Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 July 25 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Q. Wang[edit]

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

The person is not notable. Andonee (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the subject of the article, Dr. Steven Q. Wang, has made contributions to society as a dermatologist specializing in skin cancers, and as the author of an eBook called Beating Melanoma, he doesn't appear to be notable (as Wikipedia defines it) even within his field. I would love to be proven wrong on this, since Wikipedians insist on free passes to jocks, including minor-league (AHL) ice hockey players, but they question entitlement for people who save lives. However, this is the lone contribution from an SPA, and I can't see him coming in except under an "all pro athletes are gods" type standard for physicians. Mandsford 14:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sloan-Kettering is one of the top half-dozen cancer hospitals in the country. Someone who is head of a department there is almost by definition a thought leader in the field. In addition, he has numerous hits [1] at Google Scholar, which are heavily cited by others. PubMed is harder to evaluate since there appear to be multiple authors named Wang SQ, but many are by him. He also writes for popular consumption. [2] --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep. I was hoping that I would be proven wrong, so thank you, Melanie; I never considered the merits of being a department head at S-K. We don't have as many articles about physicians as we do about jocks, in large part because the sports fans are more assertive than doctoral fans, but also because there's this get-permission-first and a hold-everyone-back mentality among people in academia. Hence, the eggheads preceding us constructed these ridiculous inclusion standards like "Oh, he has to have published 100 peer-reviewed articles in no fewer than 25 separate journals" or "she has to had a surgical procedure named for her", while the sports fans simply have "dude played a regular season game". I'm sure someone with a Ph.D. will cite WP:PROF and say, "No! No articles about people who have accomplished something that I haven't done yet!" It may seem like we're not about anything else here besides Bart and LeBron, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mandsford 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford, I share your frustration over the inclusiveness for sports figures vs. the strict standards for professionals and academics, but I can see where it comes from. It's part of our culture plus Wikipedia's need for Reliable Sources: Every newspaper has a sports section, every television news program devotes a certain number of minutes to sports every day, and so it is inevitable that Reliable Sources can be found for even the most obscure professional player. Comes the day when newspapers and television devote an equal amount of Reliable Source coverage to academics and physicians, then we will have an article about every significant physician. I'm not holding my breath. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, much of our policy on athletes is based on inherent notability, where they don't have to prove the reliable source coverage, and we should be more welcoming of cancer researchers and heart surgeons as well. A substitute who appeared in only one NFL game in the 1970s would probably not pass WP:N, but does pass WP:ATHLETE (and I'm not arguing against that at all). It would be difficult to find widespread coverage for someone who served in the legislature in Uruguay in 1897, but we even that out by WP:POLITICIAN. Conversely, we have detailed coverage of the daily weather from reliable sources, but we exclude that by a common sense policy WP:MILL. One of the things in deletion debates, of course, is that the people only respond to things that they are interested in; thus, the persons who give an opinion on one a sports or entertainment topic are usually not the same as the persons who give an opinion on a medical or mathematics topic. All of this is generalization that has a ring of truth-- I think that the difference is that the geeks, and I use that term with no apologies, are self-loathing and reluctant to see "one of their own" get mentioned, and at the same time, too timid to disagree with the fans of sports and entertainment, or even enter a debate. You never see a sports fan urge deletion of an article about a surgeon-- many couldn't care less-- but you sure see it among a lot of people who ought to give it some thought. People who take no pride on their careers in educating, healing, researching, or advancing society, truly are geeks. Mandsford 16:23, 27 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) 00:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (compilation)[edit]

X Factor (compilation) (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☯ 23:44, 24 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) 00:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alterno-Daze 90's Natural Selection[edit]

Alterno-Daze 90's Natural Selection (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☯ 23:31, 24 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 speedily deleted under criterion A9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanktifunctafyd[edit]

Sanktifunctafyd (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☯ 23:21, 24 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) 00:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Rock – New Sckoool, Volume I[edit]

Hits Rock – New Sckoool, Volume I (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☯ 23:09, 24 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. Next step may be a merge/redirect discussion on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she said[edit]

