" was a reason for mass killings.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try Late Victorian Holocausts as a start, if the concept passes you by so completely. You could do worse than actually reading the article, of course, noting Marx's quote as a sense of the broader issues beyond famine. Rd232 talk 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a book by "a self-defined international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist"", who apparently is completely ignorant of the fact that Mill actually supported *moderate* socialism to a certain extent. It's in the same category as Klein's work - an ideological unreliable propaganda tract. How about some real sources?radek (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, sorry, I don't think you're going to find capitalist or "free market" scholars queueing up to write about this topic! And you cannot simply dismiss these sources so trivially - Mike Davis (scholar) and Naomi Klein are not nobodies, and they are far from the only people writing on these and related issues. It may be that the entire article ends up using sources as leftwing as the Communist ones uses sources which are rightwing because they're the only ones available - sorry, is that not allowed?? Rd232 talk 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help remarking that this is a classic instance in which aggressively early AFD nomination (hours after creation) is disruptive. The article has evolved a bit, and has the beginnings of sourcing - now 2 books and a peer reviewed article, plus a quote from Marx which indicates a clear direction for developing the article. Which makes the early Delete - no sources !votes now irrelevant. It becomes increasingly clear even at this early stage that there is such a thesis worth documenting appropriately, in which case any issues should be resolved by editing, not deletion. Rd232 talk 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an early AfD because it was so obviously in violation of WP:POINT.radek (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
given that WP:POINT refers to intentional disruption, at what point do protestations of lack of intention and demonstration of effort to develop the beginnings of something constructive leave merely an Assumption of Bad Faith in constant repetitions of WP:POINT? Rd232 talk 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, at what point do the constant repetitions of accusations of WP:POINTyness becomes themselves (intentionally?) disruptive acts? Rd232 talk 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of why this article was created, it has two fundamental flaws:
    • No regime is explicitly "capitalist". Sure, capitalism happens in many regimes, usually through non-state actors and often encouraged by the government, but nowhere is "capitalism" an official goal. For example, the French Republic exists to promote "the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity", while the United States exists "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". By contrast, the Soviet Union explicitly ordained an "economic foundation" based on "the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man". So there is no such thing as a "capitalist regime", only a "regime where capitalism is practiced". However, there certainly were and are "communist regimes", or at least regimes that did all they could to establish communism as envisioned by Marx and Lenin.
    • The article itself is a grab-bag of highly disparate incidents, ranging from mass natural death by starvation in a pre-modern society (the Irish Famine) to death by targeted killing in a fairly developed country in order to prevent far greater killing at the hands of communists (the Chilean coup). Now, if anyone, at least any non-polemicist, has actually studied all these events together under the rubric of "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes", that's one thing. That would probably show notability for the topic. But if, as I suspect, these have merely been thrown together by Wikipedia editor Rd232 in order to create the appearance of coherence, well, that's not good enough. We do need coverage of the topic as such, and that has yet to be demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't read as far as the Late Victorian Holocausts paragraph. That certainly covers "mass killings under Capitalist regimes" in the late 19th century, for a variety of cases including India and China. Quotes from Marx and Rosa Luxemburg indicate the broader Marxist argument about primitive accumulation, which there is certainly enormous potential to expand on. Rd232 talk 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to your second point about countries being "explicitly" capitalist... I hardly no where to start. Perhaps Democratic Republic of Kampuchea is an adequate reply? (Think about it.) Rd232 talk 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that almost every country self-identifies as "democratic". That is not the case when it comes to capitalism, whereas it has been the case for socialist regimes moving (or claiming to move) toward communism. - Biruitorul Talk 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from Marx and Luxemburg are problematic: see WP:PSTS. As for Davis' book, why should we trust the agitprop of a "socialist activist" Creative Writing professor to tell us anything about capitalism, other than that he despises it while benefiting from it? He really is a pretty laughable man, judging from some of the titles of his works: Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. Big City; No One Is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border; Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neo-Liberalism. What worthless dreck! What a pitiful distillation of the gender/race/class agenda! What fine fuel for the furnaces of arch-capitalists! And to think that the ever-shrinking taxpayer base of California, the productive bit of society, is financing this man: when that state finally slides into its well-earned bankruptcy, I shall cackle with glee as Mr Davis is thrown headlong into the warm embraces of the capitalist system he so reviles. - Biruitorul Talk 06:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that is not in any worth responding to. However, on Marx/Luxemburg, my point was "Quotes from Marx and Rosa Luxemburg indicate the broader Marxist argument about primitive accumulation...", which is to say, they indicate how much must have been written about this by Marxists at least. Another scholar notes explicitly that Davis is broadly following in Luxemburg's footsteps. Rd232 talk 09:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that logic. Because both Marx and Luxemburg blamed all the troubles of the world on capitalism, therefore much must have been written on the topic of Mass killings and Capitalist regimes? I don't get that. Marx and Luxembourg doesn't write about Mass killings and Capitalist regimes either. They do mention that loads of atrocities happened under colonialist rule, and they blame this (as they blame everything) on capitalism. That's not a reliable source on mass killings and capitalist regimes (much of the atrocities wasn't under any "regime" at all per se) and it certainly does not indicate that there must exist loads of other writings on it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, anything that Marx said has a large secondary literature interpreting, analysing, revising and extending it. And Davis (and others in that vein) are quite explicit about capitalism and "free market" ideology causing mass death - the theoretical Marxist link is around primitive accumulation, which in the Marxist view is essential for the creation (and - accumulation by dispossession - possibly the maintenance) of capitalism. Please stop claiming definitively that sources don't exist - the article is very new, and the subject complex, and opponents like yourself are eagerly deleting sources (rather than leave them as a starting point, even if they're disputed). Rd232 talk 10:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've said from the start that I don't think sources exist.I don't think they exist, and I'm pretty sure they don't exist, because I've been having this debate with various communists for at least 15 years now. And nobody has ever shown me one single source that supports your claim. So I think I can say, as definitely as you can say anything about non-existence, that they don't exist. And it's up to you to prove otherwise, which you evidently can not.
Your complete trust in that communist ideologists will support your claims are impressive, but just because you think sources *must* exist, doesn't mean they actually do. Now stop wasting your and my time on claiming that sources exist. Either you find the sources, or you stop claiming they exist. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davis and Firad sources undoubtedly exist (as does naomi Klein, though you deleted her), and I've just added a bit on Ireland. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, but it would nice to have a reasonable amount of time for not just me but others to to develop something. You say you've been discussing this for 15 years - that's relevant how? The article is a day old and it already has enough to make the neutral observer think "yeah, it deserves a chance to be developed". AFD it in maybe 3 months (if necessary then) would be my suggestion, if the merger discussed in the Communist article AFD isn't going to happen. Rd232 talk 11:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: capitalism is not a political system capable of mass killings of the political kind mentioned in the Communism article on that topic. And most non-communist countries that kill people have government-controlled forms of trade (mercantilism, facism, national socialism, etc) that either support first and foremost a political ideology or elitist clique. Things like the Bhopal disaster are categorized as Category:Man-made_disasters. Victims of drug war mass murders might technically be victims of a perverted form of "capitalism" but if that form of market activity was not outlawed by government, there would not be such mass killings. So they would better go under mass murders and illegal drug wars. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer and to AFD nominator: The article was originally created as this, an initial adaptation from Mass killings under Communist regimes, created partly because there was then no space on Wikipedia where non-Communist mass killings were discussed as a class (mass killing is a disambiguation page). It was nominated for deletion 4 hours after creation, and shortly after that the removal of various content reduced it to this. At the time the vast majority of !votes above were cast, it looked like this (or worse). At the time of writing, it looks like this, and includes as sources (among others) a peer reviewed academic article, an academic book (Late Victorian Holocausts), and the views of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, as well indications of other sources and cases where further research is likely to turn up relevant sources. My question is this: WP:CSD#G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Because of the excessively early AFD nomination, the article has undergone dramatic changes since most of the current !votes. Were this not to be taken into account, the existence of G4 would create a situation where paradoxically, an article up for deletion should not be improved whilst the AFD is under way, and improvements kept for after the article is deleted, to allow G4 not to apply. This would clearly be perverse. The problem is all the more dramatic in this case where the nomination was made mere hours after creation, precluding sufficient time for Wikipedia's strength (collaborative endeavour) to achieve much. In sum, the early votes (particularly those based on erroneous accusations of WP:POINTyness) should be discounted; a "no consensus, default to keep" would permit a new AFD nomination at any time to consider the revised article. Alternatively, the nominator could withdraw the AFD, and renominate immediately or at a future time. Rd232 talk 11:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A prime example for WP:POINT to go with its brother article Anti-communist mass killings. Note date of conception, and the participants in the infinite AfD loop on the article which these editors really dislike. This article is a clear WP:POVFORK even using much if the boilerplate from the article it is a fork of! Right now it even includes famines in India under the raj -- when there the precise same problems occurred for aeons before, and certainly since, that period. As such it is also WP:SYNTH in itself (which is not grounds for deletion, to be sure). Collect (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but you deleting well-sourced, highly relevant content and then coming here to complain about WP:POINT ("intentional disruption") is the height of bald-faced cheek. You should be ashamed of yourself. PS Yes, the article used some content from the Communist mass killings article initially because in creating an article about non-Communist mass killings it seemed a helpful starting point. PPS Is it simply the case that anti-Communist ideologues are entirely unwilling to have any Wikipedia discussion at all about non-Communist mass killings, or even countenance the possibility that there is a substantial body of literature explicitly linking various mass killing incidents with capitalism? Because there is, and it justifies being treated as a body of argument, either in an article on it, or within the merged structure analysing all mass killings together which I've advocated in the Communist article AFD. Rd232 talk 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Between the 4-hour-after-creation AFD nomination, the repeated attempts to delete various relevant sources, and the ridiculously repetitive accusations of POINTyness despite the ever-clearer fact there is a body of literature which justifies this as a topic either as a standalone article or merged somewhere, it seems that there are too many editors here with little interest in generating encyclopedic content on this topic. It is a difficult topic, and I know I didn't give it a good start (due to time constraints), but genuine Wikipedians ought to be more willing to allow this topic to be collaboratively researched and developed over time. I call on everyone involved here to change their Deletes to "Keep for now and renominate later on if necessary". Rd232 talk 13:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Comment What you mean like using Communist sources to blame the Holocost on capitalism? Or to say that Nazi`s were capitalists? I was willing to give this a chance, but this sort of thing is just plain wrong. Equating nazi`s to people who want to turn a profit is sick mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be your opinion that it is "sick", but Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. What matters is that it is a significant thesis which deserves to be documented (much as every Pokemon is, if it helps to put it in perspective). PS In the Nazi case I personally disagree with the thesis, though I can see some merit in the argument. Again, though, my personal opinion is irrelevant. Rd232 talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article includes a sourced opinion that "Nazism was intra-European colonialism" (but certainly not a capitalism). The official name of NSDAP was National Socialist German Workers Party. Nazism means "National Socialism". And that was really the case, at least according to the books I am familiar with.Biophys (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nominator has re-named the article Mass Killings caused by Capitalism, the nomination is moot. The nominator has stated that under this new name "there will be less chance of wp:or and wp:synth". I asked him to move the article back until the AfD was completed, but he has chosen not to do this. Also, the reason given for nominating the article was WP:POINT, which is not a reason for deletion. While the nominator correctly pointed out on the article's talk page that the article should have been better developed before it was created, it would have been more helpful to see whether these issues could be addressed before nominating for deletion. There is currently conversation on the article talk page about sources, and I think it would be more helpful to close the AfD and see if the discussion is productive. TFD (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment TFD is incorrect, i did move it back to the original name, it had since been moved again the rd232. It does not matter what the article is called now, the content still has the same issues, and as was pointed out above the new title suggests that mass killings were caused by the market economy, something not supported by any academic sources. Strong Delete. mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; synthesis, original research and a highly pointy coatrack article. Mass killings caused by capitalism is a moronic title; nations with capitalist economies, fine. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is it? (Unfounded, unexplained, and untrue) accusations of synthesis requiring deletion, or just a name change required? Incidentally, I'm not wedded to the existence of this article; the content can be addressed within a proper mass killings article. But deleting this and keeping the Communist one is inconsistent, and from those !voting that way, easily construable as hypocritical. Rd232 talk 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usefy Move to user subpage and add Noindex. In its present form, leaving this article would help make WP a laughingstock. The original title smacked of coatrack, the revised one is worse. "Caused" is a strong term, and isn't satisfied by noting the concurrence of mass killing and a capitalist economic system. The article starts on a poor foot, conflating economic systems with forms of government. While there is some level of overlap, the conflation is inexcusable. I can't imagine that this ever be an acceptable article, but perhaps my imagination is too limited—let the editor go off and clean it up, then ask for feedback. It is can be cleaned up, it can be moved back into mainspace. It is not currently suitable for mainspace, not even with templates noting its many shortcomings.--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "isn't satisfied by noting the concurrence of mass killing and a capitalist economic system." - well indeed it isn't. However there is a substantive argument made by various people, in the article, that there is a causal relation. That would appear to justify the article, don't you think?? I know the article is a mess at present, but that's what happens when you AFD an article on a tricky subject after 4 hours. PS "In its present form"? WP:IMPERFECT. Rd232 talk 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, in the event of deletion, I don't want it userfied to my userspace; someone else can have it if they want but I'm not about to make a personal project of it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, I tried to get the ball rolling sufficiently to show it's worth having, and that's all I have time (and, really, interest) in. It could be incubated I suppose, or even have the relevant text dropped into a proper mass killing article to make a start on representing those views there (as they undoubtedly should be in a full and complete FA-class mass killing). Rd232 talk 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not the patience to read much of the above debate, but I did read the article. First of all, the current name "Mass Killings caused by Capitalism" is completely off the wall and would have to moved back the previous name if the article is kept. Which it shouldn't be. It it original synthesis and pushes an obvious point of view. It's not scholarly. If we want an article on this subject, which I don't think we do, better to start over with a clean slate when everyone has calmed down. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. This is plainly synthesis and is based on the dubious concept that there's such a thing as a 'capitalist government'. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this glaring original research. Consider nominating Anti-communist mass killings just as well, though the latter is probably not as irreparable in principle. Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it is impossible to avoid the POV. -- Wisconsus TALK|things 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There's no such thing as a "capitalist regime"; there are more differences than similarities between 19th century laissez faire America and Corporatist Fascist Italy. Nothing suggests that any connection between mass killings and a "capitalist" ideology; indeed the main ideology in support of capitalism, classical liberalism, has never supported any kind of mass murder. Merge to anti-communist mass killings is possible, which has some relevance.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're addressing the original title, not the one it's been moved to, which says something about how much attention you've lavished on the matter. Rd232 talk 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: claims of WP:SYNTHESIS which do not explicitly address the fact that sources like Late Victorian Holocausts make precisely the thesis the article documents should be discounted, since clearly these !voters haven't bothered to read the article properly and are dismissing the thesis on the basis of their own gut instinct. Also, it should be irrelevant whether the thesis is true or not, since it is a significant one worth documenting - though concluding it isn't true would encourage renaming the article to avoid implying Wikipedia thinks it is, which seems to be the underlying complaint with virtually all opposition. Rd232 talk 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it make that claim, exactly? According to Google books, the word "capitalism" appears 20 times in the book, and in none of them does he claim capitalism cause one single mass killing. Sounds like your interpretation. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated list of AFD 'keep' votes on Mass killings under Communist regimes, now closed: Collect, OpenFuture, C.J. Griffin, Marknutley, Darkstar1st, Johnbod, Wikidas, Jclemens, WereSpielChequers, MyMoloboaccount, Närking, I-20, Colonel Warden, Teeninvestor, DGG, Shadowjams, BigK HeX, Ginsengbomb, Fubar Obfusco, BritishWatcher, Smallbones, Torchiest, 86.132.227.35, CarolMooreDC, AmateurEditor, Sander Säde, Edward321 Delete votes on this article matching the 'keep' list: Openfuture, Shadowjams, Teeninvestor. 24.5.21.150 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is utterly irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest had not voted when '24.5' updated the list, and should be added to the list of people who, it must (unfortunately IMO) be assumed believe the articles to be so fundamentally different that they vote the exact opposite way on them, and yet do not favor us with this distinction as a point of argument. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep (with expectations of improvement). See below comment for application of procedure to this AfD.
  • Note to closer. It should be clear that no qualifying criteria from the Deletion Policy has been listed. Claims that the article is somehow "disruptive" are meritless. Potential problems with sourcing have been speculated, but it's pretty certain that due diligence is lacking, given that the article is less than a week old. An AfD based on sourcing should not be pursued unless it is actually established to a reasonable degree that efforts at sourcing have been a problem. BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear that no qualifying criteria from the Deletion Policy has been listed. - That is simply not true. The arguments include that it's a content fork, or has to become, of the anti-communist mass killings article. That it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes original theories and conclusions. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You only reinforce my point about speculation. First, you speculate that the "article has to become" a content fork. And, you also speculate that the article cannot possibly be sourced ... and you know this after less than a week? Amazing!
In any case, a quick look through Google scholar seems to have a fair number of possible sources. To claim that "it can't possibly be sourced" is disingenuous speculation. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation, and it's based on more than ten years of discussion in the topic together with a deep insight in capitalism and marxism. It can't be sourced for the simple reason that capitalism never ever caused a single mass killing. The previous topic, "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" I suspected could not be sourced. I don't know of any reliable source that supports the claim, and nobody could point one out. We have what, ten people who have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that communism is not worse than capitalism on MkuComR, and none of then have even one source that looked at MkuCapR. That's a pretty fat hint that there are no sources. But it was theoretically possible that it could be sourced, at least. But now the article was renamed, and with this name, it's impossible. There can not exist a source, because the title is in itself false. No speculation. Fact. Sorry if this breaks your world view or something, but that's not really my problem. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just here to observe some rather amusing hypocrisy, but I think you've shown off just enough pomposity to get me actively involved. Thanks for giving me a little bit to do in my spare time. BigK HeX (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to fight reality you are welcome, but don't blame me, and keep it civil, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it was theoretically possible that it could be sourced, at least. But now the article was renamed, and with this name, it's impossible. There can not exist a source, because the title is in itself false." - of course, the only solution to a problematic title is deletion; it says so right here in the Deletion Policy! Also a diligent closer might note that the allegedly impossible title was given by the AFD nominator, who moved it there after little discussion and declined to move it back when asked. I concurred with that title as better than the original, but if anything the title seems to have reinforced opposers' views. I can't say with hindsight that this renaming was WP:POINTy disruption, but I suggest that were the political tables turned, somebody would be. Rd232 talk 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to quote the part of the Deletion policy that says that, please? Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The reasons for deletion include WP:POINT and a claim that this is intrinsically an advocacy article based on a Marxist interpretation and has no actual RS sources otherwise. The reasons for keeping include an apparent desire to balance an article on mass killings which occurred under communist regimes with a sister article blaming Chinese and Indian 19th century famines on "Capitalism" which may well be a "fringe POV" at best. Collect (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:POINT is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Also, the article has not been given enough time to establish whether it is based on a Marxist premise. Even if it is, this would not be a reason to delete, but to ensure that the fact that it is about a Marxist thesis is made clear within the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect The Amazing Swami From The East once again does not fail to impress, with his extrasensory perception of what writers of articles wish, believe, think, and do in their spare time. Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article describes a number of specific events that had happened during 20th century. None of them is explicitly related to capitalism by any good sources, Marxist or not. Marx lived a century before these events.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite claims to the contrary, this seems like a clear case of WP:POINT, but more importantly, the article is WP:SYNTH, as this isn't a scholarly subject in the same way that Mass killings under Communist regimes is. Tellingly, the original title for this article has already been changed, as there is no such thing as a Capitalist regime in the first place, since Capitalism isn't even a system of government. —Torchiest talk/contribs 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is unsourcable. A50000 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, governments are as Capitalist and Communist as the number of their economic policies, but there are other views: "Most people here simply do not want to check what "capitalism" means"..."capitalism (not a type of "regime" anyway, but an economic system"..."But there are no such government type as Capitalist is there"..."The rationale for a procedural keep assumes that the Communism article has the same issues this one does. It doesn't. They're unlinked in that sense."...
Suchlike assertions are repeated here, varying little from one another. Capitalism is not a government, Communism is not an economic system, and the other article is different from this one. So there must be a difference between Capitalism and Communism that makes the other article more appropriate than this one. There is something about governments whose countries' economic system is Capitalism, that makes them not Capitalist, while goverments whose countries' economic system is Communism, most assuredly are Communist. But what exactly are those differences? And please, when asserting that Capitalism/t is a certain thing or not (a system of government, for example), or Communism/t is a certain thing or not, explain why the other system is or is not that thing also. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Princess Mononoke after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ashitaka[edit]

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

Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. After weighing the arguments, the policy based reasoning is entirely on the delete side. Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Halevy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Halevy is a fitness trainer who is occasionally quoted by the media in fitness articles. Ronz (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous. Halevy regularly appears on national media, authors articles, and according to a recent blog, has landed a recurring segement on The TODAY Show. Ronz was hell bent on deleting this way back when and it successfully was defended here. There is no reason to re-open this in AfD. 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try doing a google search before you so hastily delete 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not an automatic measurement of notability --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AND here are additional sources:
  • Errant? lol. That's pure interpretation. And quite a few have become brand spokespeople? And spoken internationally? The insurance CEO is a red herring. The CEO's identity is as the head of the corporation; he isn't a personality unto himself. Halevy is fitness personality - enough so to warrant frequent international media. I believe Halevy is pretty "separated" by being a brand spokesperson for a national brand and having regular TV & radio appearances for his expert opinion. Yup, I'd say that separates him "from the rest of us." How many articles, TV shows, etc, have featured your expert opinion btw? Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • brand spokespeople - I don't think that counts as notability. Many people are brand spokesmen for notable brands but notability is usually not inherited. The CEO's identity is as the head of the corporation; this is pretty much my point. From the sourcing that exists it currently looks a lot like Halevy consists of the person and the brand. Which confuses the notability issue (I haven't !voted pretty much for this reason). How many articles, TV shows, etc, have featured your expert opinion btw? - just to prove that you should always take care with taking shots on the internet; 4 TV interview appearances, presented a small documentary, regular on local radio, 3 academic papers published and a book in the works. And, no, I am not notable either AFAIK --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked in a few of the refs and in each of the links given above on this page, and the subject does not meet WP:BIO. Yes, Halevy is a fitness trainer, and yes, he is mentioned in several space-filling light-weight stories. However, there are countless thousands of people who do the same. Note that these stories were written not to highlight Halevy and his achievements, but to enthuse about fitness as a topic of interest to readers. WP:BIO has many points which can be summed up as "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". No such sources have been found. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bollocks. It is Halevy's expert opinion that is featured in the refs. Further he the ref for Exercise for Men, he authored. He is also obviously the center-point for the other pieces as well. I'm coming in on this in the middle -- and wonder why all the contention over this simple entry! -- but this meets WP:BIO and we all need to ease up on each other here a bit. Cheers. 64.134.67.62 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — 64.134.67.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep What's all this fuss about? I was about to add new info when I saw the AfD tag... This entry has been up for quite some time...Why are we obsessing all of the sudden? Per above the refs definitely adhere to WP:BIO...even more so on ones that weren't included, eg the Vital Juice piece and the Energy Kichen piece. Self Magazine, Nascar etc I believe speak for themselves. What's gives? 69.65.109.66 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — 69.65.109.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • They do speak for themselves, but not in the way that you hope. The "Nascar piece", for example, contains not one single piece of biographical information about the subject at hand, and doesn't even support the content that it is claimed to support. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From discussion page: Ronz when this article first went up there were no issues. Why should should there be more issues now, two years later? The article is well supported, neutral (and if not why don't you edit?) and meets BLP guides. How many trainers are spokesmen for national brands (Energy Kitchen), have national TV and Radio, international print, written articles, etc? You still haven't addressed this. Halevy wasn't merely "in the news" like a witness to an accident or something for chrissakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.109.66 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xe doesn't have to address it, because it's irrelevant. What is written or said by a person doesn't help write a verifiable encyclopaedia article about that person. What is written about the person is what is relevant. And that is an issue for you to address. Above, you've failed quite spectacularly to do so, citing as potential sources for an article things that contain no information whatsoever on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Offtoriorob and Johnuniq. Sources to not provide the required "significant coverage". ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do you guys want to delete my article? Ive looked over everything provided, and respectfully disagree w/ ukexpat and Johnuniq because relative to anyone else in the field this is quite significant coverage! What promptd all this??? Chad hermanson (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • What sources are you asserting document this person (not something else, but this actual person) in depth? Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(struck, user has vote commented twice Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)) Is everyone here also aware that Halevy was named "America's Fitness Expert" in this week's issue of Woman's World, the #1 selling magazine for women worldwide? Chad hermanson (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not fame nor importance. It's demonstrated by having been noted, i.e. documented, in depth, in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too much testosterone here! ;) All that's needed here is rewrite as the article does meet WP:BIO guidelines. I'll take a stab at it and clean up the refs as well. 68.171.231.16 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - note to the closer of this AFD - This IP address, 68.171.231.16, is registered to Research In Motion Limited, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please start by explaining how WP:BIO is met, identifying the new sources that meet the criteria. Otherwise, you'll be wasting your time. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no need to "defend" per WP:BIO. As it states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."
  • By the very definition of "notable" here, "worthy of notice," certainly any fitness personality garnering this degree of media coverage (ALL media: TV, Radio, Print) for his expert opinion, speaking internationally (forget whether it was "motivational" -- semantics!), has himself authored articles, and been named by more than one large international news source as "America's Expert" (Woman's World, 7/16/10) or "Fitness Guru" (The New York Daily News 5/4/09), trained professional athletes and received coverage because of it (NASCAR), and is the ambassador for a major national brand, Energy Kitchen (created by vitaminwater's founders) is certainly notable.

    There have been arguments made here that Halevy is just 'another in the field' to which I counter, as has been stated before in this debate, walk into any neighborhood gym and ask by show of hands how many of the trainers there are also "notable" in such a way. I would be shocked, just as your better judgment, or any sensible person reading this, if there was even a single hand raised.

    On these grounds notability has been fully satisfied.

    So, once again, whether the source here is questionable by you, Ronz, e.g. in the BVI News reference, it still legitimizes the noteworthiness of its subject. Such is the same for the others where Halevy may have been a contributor to, or the expert opinion of, any given piece.

    That being said, Ronz, I do agree that this entry needs editorial revision, as someone has already offered to do. But to so forcefully push for the chopping block as you have here, and did before, is unreasonable and ruins the sense of a community that should be aimed at inclusion, development, and refinement of collected data.