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

Only source is Huffington Post. I have found no secondary sources that reliably discuss the use of this term. Rest of article is unsalvageable, unverifiable OR; it seems as if someone's trying to make it seem bigger than it really is. (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - Great for Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Said the actress to the bishop per Mandsford below. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Said the actress to the bishop, which is another (and older) version of the same sentiment. In case this is deleted and one wonders what the article was about, it's the phrase, "That's what she said!" which a quick-witted person might add after hearing an innocent statement that sounds dirty. (In Wayne's World, Dana Carvey was holding a poster of Claudia Schiffer and said "Are you through yet? I'm getting tired of holding this," and Mike Myers gave the response). Mandsford 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wasn't this once a redirect to Double entendre? Why not just restore that? Cliff smith talk 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that, like "said the actress", it's a phrase recognizing the existence of a double entendre, and doesn't merit a section in that article. Inevitably, some no-name band will have a track called "That's What She Said" on a no-name album and someone will think that it merits its own article. Mandsford 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Said the actress to the bishop. (see youtube for all excerpts from The Office, in 5 minutes of agony...) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, way more popular than actress to bishop- besides HuffPo you can reference about 100 different eps of The Office. Besides, there's only 1 ref on actress to bishop- what makes that one exempt from deletion but not this one that's way more common in the 21st century? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The gag has also appeared more than once in xkcd. —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No merit to this project having this here. Parrot of Doom 08:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable phrase, multiple reliable sources are easily found.  Grue  09:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that the title of "Said the actress to the bishop" should be moved to this more-modern version, popular in both the U.K. and the U.S. (and presumably other places where the UK version of The Office is shown), rather than a quaint Victorian expression that nobody uses anymore. That would be an m-word (yeah, I know AfD is not for merger, gather around the talk page, etc etc) Mandsford 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only claim to notability is that it was a line in Wayne's World, and that's not enough. Bigvernie (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The one half-decent reference [3] was already moved to Said the actress to the bishop. Possibly we can find a use for this washingtonpost article? Or page 111 of this book? Or this video comedy piece? or this other huffingtonpost article? Hence the call for merge&redirect... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and turn it into a soft redirect to Wiktionary, where people can add usages to their heart's content. The phrase has not been discussed in any detail in any sources I can find. Fences&Windows 21:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability with multiple references available. This is a distinct topic from the Actress and the Bishop and more specific than double entendre. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have to come to some sort of consensus here - previously it was deleted unanimously ("I don't believe usage in a TV show justifies having an article about this form of joke."); right now even with the mentioned sources (almost all of which don't actually directly discuss it, even the WP article mentioned above) it's barely going to be more then a dictionary defition; its already on en-wiktionary. If that's the case it needs to be merged or redirected into something more appropriate; if an actual SOURCED encyclopedia article (not with OR) can be made out of it that can get past WP:NOT a dictionary then it should be kept. Ryan Norton 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 31 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. There is enough consensus to conclude that they the subject is not notable JForget 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Pride Alliance[edit]

Newark Pride Alliance (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 - lack of independent reliable sources which offer significant coverage of the organization itself. To examine the sources offered as supporting notability, the 2007 New York Times article is about the general subject of gay life in Newark and includes a couple of statements from a NPA co-founder. The 2004 NYT article simply mentions the organization's name. The Advocate article (here linked in its entirety rather than the pay-per-view link in the article) is an interview with an NPA co-founder which mentions NPA in one sentence. These are typical of the coverage of the group in reliable sources, mentions of it and quotes from its representatives, which do not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Disputed PROD. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomination is for deletion, so "keep per nom" doesn't make sense. Please read the proffered sources. They do not establish the notability of the organization per WP:ORG ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" do not establish the notability of the organization) and WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" establish notability). Two of the three sources only mention the group's name and the third merely includes quotes from a group organizer. Per the plain text of the relevant guidelines these cannot establish the notability of the group. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a group that was created in Newark, New Jersey, following the 2003 murder of Sakia Gunn, and any notability that it has outside of the area is only in conjunction with that crime. That it is covered in the New York Times is of no significance whatsoever; there's a difference between the national news aspect of the NYT, carried onward by its news service to other papers, and the local news for subscribers in the city, in Long Island, and in Jersey. Mandsford 15:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they may indeed be a group with a just cause, but that doesn't make them notable, at least not without significant media coverage. None of the cited sources are about this group.--Kudpung (talk) 08:22, 27 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CricketGaming[edit]