    This alone is a defense in toto of the WP:BIO notability requirements. There shouldn't be any further destructive pseudo-debate from this point onwards, but rather an effort to refine the entry and move onward. I have been fair and sensible in this matter and appreciate that courtesy in return. -Shawn Hayes ([email protected]) 69.127.117.243 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - — 69.127.117.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at talk] (UTC).
    • So your only response to being asked for sources that document this person, that are about this person rather than about something else entirely, is zero citations of articles about this person, a useless subjective opinion of fame and importance, and a distraction fallacy, then? You're not going to make a case for keeping the article that way. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been tagged for review/rewrite for a good while with no work undertaken. So if the only result of the AFD is to prompt a rewrite that passes WP:BIO then that is good. Unfortunately notability and popularity are not the same thing. The issue in this case is finding biographical information from reputable sources that establish his notability. I'm actually still unconvinced that he is notable for his current achievement. Many people have TV and Radio appearances as experts. Sports teams employ, for example, "celebrity" doctors to train/support the them in much the same way, the position is not particularly notable. Many fitness trainers and motivational speakers write books etc. I actually support the inclusion of as many as is practical - but many--Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) others don't. And more to the point it is impossible to adequately source this person.[reply]
  • KEEP and FYI the note I just left for Ronz on the talk page; :COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your evaluation of the refs. God knows what your agenda is, but you need to chill. I'm rewriting using many of the same refs, which meet WP:BIO. Who made you god of Wikipedia and judge of WP:BIO cred? It completely ruins the community of Wikipedia. I really question your aggressive agenda with this entry... - 96.232.30.28 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — 96.232.30.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just a nod to Ronz for his constructive help with the re-write of this entry. -72.248.3.102 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronz and 72.248.3.102 glad to see this settled civilly and constructively. Are we ok to mark this AfD resolved and remove tags? -Chad hermanson (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone is able to change their position, I have looked at the alterations to the article and the edits have not altered my position and I still support delete as not notable, more minor mentions doesn't assert more notability .Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not changed my position, nor has anyone found even a single indepedent, reliable source that is about Halevy. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've hunted for sources and watched the proposed rewrite with interest/hope - but still nothing notable is springing out at me. So unfortunately I'd have to !vote delete --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that article BLP is totally similar. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many many many many fitness personalities like Halevy, nothing I have seen mark him as anything notable (being a fitness guru or occasional TV celebrity don't appear to satisfy notability guidelines). Your argument is regular fallacy. Thanks for the link to the other article; it certainly needs review and probably an AFD to match this one :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still vote keep. The basic argument stands: there is more than enough to warrant Halevy's notability in his field. Further, as you all know, it's nearly impossible to collect every major TV appearance Halevy or any public figure has had (eg The View). The bottom line is that within his field Halevy passes the notability litmus test. Wikipedia is supposed to be an infinite ever-growing encyclopedia; we should aim to include -Shayes1175 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    — Shayes1175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    It's unclear, but from the wording of Shayes1175 comment above it sounds like he's already voted here through an ip. Is this correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually made many contribs as a casual participant, but decide to jist join the community...so hello - Shayes1175 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see the comments here, we have the nominator and three delete comments from established users and we have the creator of the article and numerous single purpose IP accounts that want to keep it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Borderline noteable. Suggest discussing inclusion of any further info before inserting into article since there seems to be some POV issues w/some editors. The Eskimo 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)
  • Agree. And just because people aren't formal users doesn't mean their opinion should be discredited. I only joined the community now but have anonymously contributed & debated over the years. Regarding this entry, I've made a very sound argument for inclusion (thanks to those who seconded it) and all of the sources have been vetted. Any disagreement at this point is really a semantics game on "notable" given the entry's subject has proven, demonstrable notability in his field.

Shayes1175 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've read the arguments up to this point and I agree with Uncle G, Johnuniq and Errant. I'm sorry I cannot offer any further input but I believe that they have all summed up why he is not notable very well, whereas the counter arguments are not convincing. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As most people I'm sure have noticed, there is a disparity in the votes. Established users are all voting delete, while brand new registered users and IP addresses, all with very little to no prior editing history, are appearing out of the woodwork to vote keep. One of the IP addresses that has weighed in several times (69.65.109.66) is currently being investigated for sockpuppeting (case here). I find it quite astonishing that, since this was nominated for deletion on July 15, that roughly 5 or 6 brand new IPs and registered users decide they want to begin their Wikipedia editing careers, all on this AfD discussion. Just sayin'. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of weighing "established users" is ridiculous. There are plenty of us who choose to participate from the sidelines, rather than making a huge time commitment to the Wikipedia project. There is sufficient enough an argument made here, along with sufficient references to not kill this piece. Just sayin', Jrcla2. And what the heck is a sock puppet? 72.248.3.102 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "all" is wrong; Eskimo.the and Chad hermanson voted KEEP 72.248.3.102 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users Eskimo.the and Chad hermanson are not newly registered users nor IPs. And I'm not surprised that Chad hermanson would vote keep – he created the article. So far Eskimo.the is the only non-brand new editor who supports to keep it. I'm not discrediting him at all, I'm merely pointing out that he is not in the majority. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thought: "There are plenty of us who choose to participate from the sidelines, rather than making a huge time commitment to the Wikipedia project." Yes, that's very true, except none of the IPs (yourself included) have even made one contribution to Wikipedia prior to this article and its AfD page. The word "participate" means to actively engage in. None of the newly registered users and IPs in this discussion have ever "participated" on Wikipedia before. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, you are aware of how IP addresses work, right? They're not static... 72.248.3.102 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth pointing out though that you've been using that IP address for 9 days now and only contributed to this single article. You can see how that looks right? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, you know how proxy servers work, right? They can be accessed by one person in one place in order to switch IPs, making it appear as if they are more than one person. Numerous open investigations on sockpuppets address that very issue. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • is very discouraging to try to contribute when your work is destroyed for no reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can be, if "for no reason" were the case. The article fails WP:BIO. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For no reason" is the case. This article meets WP:BIO easily. As Shayes1175 correctly argued Halevy has plenty of qualifying notability in his field. No one is comparing Halevy to Obama or Marilyn Monroe for crying out loud. There are many less notable entries per WP:BIO on this site, and this is a community site -- this entry easily stands in that mean.

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Halevy was named as one of "America's Ultimate Experts" in July 19th Woman's World - the largest selling woman's magazine. Updated entry including ref + exact page number.

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Fails WP:BIO - Halevy is irrelevant not notable. Notability is demonstrated by having been noted, i.e. documented, in depth, in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. None of the articles referenced are about Halevy, they're about fitness. There's a claim that the Woman's World mention (which again is an oversell) is just another attempt to claim relevance. Per Wikipedia, Woman's World is "published in a large tabloid newspaper format...approximately 12% of the magazine devoted to advertisements" and is "[g]enerally marketed with other tabloid papers" - its clear the entry is just being used for PR - the fact that at least 5 new people happened upon this article during the 7 days its been on AFD are huge red flags. Newuser0727 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Princess Mononoke after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lady Eboshi[edit]

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

Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. recreatioon of the original and a rewritten article encouraged Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jigo[edit]

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

Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from article history (if possible) and restore original article nothing worth merging as it is purely the creators personal opinion and an inappropriate fan site link, but a usable search term. Creator apparently upsurped another article, but said article was an unnotable dictionary definition[8], but as it already has a purpose and presumably links, the original should probably be restored and the creators attempts to take it over removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with hatnote. Delete, restore the article before usurpation and add a hatnote. —I-20the highway 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article here before this one was this, which isn't worth restoring unless someone does some serious work on it. Googling gives mostly irrelevant hits about other stuff with the same name ([9]), so a redirect looks pointless as the film character isn't the primary usage. There is no material worth saving here. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Animal-borne bomb attacks. There is no consensus to delete but editorially a merge appears more appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian animal bomb attacks[edit]

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

What is the point of this? Is this really an appropriate article to have in a serious encyclopedia? Doesn't satisfy WP: SYNTH or WP: INDISCRIMINATE. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Although it's a strange article, I see nothing wrong with the concept. It seems a little biased, but most of that could be fixed by just removing the "Palestinian" part - call it "List of animal bomb attacks" instead. Bart133 t c @ 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This article is hilarious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should BJAODN it, then? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hilarious? The idea of strapping bombs to innocent animals that will explode murdering people. possible large numbers of of people? If you are truly amused by this, you must have thought the airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center was a hoot.AMuseo (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Exploding animal. But a more general subject would be Animals in warfare.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Exploding animals is no solution, because that article is an inappropriate merging of two distinct phenomena: animals that explode due to natural causes, and animals used to carry explosives intended to murder human beings. That article needs to be separated into two articles.AMuseo (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:SYNTH. it is a tactic in frequent use in the Middle East. as for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this is Murder !, planned, deliberate murder and also curelty to animals. Hardly trivial. AMuseo (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Five times in 15 years doesn't seem very "frequent" to me. It seems like you may have a bias with regard to the Middle East. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while it may have been attempted murder, it appears as if no one save the perpetrators was killed in any of these 5 attacks. Which means that all five of them were essentially failed attacks. That leads me to question their notability even more. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title change' to Palestinian animal bomb attacks is an excellent idea. Or Palestinian Animal-borne bomb attacksAMuseo (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User's fourth edit. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and stealthly uncivil. You've shown you are capable of counting to 4. Everyone of us started contributing at #1.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most new Wikipedians start contributing in the talk page namespace and/or the article namespace. For a new user to cut his/her teeth on AFD's is extremely unusual, and generally results in the user's opinion being discounted due to the possibility that they may have been recruited from off-wiki. So it's not "absolutely irrelevant" as you claim. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Md Hashem[edit]

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

Although this individual sounds notable, I cannot find a single reliable source to verify the article content. There is no verifiable content that would allow confirmation that he meets general notability or WP:ENT. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For notability issues. I googled the name and there aren't any independent/secondary sources to hint at notability. Manyleaver (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you're not going to have much success just by Googling the title. "Md" is short for "mohammed" (or any of the dozen alternate spellings of it). As I understand, it also has multiple spellings in Bengali as well ... cab (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete : Non notable regional singer. (replying to CaliforniaAliBaba, no significant coverage of subject can be found in Bangladeshi media, using all possible spelling of the subject in Bengali and English). --Ragib (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to searching for the individual directtly (books/news/web) I also took a shot looking for the listed book and foundation, and also came up empty, this might be just too intractable for even the BLP Rescue Squad to save. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no information about this person in reliable sources. It may well be that coverage exists in non-english sources, but at this point, there is no sourcing available at all. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THD method[edit]

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

Spotted this on patrols this morning. It's not explicitely spam, but sure feels a little spammy due to the peacockishness of this. (Hemorrhoids are the most feared? I'd be more worried about rectal cancer!) It boils down to that this appears to be an essay explaining this technique in removing hemorrhoids - and beyond promotional tone, not a lot more than that. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to append the nomination with the related article:

HAL method (Hemorrhoidal Artery Ligation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across the second article while checking if the text was copied from elsewhere. The presence of a second article supports the spam hypothesis.Novangelis (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • HAL appeared to be the same text as THD method so I have deleted it and another copy at Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless external links providing evidence of notability are provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Since my supplemental nomination has gone as a speedy, I will comment on the named article. The subject appears in PubMed under the various article names, but that is about it. Based on the limited data (one recent review remarked on the poor quality of studies), I do not think that there is enough to support an article at this time. The ad-like enthusiasm makes the current text unsuitable for a merge (e.g. it is described as painless, but post-operative pain effects 18.5% of patients). The procedure description at Hemorrhoid#Procedures (a potential redirect target) is more useful than anything in this article.Novangelis (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gamer. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of gamers[edit]

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

I really don't see the point of this article. If this was a way to force a merger, it failed. The author copy pasted the original articles, added very little, and posted some merger notes without actually starting a discussion. Each of the subjects is notable, and there is an article on each. The most this page can do is point to main pages. The material in a very close format is available in gamer. Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I didn't originally notice that this is what the page is about and started editing it. It might have looked slightly better before I started. --Muhandes (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case they are relevant to the discussion, the merge proposals "discussions":
Hardcore gamer Merger Proposal
Retrogaming Merger Proposal

--Muhandes (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl gamer (2nd nomination) added by Active Banana (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment all of the "gamer" articles need serious clean up and additional sourcing. The entire structuring of the "gamer" related topics also needs to be addressed and a logical framework developed and applied. This article however, does not appear to be enhancing either of those objectives. If the poor quality individual articles are to be kept, I see no value in this article. However, if the other articles "content" (such as it is) would be deposited in this article and the other articles converted into redirects here and the section in Gamer#Types_of_video_gamers turned into an actually summary style; then this article would be the logical incubator for developing coherent individual articles that could be spun off as they become developed into more than a few random claims in a stub. Active Banana (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gamer. SharkD  Talk  02:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It duplicates information from gamer article. Like SharkD wrote - merge, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- gamer article covers everything needed, and most of this is copy/paste. In the event that anything of use would need to be kept, it should be merged, then the article deleted. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge additional, non-copypasted-from-other-articles (i.e. plagiarism) content to gamer and redirect there; I note that Types of gamers#Women in gaming is directly copypasted from girl gamer (or whatever it should be named); just closed as a snowball keep. Otherwise, I see no other reason for there to have a separate spinout article on types of gamers (with the exception of girl gamer, but that can be discussed separately if a separate article is justified; the current consensus says so), especially when the gamer article is nowhere near developed. –MuZemike 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beezer (video game)[edit]

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

While there is reason to believe that the game could be notable, all there is is an infobox, a short statement about what it is, and how you play it. And... when I did a Yahoo search I got lots of different things, such as a website with game strategies, a dictionary entry that says it's a slang word for nose, and tons of other miscellaneous stuff... Kayau Voting IS evil 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Ost (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage whatsoever that I could find in a WP:VG reliable source search, everything lead to a person known as "Beazer". No relevant Google hits, either. It probably exists, but there's nothing here to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a look for sources a few days ago and came back empty handed. Early arcade games can be a swine to source, and in cases like these are best left to arcade history projects who don't have the same requirements for sources. Fails WP:N and WP:V due to a lack of reliable sources. Someoneanother 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A&S Case Company[edit]

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

Not notable. My I-don't-have-to-run day (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes[edit]

List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's way too soon to create this article. Casting is not even complete yet nor has the show started filming. All that is known is the title of the first episode. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and can always be recreated when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. and flag as stub. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to create this article. Some future content might be speculative, but the current content looks good and the article itself is a keep. patsw (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since deleting and restarting would be a waste of time, and the consensus seems to be that one function of WP is to keep track of raw data on every TV show that ever existed.Borock (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's been announced in RS'es, a stub article is appropriate. Announced episodes of ongoing TV series are routinely added to such lists before airing--e.g., List of House episodes. Jclemens (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with protest I know this will have no effect, but it would be much better to redirect readers to the official sites of TV programs for lists of episodes etc. Much better all around, for readers who would get up to date official information, for the shows who would get traffic to their sites, for WP editors who would be freed up to do more important things, and (IMO) for WP itself. Borock (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minor as the page may seem now, it is not like how when most shows that are created or a new season comes in, people add false/speculted information with no references. This page has complete credible references. Honestly it has a professional look about itself unlike most pages (List of Law & Order: SVU episodes), as long as the page is not like that one... it seems fine to me to stay. If redirected people will come in a undo/redo it countless times; which in itself would be time wasted.--SVU4671 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just want the closing admin to note, for the record, that there has only been one policy based argument for keep, that of patsw. The other arguments have been variations of WP:LOSE, WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:LIKE. It may still be deleted because of patsw's current well phrased argument, but I just want it noted that no one else has given a valid argument for keep. Redfarmer (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's been announced in RS'es, a stub article is indeed appropriate. Announced episodes of ongoing shows are oftenly added to such lists before airing.--66.217.112.3 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to the series article. It's widely advertised as airing for the fall season. Redirect with keeping the history intact also works, since you can just restore and work on it when the first episode airs. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've gone and looked over the page with a 'fine toothed comb'; everything is in proper order. Credible/reliable references/sources, the information in the table's are correct; most pages with episode listings before the show airs or a new season starts; misinformation is added, false statements, 'fake episodes', uncredible references from places like; Facebook, Twitter, IMDb, SpoilerTV. I must say this page has taken a step in the right direction. I think it should just stay; as it was mentioned if redirected people WILL indeed come in and undo the work before September 22. As long as everything here now and added in the future is credibly sourced, I really do not see a problem with the page staying up.--PaulaSVU (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (EC) Everything on the list has been verified to date. If something on the list changes, then it can be changed accordingly. That is not a reason to delete. Tavix |  Talk  17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Warwick Conservative Association[edit]

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

Non-notable individual branch of what is clearly a notable organisation, however as per WP:CLUB these Individual branches are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article.

I can't find any indication that this is one of those examples. Exactly zero Gnews hits, as for G Hits nothing of any substance, of the top 10 (of the 31 hits) 3 are from it's own site or blog, another 3 are from either linkedin or facebook, of the remaining 4, one appears to be a search engine (DuckDuckgo), another has no ref to it on the page (fatherhoodschool.com), another is www.1stock-trading.com and the last one is a Blog (www.rousemedia.co.uk/). Codf1977 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damien King[edit]

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

Personal article, not notable. Joleran (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I might have speedied but it's been around for five years. No independent sourcing, no assertion of notability, and his only notable 'releases' aren't even original works. --Golbez (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. There are no secondary sources, just personal pages.Manyleaver (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above. This is dressed up to a degree, but at the end of the day it hasn't met the requirements to be notable. Fuzzygenius (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Symoné[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline and WP:ENT. Reconsider! 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might also be worth including The Sydney Symoné Morning Show, by same editor: no evidence of notability, no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anel Hodzic[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a pro league. bneidror (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:A7 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witcraft[edit]

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

Non-notable company, with no reasons for importance given. CSD A7 was removed by non-author. I can find no sources other than self-published. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the speedy deletion tag was removed "by non-author". It was removed twice by an account with no other edits at all. In any case, whoever removed it, the article qualified for speedy deletion and has been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's cool, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Giani[edit]

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

A speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 based on no reasonable assertion of notability was previously declined (not by me). I have declined speedy deletion based on this being overly promotional. I think this rests on whether the individual meets WP:BIO so an AfD should sort this out. Polargeo (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability expressed. Publishing a couple of apps isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable person User:Lucifero4
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; no arguments for deletion remain. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Fillmore[edit]

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

American farmer who does not appear to be notable (WP:BIO) in any way. He was the father of a 19th century US president; however, notability is not inheritable and there does not seem to be anything else of interest to write about Nathaniel Fillmore himself.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn in view of the coverage found by Nsk92, thanks! (I'll remember to look on Google Books too, next time.)  Sandstein  12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing doing here. Inherited "notability", BLP1E issues and little or no coverage of his own in reliable sources (Google results). Alzarian16 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Clearly I judged this completely wrong. Nsk92 has found exactly the kind of sources I failed to. Change to keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering the subject of the article apparently died in 1863, I'm thinking WP:BLP1E probably isn't applicable. WP:BIO1E may have been the link you are looking for.--Rockfang (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I imagine that there won't be an awful lot of online sources about someone like this, but the online searching I've done has produced nothing that might indicate notability independent of his son. If anyone has access to some offline sources with any additional information, feel free to add it and I'll reconsider my position.  -- Lear's Fool 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To pass WP:BIO, it is not necessary to have done anything notable or to have completely independent reasons for notability. What is required is to have been the focus of specific and detailed coverage (for whatever reason); c.f. Alois Hitler. Nsk92 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep per Nsk92. I'm a little ashamed that I didn't find those sources...  -- Lear's Fool 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO1E really applies only if the available coverage of the subject is incidental and that the person in question is never himself/herself the focus of specific and detailed coverage. In this case Nathaniel Fillmore has in fact been the focus of such coverage. E.g. there are chapters/sections about him in several books, such as: The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Blythe and Roger Clinton, First Fathers: The Men Who Inspired Our Presidents, The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders. A more detailed look at other GoogleBooks results shows that there is in fact a fair amount of biographical information available about Nathaniel Filmore to support a reasonable article. The article certainly needs sourcing but I think the subject does pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was in the middle of making the same arguments that Nsk92 did, but he did it better so "per Nsk92" will have to do. Hobit (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rockfang and Nsk92. There are gaps on the Internet and one thing we can do is fix them. This will require offline sources, but some have been identified. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Biron[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:POLITICIAN, makes no claim of notability except candidature for a party which has never held a major political office. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Almost anyone can register as a candidate for a political office and so notability guidelines would be rendered ineffectual. Can only find one instance as a director of a short-lived offering from 1991 and so also fails WP:CREATIVE. Taroaldo (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that WP:BIO is met.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Raimondo[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a soap box. This non-notable individual is seeking political nomination in Rhode Island and this article reads like her election pamphlet: "created jobs in Rhode Island", "launching a new shelter for women" etc, and the External Links take you to her campaign website. Created by a WP:SPA then contributed by SPAs, including one blocked indefinitely for promoting political candidates on Rhode Island. Speedy delete. I42 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7, as tagged Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has previously been tagged (by me) for speedy deletion but this was contested, so I procedurally removed your renomination. I42 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while subject may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, they do meet WP:GNG, with numerous (about 75) GNews hits, including from the Washington Post, Phoenix Business Journal, Rocky Mountain News, in addition to local coverage. Subject was apparently a 1993 Rhodes scholar. Clearly notable. GregJackP Boomer! 08:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article probably does need a rewrite to remove spammy features. GregJackP Boomer! 08:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Whaley[edit]

Forrest Whaley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The article claims the person was interviewed by Nick News but I am unable to confirm this through the Nick News site. And in any case, a single interview is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the wild assertions can be verified. It just may be too soon for an article on the subject; see WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment claim of being among the most subscribed of all time has been removed from the article, the channel does not appear on YouTube list of most scrubscribed.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow recreation once things can be verified. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Keong Saik[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with cab. A street in the heart of Singapore city named after the man, and that means the man is a person with notable contributions to the society. Since this is a stub, more research is needed to build on the knowledge of the person in discussion.--Marcuslim (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Ghost[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and not very well written. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinect Sports[edit]

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

WP is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence of notability yet; it should wait till it is released and becomes notable etc. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Flagship title for the Kinect hardware, being released on a major platform. Comparison to WP:NFF shows that this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. --erachima talk 05:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entity does not exist. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Limited media attention as yet. Can we at least wait for these things to come out before we write them up? Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: Entity is in development. Not existing and being in development are different things, and WP:CRYSTAL only applies to articles that are about things far enough off that we cannot confirm any information regarding them. In this case, we're talking about a game that's less than 4 months off. --erachima talk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Ost (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the creator of this page and I see it far from crystal ball-ism: it's coming out in november which is less than half a year away, many games with articles have relese dates much much farther away. Also this is kind of a killer app for the Kinect system, so several people are going to be intrested in finding out what this is about before it's release. --Deathawk (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm only seeing one source in the article, but it's very solid. WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't seem to apply as there are plenty of sources showing the game exists [10] for example. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - a quick search of WP:VG Reliable Sources turns up over 10 pages of results, with several useful references on the first two pages. Article needs cleanup and additional sourcing, not deletion. --Teancum (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion below. Delete without prejudice. - Fails WP:N & WP:V due to lack of second or third party sources, WP:CRYSTAL applies here in the loosest of senses. We've had articles on similar subjects deleted on similar grounds once or twice before. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those aren't similar. The first one isn't even to an upcoming game but to a disambiguation page that some people felt was no longer needed. The second is to a game whose only known information at the time was that it was planned to be released the following year & a single picture of official artwork. This is a game that is coming out in less then four months & was playable at this year's E3. SNS (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Now address the lack of sources issue. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any special reason why these sources haven't been added to the article yet? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect no one else has added them for the same reason you haven't. Keep in mind we are debating if the topic should have an article, not if this one is the article we should have. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD means Articles For Deletion, not Topics For Deletion. Sources have been found, notability has been established. However, unless those sources are added to the article, it still fails Wikipedia standards and is a candidate for deletion. Yes, I understand the process isn't that cut and dry, which is why I'm switching my vote to keep and request the article be tagged for clean up once kept. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons mentioned in above comment SNS (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. and cleanup Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Gallmon Cooke[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Horrible article. Good singer. A google on "Edna Gallmon Cooke" clearly shows right away that she's (reasonably) famous and notable. Article needs about 12 tags, though. It's not a copyvio, however, as near a quick scan shows me. Keep! And tag. And improve. Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I searched Google as well and I can't find much info about her other than the external link in the article. She does show up on billboard.com, but there it says she never charted. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Has an entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher, which, incidentally, is significantly longer than the following entry for the ultra-notable Sam Cooke. I don't understand how those commenting above managed to miss that, as it is the second of the 81 book sources that can be found by clicking on the spoon-fed links at the top of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, she's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010 Biobío earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable earthquake, no damages or casualties reported. WP:NOTNEWS Diego Grez ¿qui pa'? 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to make it clear without a long explanation. Sorry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mean. I live in the area and I've written the Wikinews article linked on the article. The event was just an aftershock of the major 8.8 February 27 earthquake, as a seismologist said here. No notability at all. If we were to write an article about every single about the February earthquake, Wikipedia could get flooded with them, seriously. Diego Grez ¿qui pa'? 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per nom. Not notable at all, and the article is one sentence. —fetch·comms 22:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fetchcomms. Justmeagain83 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aftershock of the 8.8 in February. Since there were no additional effects I think a brief mention in that article would be best. RapidR (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Pat-Horenzcyk[edit]

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

Easily fails WP:ACADEMIC, Open-and-shut case, if not quite a speedy. She needs to write a book or give some interviews or get an award or something if she wants an article. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Name spelt wrong. "Ruth Pat-Horenczyk" gives some hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Argh, can't they get their names right at least. You are correct, "Ruth Pat-Horenczyk" generates more hits (although "Ruth Pat-Horenzcyk" also generates hits, which is confusing). However, I still don't see the kind of hits - to books, interviews, important papers, keynote speeches, etc. - to convey notability in a WP:PROF sense. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GS hits give h index of 8, so probably not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Having checked both spellings of surname in Google News, Books & Scholar, I don't think this person meets any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as yet. Qwfp (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Of Shankly[edit]

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

A gadfly club which made a brief nuisance protest that, on its own terms, would violate WP:NOTNEWS. Not an encyclopedic article, by any stretch -- and the whole "Aims" section seems to have been lifted from another source. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn nomination Looks like I made a blunder with this one. Sorry about that. Can some nice person please close this thing? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Group is notable as UK football supporter's first union. If an English non-Liverpool supporter was asked who Spirit of Shankly were, The chances are they would know due to national press coverage in England thus notable? TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article does seem to have been written in a terrible style, but I'm sure the subject is notable. – PeeJay 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other organisations similar to Spirit Of Shankly that find themselves on Wikipedia. [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] I think you'll find Spirit Of Shankly has appeared in the news far more frequently than any of the above, and yet there is no possible deletion discussion on those particular groups. Furthermore, the Liverpool owners have announced their intention to sell the club, and it would be highly likely many news agencies will be contacting SOS over any further developments. They have been, and look set to remain, the media's people to go to when it comes to one of the biggest ownership saga's in sporting history. It's estimated that Liverpool have 45 million fans worldwide. In some quarters this group is viewed as the voice of those 45 million people. Surely all this makes the subject notableUser:BobSlayer91 —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Also, the user who suggests this page should be deleted, "Regent of the Seatopians", incorrectly describes the actions of the group as a "brief nuisance protest." The protests have been anything but brief, considering they started in early 2008 and continue to this very day. The reason the group has appeared in the media so often is because the protests have been prolonged and disruptive, rather than a "brief nuisance." User: BobSlayer91 —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Poorly written but the sources look sufficient for WP:GNG as they don't just refer to one event but several. This is a decent start, but it's this one that clinches it for me. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Selena Gomez & the Scene discography. Move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Year Without Rain, and redirect title to Selena Gomez & the Scene discography SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Year Without Rain (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)[edit]

A Year Without Rain (Selena Gomez & the Scene album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no tracklist, so WP:HAMMER applies. All the contents are the article are copies of the material already contained at Selena Gomez & the Scene or Round and Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). Efforts to redirect the article, as indicated by WP:MUSIC, have been thwarted by anonymous editors that continually resurrect it. —Kww(talk) 00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. Please move to Article Incubator if available. Right now, it just needs more information, confirmation from Sel and her band. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well-sourced and far from a stub, despite a completed tracklisting (although there are several confirmed tracks). Albums do not require a complete tracklisting if enough referenced information for the album if available, which I believe is present here. CloversMallRat (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (Incubate). Good idea from Silvergoat to move to the Article Incubator. With one single already in rotation and plenty of (unreliable) internet chatter, it appears that the album is a near-future reality and some pretty good work has already gone into the article. But it should just be incubated and kept out of active WP until WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER are no longer issues. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Incubate. Either solution is fine and solves the problem. It has yet to chart and it doesn't warrant its own page as is. Incubating it would probably be best as it would probably deter anonymous users who may not be aware of how to get it out of the incubator. Adam 94 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. Article's definitely not a stub and albums can indeed get advance articles if there's enough referenced information available, but I think the album can be included just at the artist's article until we get the track listing in this case. Cliff smith talk 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Discography, It has quite a bit of information, but not the necessary info for an album's page. A redirect is suitable for the time being. Ga Be 19 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Recycling codes. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Universal Recycling Codes[edit]

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

This article appears to be almost entirely original research. There are no international recycling standards; some areas, such as the European Union, have standards that apply to all their member countries, but there are no "universal" standards. This article seems to be synthesized from the SPI resin identification coding system and some existing European standards that give identification numbers to certain materials (see article talk page). — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I don't think it's original research, but rather a case of someone not having enough sense to explain where they got the information. Mandsford 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent some time trying to identify the source of the information, without much success. I really think it would have been easier if the information was genuine. That said, we'll see what happens after old references are found (see below). — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the intention of contacting an admin with access to deleted entries so I can pull the various references from the old entry. Lostinlodos (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original Page which I helped create titled (I believe) Universal Recycling Codes, had a list of references in it. It was expanded from the page Recycling codes, and then that came from something else as well. Any Chance of digging up those old files to grab a listing of reference links?Lostinlodos (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (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) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for old references. Following the interwiki links right there in the current article leads one to de:Recycling-Code, where you'll find it stated outright in the article that the plastics codes are in accord with the Society of the Plastics Industry, and stated on the talk page that the overall list comes from EN ISO 1043. You'll find, Earle Martin, that the content of resin identification code is somewhat parochial. European recycling codes are somewhat different to U.S. ones, and the article that you're looking at only covers the U.S. ones. China, Korea, and Japan have their own, further, different, systems of recycling symbols and codes. You can find out about the lot in documents such as this one. You can find out about the Japanese codes from looking at the Italian, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese Wikipedias' articles.

    Also note that these are, indeed recycling codes, not solely resin codes. As you can see from the list, materials such as cork, glass, and paper are included in the relevant European, Japanese, and other standards. This article is, in fact, just a beginning of a treatment of this subject. The English Wikipedia has given it a somewhat parochial treatment thus far (more parochial than, as noted, in other language Wikipedias). This is a good step along the road to rectifying that, and globalizing our treatment of the subject. (The article is also better named in the German, Czech, and Danish Wikipedias, to boot.)

    Oh, and the "ISO" in EN ISO 1043 means that it's an international standard, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well gee whiz, Uncle G, I'm sorry that I don't speak German. If only listing the article here could have shed more light on the situation, oh wait, it has. [rolls eyes]

      Yes, there's a list of plastic codes. So that much of the article is correct. But what of the rest? The talk page for that German article does not actually say that "the overall list comes from EN ISO 1043". What it says is that ISO 1043 doesn't mention the triangular recycling symbols, just the letter codes. And ISO 1043, that's the international standard, covers plastics, not glass or metal. So what I can extract from your rather patronizing comment above is that we should have a globalized plastics codes identification article. That's all well and good. However, it still doesn't demonstrate that most of the content of this article is anything but wishful thinking. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to a new and more appropriate title, perhaps simply "Recycling codes". I have seen no coverage of an International code. I think the title could in fact be original research With a less contentious title it could be a good list article. My76Strat 01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Recycling codes". No really what WP was intended for ("not a directory"?), but still an important and useful topic. A little of the history of the codes could be added, if sources are found for that. Borock (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Borock. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers characters. The Transformers Wikia already has an article on this character, and this does appear, as people have said, a more appropriate place for such a detailed article on a minor character. There is also a mention in List of The Transformers characters , which appears to be an appropriate redirect. Reliable secondary sources are always helpful, and both this article and the list would require appropriate sourcing. Fan websites are not generally considered reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nightbird (Transformers)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a character that appeared in a single episode of The Transformers (TV series), suggest merging to a character list. Rm994 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Luna (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND

  • This is a recreation of a previous WP:CSD that was recreated without improvement. The CSD tag was removed and some article improvement was made with no reliable third-party sources provided for the improvement. A PROD was added along with primary sources and ref improve tags but they were removed by the article's creator. It fails WP:BAND because the band has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". The editor, who declined the CSD, stated on the talkpage that the group may have charted. However, as per the words above the criteria, an "ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.)" may be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this group's notability is not established. --moreno oso (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some coverage of the band exists, which I identified on the article's talk page. It isn't enough to be convincing evidence of notability, but could contribute towards it if more can be found.--Michig (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2010 (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) 00:04, 8 July 2010 (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, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. Poorly sourced band article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melkamu Tebeje[edit]

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

WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:V. No secondary coverage in books/news, no reliable secondary coverage via web searches. A potential hole in this search is the lack of possible Etheopean-language sources available on-line. Marked as unsourced for roughly three years. j⚛e deckertalk 17:03, 1 July 2010 (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) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. All sources in the article are either very poor quality (i.e. Myspace), have trivial or no mentions of the subject, or are primary sources. A google search does not yield any higher quality sources. SnottyWong spout 19:16, 1 July 2010 (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) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well done and informative. WP Notability Doctrine falls apart for underground music. Sufficient releases for notability. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any independent, secondary sources with substantial coverage of this individual? All I've been able to find are primary sources, trivial mentions, and myspace/facebook pages. It doesn't matter how well done the article is if the subject isn't notable. SnottyWong chat 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of Wikipedia notability doctrine in the first place and note that it is particularly unworkable with regards to underground music. My own approach would be to let well done material stand and let the users read or not read based upon their searches. A "non-important" topic or band won't be searched and will sit unloved in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles. Where is the problem in that? On the other hand, the information will be THERE for those who desire it. Obviously, this is a radical reorientation from the way things have been on Wikipedia. But the concept is worth some thought, is it not? Carrite (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem with your argument is that the subject of this article is a living person and this article will be one of the first hits when someone googles the name "Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen". Since any goober with axe to grind against the subject can edit the article and add unsourced but credible sounding crap to it, we can't let it "sit unloved (and unwatched) in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles". It needs to meet WP:N or it needs to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your fear is one of inadequate BLP sourcing — which may well be a valid complaint — but you cite notability doctrine as the cure for this problem..... Which doesn't logically follow. If the fear is about sourcing on a BLP, the argument is one of sourcing, not notability ("WP:N") ... Carrite (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (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) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poor quality sources, all of which are varying levels of unreliable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Ginceng ^^. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nominator, no independent coverage in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP disaster waiting to happen. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AnyJunk. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mohr[edit]

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

I don't believe that founding one company makes you notable. The company itself might be notable, but the founder does not inherit notability from that. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nom. Possible redirect? — Timneu22 · talk 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references in the article point to significant coverage in reliable sources, and focus at least as much on the subject as on the business that he founded. There is probably a strong case to be made for a merge with AnyJunk, with the title to be decided by talk page discussion, but that's an editing decision rather than one for AfD because both Mohr and his business have been shown to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only see inherited notability from the business. All the coverage of Mohr is in relation to the business. What awards etc. had Mohr personally won that would make him notable had he not founded the business? I can find none. As I said in the nom, simply founding a business does not make one notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:53, 2 July 2010 (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) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as per nom) and Merge (as per suggestion). Stalwart111 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion and merger are incompatible. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry: Delete article as per nom, and Merge some content from article into the artical about the business he founded. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's still not picking one. One or the other; you cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to AnyJunk, little notability apart from the founding, content is already covered in the company article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content over and above th Any Junk article, nothing to establish standalone notability. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to AnyJunk, notability is not inherited and there doesn't seem to be any in-depth biographical information available. Yworo (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AnyJunk per the above ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Whpq (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether anyone who is calling for redirection rather than merging has noticed that, before the nominator removed it, the article contained biographical information about the subject's life prior to his creating AnyJunk, which is verified by the sources in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information I removed had no references attached to it, and in any event does not indicate notability. It was CV material. Anyone can post his CV, as indeed it appears the subject of this article's marketing manager did, so we have COI issues on top of everything else. Harry the Dog WOOF
    • If the result is redirect, which it looks like it will be, that doesn't stop you adding some verified info about him to AnyJunk. Indeed, you could do so right now. Fences&Windows 03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In answer to Phil's question, yes I looked at the article history prior and saw the removed material before deciding to !vote redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Seems to be only noteable due to the company he founded. Not a public figure of interest. The Eskimo 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Evin[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a memorial Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE and maybe WP:ONEEVENT (only notable for his death). Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although Josh Evin did pass away recently, this is not why he is noteable. He is noteable because he was a professional skateboarder who competed in professional skateboarding events & placed well. He was also featured in skateboarding videos & magazines as well. If you google his name most of the links will be pertaining to his death but this is because he passed away unexpectedly very recently. If you keep clicking you will see other links in relation to him being a pro skateboarder which were all in existence while he was alive. He is noteable for his skateboarding, not his death. robfromvan 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfromvan (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm calling delete because I couldn't find sources to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. From the article: could be seen in the skateboard video Unfazed unfortunately says it all :( --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, he was a pro scateboarder with some kind of a sponsor, but did he win a notable award in a notable competition? According to the canadian province Evin, ranked among the top 10 pro skateboarders in the world, appeared in videos and travelled to pro competitions in Europe, North America and Australia.Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any decent references to his top 10 world ranking. The only things I can find out is that came second in the ASA Sports Tour in '04 and then 4th in Vans Triple Crown in '08. I'm not sure if they count as notable competitions. this is one source that mentions his placings but I confirmed it on other sites too. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avoided Deforestation Partners. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Horowitz[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This article was tagged a G4 speedy (repost of previously deleted material), however, this incarnation uses this source, which mentions Horowitz in a non-trivial manner and did not exist at the time of the previous AfD.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Avoided Deforestation Partners - subject is only quoted briefly in the CNBC article, but not mentioned in the other cites given. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and no indication of notability per WP:BIO. I cut out a lot of the highly WP:PROMO tone used in the original version, but I don't see sufficient notability for a separate article. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article appears to have been flagged because someone tried to create it before, not because of the actual content which seems notable. Additional reliable, sources have been added specifically referencing Mr. Horowitz. He is the founder of a key organization in the environmental policy debate and has become a significant and political force in the fight over climate change legislation. The sources cited, New York Times, CNBC, Reuters, Huffington Post all indicate Mr. Horowitz prominent and notable role in a major policy debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actioneditor (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is currently no citation in the article from the New York Times or Reuters, and the CNBC post only mentions him in passing as noted above. can you find any profiles of him, or coverage specifically about him, rather than about the organization for which he works? Being associated with or founding a notable organization doesn't automatically confer notability, as discussed in WP:BIO. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are direct citations profiling Mr. Horowitz and describing his role in the climate debate. [14][15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.234.130 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation from the Prairie Star cannot be used establish Horowitz's notability. The interview on the mongabay.com website sounds interesting, however a look at the site's about page shows a lot of puffery that is untypical of such pages, leaving the entire site's credibility in doubt. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Praire Star is a legitimate, reputable publication covering Montana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actioneditor (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No doubt about that, but the mention of Horowitz in it only qualifies as trivial. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is another reputable journalist with a full interview on Mr. Horowiz that establishes his significant role in climate legislation lobbying. Marc Gunther is a long time reporter with an xcellent track record. http://www.marcgunther.com/tag/jeff-horowitz/
            • If you feel you have to tell us who Marc Gunther is, then I don't think you yourself regard him as being that reliable for our purposes. It would help if you were to tell us what periodical publishes material from him on a regular basis, and link to his articles within these publications' websites. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:30, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gunther is a long-time reporter and contributing editor at Fortune Magazine, Slate, and CNNMoney. Here is his bio [1]. Here are a few links. [2][3][4]He is also the author of The House That Roone Built, which is the seminal book on the rise of ABCNews (see bio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.70 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Businessweek and Politico.com articles specifically highlighting Horowitz's central role in the effort to protect rainforests. This is incontrovertible verifiable legitimate sourcing for this article establishing it as noteworthy. [5][6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actioneditor (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 July 2010 (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) 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not enough sourcing for a stand alone bio. The Eskimo 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerGenix[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:44, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two of the three refs provided by Robofish are good for me. The Newsblaze item is a press release. There is other coverage however such as [19] and [20]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Road (Charity)[edit]

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

Charity without any claim to notability, only operates in one county of UK. No references, only ref listed does not mention them. Seems like blatant self-promotion, 2 contributors only additions are for this and related articles. Dmol (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - They have some local coverage but not enough for me to put them over the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Yale[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC as there are not multiple, independent sources. We have discussed something like this a year ago. TM 16:23, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are insufficient to establish notability under WP:MUSIC. Yale is one of those universities that has no shortage of a cappella groups, and this group is just one of many. (I count at least 14 a cappella groups on that list, and I don't even see the most notable one, The Whiffenpoofs, listed there.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Clock Tower (film)[edit]

The result was Redirected to Clock Tower (series)#Film adaptation where the subject already has which has more information than this article. Since the mominator has withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article, and since I have voiced no other opinon other that suggesting the closure, and per suggestion made on my talk page, I am closing this discussion as moot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not clear how this might ever meet WP:NFILM.Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Challenged prod. Created and largely edited by a user with a history of copyvio and vandalism. RadioFan (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest closure of the AFd as moot. Article has been redirected and nomination has been withdrawn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Nwadiora[edit]

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

vanity nn bio, not a single improvement in two years since last no-consensus AFD Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the wild assertions can be verified. Two years is enough time to find sources. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pegasus (Rapper)[edit]

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

Rapper of questionable notability. All provided references are to primary sources (personal websites, YouTube, Myspace), with no significant coverage from independent third party sources. No independent confirmation found for claims to have been "featured on MTV's Road Rules and The Real World". TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There's sufficient coverage in reliable sources, as noted by Michig. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow/speedy keep. This should not have been nominated in the first place -- a wp:before search by nom would have clarified its inappropriateness.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk Educator[edit]

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

Over two years with no sources added. Aside from a few fansites, forums and lots of torrents, I find no reliable sources that prove this has achieved any significant notability magnius (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NFILM. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A single review is pretty routine for film like this. Claritas § 15:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lsh[edit]

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

I would have prodded this article were it not for the fact it was created in 2003 and has a substantial number of third-party edits by established editors. Software whose notability is not supported by a Google search. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources (q.v.) treat this alongside several other packages as one of a set of lesser-known alternatives to SSH. Merger to some similar treatment by Wikipedia would therefore seem to be the answer. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparison of SSH clients is where I learned of the existence of this article. It was pointed out to me here that some of its entries have articles when they shouldn't. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you said there, that's what tends to happen when people redlink every entry in a list indiscriminately. (It's worse when it's a list of people.) Have a look at Smith and Yaghmour (both cited in the article). They treat LSH, FreSSH, and others all together. Smith lists them as SSH servers, not clients. ISBN 9780596008956 pp. 519 et seq. also treats them together, as do a few others. I'd say that there's an argument for a similar prose treatment within Wikipedia somewhere, to which this would obviously redirect. A quick rename of this page, and placement as a sub-article of Secure Shell is probably the speediest idea. You could then merge FreSSH and others in, and create a few redirects. The question is what scope to use for the subarticle. List of Secure Shell implementations? Secure Shell implementations? Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where do we draw the line to say that something is not notable enough to mention vs. something that is notable enough for inclusion in a list or a comparison vs. something that is notable enough for a stand-alone article? List articles with members that do not have articles written about them routinely get deleted. WP:NOTABILITY really applies to both, because it merely requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Our standard for "significant" is that the sources give enough detail that no original research is needed. There are 2-3 uncited claims in the article. I've flagged them as such. They should be removed to make a shorter stub (which should be kept) or should have citations added. If we feel there is not significant coverage to support a stub, I'd contend there is not significant coverage to support the summary in a software comparison article either. --Karnesky (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (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) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Karnesky. I disagree that for this category of article that Google hit count is relevant. An open source project that had had several releases and have been mentioned in third party sources is sufficient for inclusion on those merits alone. I would also endorse Uncle G's solution if implemented. patsw (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NTLDR. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGASAVE[edit]

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

This article has been in existence for six years and has never had any references. A search for refs turned up forums and blogs. The article was previously nominated for AFD four an a half years ago, in 2006 and was kept but noted as needing improvement. The article is no better now than when it was created and the lack of refs prevents serious improvements. Does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements, non-encyclopedic topic. Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2010 (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) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the wrong topic, with not wholly correct content, and a misleading name. The actual subject would be some combination of Microsoft Windows' Safe and VGA modes. The ground is sort of covered in NTLDR, which is a fairly good umbrella subject, although there's stuff missing from that (We lack a clear explanation of the subtle differences between the Safe Mode and VGA Mode options, for example.) and information on Safe and VGA Modes pertains to more than just NTLDR (It applies to Boot Configuration Data, too.). More on this in TechRepublic's PC User's Troubleshooting Guide (pp. 120 et seq.), Windows XP unleashed (pp. 135 et seq.), and numerous other books on the subject. We could probably do with an article on Microsoft Windows startup options or some such, covering the commonalities across 9x, NT4, NT5, and NT6 such as Safe Mode, VGA Mode, et al.. But this isn't a start to one, because, for starters, it's wrong (as checking some of the aforementioned books will reveal). Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - your technically detailed thoughts here are very helpful and much appreciated, but you haven't indicated if you are in favour of keeping or deleting this article or some other option such as merging it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever Uncle G says, since he's done the research. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like other people to do the research and so double-check me. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see List_of_Microsoft_Windows_components, and the Microsoft Windows category has a lot of things listed in it. If there is nowhere to merge this too, then keep it here until such a time that there is. It is a notable component of a very notable operating system, and this is encyclopedic content. Dream Focus 16:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from the facts that (a) it isn't actually a component, and (b) this "encyclopaedic content" isn't verifiable and contradicts sources, because it's not, in fact, wholly correct. There are numerous sources on this that provide correct information that you can check to see how wrong this article is. Two have already been given. Here's another: Timothy L. Warner's MCDST exams pp. 155–156. The section is entitled "VGA Mode Versus Safe Mode". Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't delete unless this content is someplace else, it's encyclopedic and a notable part of MS Windows. RN 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it really isn't. It's at best a Wikipedia editor's guess at how Windows works. Go and read the books for explanations of the actual workings of Windows, which explain the actual components and aspects of Windows (VGA Mode, Safe Mode, et al.) and what in fact Windows does. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was worded wrong on my part, I was referring to the subject in general. (still can't make up my mind if just to delete the thing though, I guess since its partially if not mostly incorrect). RN 17:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it's existed all this time (six years) and still doesn't have any reliable sources, then it's probably never going to get any. Warren -talk- 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Nothing really worthwhile to merge as the content is mostly incorrect, and its going to be nigh-impossible to get an RS for it, despite it being referenced in thousands of forum threads. (Not quite as detailed experience as Uncle G in this particular area, but knowledgable enough and appreciate the swift kick to my poorly worded opinion). RN 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is content on Microsoft's knowledge base on it, I only found one entry but I suppose it could be a reference, since some content in the article can be referenced from it. [29] petiatil »User »Contribs 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for posting that link, but it is just a very brief, coincidental passing mention, it certainly isn't enough to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Ahunt in that it doesn't give it notability, and honestly I was surprised it was even on en:wiki.... I'd be a waste to see it deleted and not merged however I cant think of where to merge it except to an article on the features of Windows NT, perhaps with some more referenced, which can be found. petiatil »User »Contribs 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Wikipedia has no place for content that is both unverifiable and wrong. Reyk YO! 06:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.marcgunther.com/bio.php
  2. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/30/technology/best_buy_recycling.fortune/index.htm
  3. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/16/news/companies/aes_corp.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
  4. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/technology/gunther_electric.fortune/
  5. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31678.html
  6. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2008/ca2008018_005632.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_15&oldid=1142641366"