CricketGaming (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:WEB, all three criteria. Although it could be notable for being one of the few, if not the only, site dedicated to cricket video games, I'm not sure that's enough to merit a Wikipedia article. If someone can prove me wrong on this and find some reviews or awards for this site then I'll gladly withdraw my nom, but as it stands I'm just not seeing the importance of this (recently launched) site. In addition, it's poorly written, the "Notability" section is unconvincing, the "Criticism" section doesn't even say what the criticisms are, the Mindstorm source is self-published and not about the site, the Eurogamer source only mentions it in passing and again, is not about the site. Who knows? perhaps given a few years this website may become world-renowned and newsworthy but right now it's just not notable. Ϫ 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The website is affiliated to Mindstorm Studios. Go to www.mindstormstudios.com and see on the left. CricketGaming is a well known site among all companies who develop cricket video games. You can easily find sources if you'll search websites like Codemasters, Rockingham Software etc. — Hitterman ☯ (msg email) 2:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
indented duplicate vote  Chzz  ►  11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC) *Keep - Strong sources for notability of this site from Gamespot and IGN. http://www.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=87451 and http://games.ign.com/objects/064/064316.html. I think these are pretty strong sources. I can provide more sources if required -- Hitterman (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Gamespot item is a directory entry and not signficant coverage about the site. And the IGN link doesn't work. -- Whpq (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
indented duplicate vote  Chzz  ►  11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC) *Keep - Here is another strong source. World's best online cricket games site StickCricket posts about our website.http://www.sticksports.com/community/blogs/stick-sports-team/stick-cricket-wins-best-online-game-766/[reply]
. I hope this is sufficient. I have more sources. -- Hitterman (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.119.67 (talk) [reply]
  • Comment Are you sure the comment was made by you? You used a signature of a registered user but you are voting while not logged in, or unregistered (anon. IP). Optakeover(Talk) 11:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, the source quoted in this vote does not have anything to do with this article in question. Optakeover(Talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding on to that, it should be noted that the username he is signing under is actually the creator of the article, and could possibly be a COI. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG, also this fails the requirements in WP:WEB.  Chzz  ►  18:52, 27 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) 15:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Aeons: The Atlantean Chronicles[edit]

Dark Aeons: The Atlantean Chronicles (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 contested with the rationale, correcting an error that would have caused the article to be deleted (see diff) Game with no assertion of notability, primary sources only, and the deprodder did not attempt to address the issues raised on the prod tag. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable as per User:Blanchardb. Delete. Banality (talk) 01:41, 25 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) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Koko[edit]

Live at Koko (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)

Live at Koko is not technically an Underoath release, it's more of an "Abbey Road Live" series release (the company that recorded and released this album the same night as the live show). This is akin to releases under the The MySpace Transmissions. While there are several articles that acknowledge this release's existence, there is nothing of substance to write a detailed article (reviews, recording process, etc.) and will unlikely expand beyond a start/stub class. Album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that being unauthorized or unlicensed by the band is a criterion for deletion in itself. Otherwise Fezmar's points about non-notability are reasonable but I'm personally undecided on this one. Just wanted to bring up a minor technical point. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 24 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) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron-Awe[edit]

Iron-Awe (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 Robot Wars contestant. So far only UK champion (Roadblock, Panic Attack, Chaos 2, Razer, Tornado & Typhoon 2) and world champion (Razer & Storm 2) robots are considered notable enough to have articles. Hypno-Disc is only non-champion robot to have article, but this is due to it being a very famous Robot Wars robot despite oits failure to win a title. (Basically, it's a special case). Iron-Awe, however, is NOT a special case and is just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I found this article. But that's pertty much it. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 26 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) 19:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tortoise (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (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)

Poorly-written article about a character so minor that he doesn't appear in the book or its various adaptations. He's solely mentioned as part of an impressive series of puns. - Eureka Lott 21:39, 24 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 unverifiable, likely a hoax.

Nat Peterson[edit]

Nat Peterson (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 contains very little information, none of which is notable, nor sourced. BOVINEBOY2008 21:25, 24 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) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Doumbouya[edit]

Sonny Doumbouya (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 that he played in these clubs or in any professional match Kostas66 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem funny - but he did play in a professional match. He was invited (2010) for tests in polish club Zaglebie Lubin and played one half against Borussia Dortmund. The power of wikipedia ;) Ok, I have a proof that the article is false (or at least a big abuse): a page from Vjesnik, croatian daily (in HR). It says Sonny Latige Doumbouya is beign tested by Inter Zapresic a the issue is from 2005. According to Wiki biogram he was already a player there, so at least this information is false. ~~wdev from polish wiki 26 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.1.33 (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some informations looks like hoax. Moreover, Polish media wrote that article contains a lot of false informations. LeinaD (t) 11:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/Strong delete - I can't read Polish (hence, weak delete), but if the article is a hoax, and there are no sources, why haven't we speedied it? (hence, strong delete) Ian.thomson (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified (in English or in Polish if someone reliable can translate.)--Scott Mac 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax sport.pl and weszlo.com wrote about this, delete PS. (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to do a full translation, but the gist of the Polish sources linked above is that this player got a trial with Zagłębie Lubin on the basis of false information in his Wikipedia article (they don't say which language Wikipedia) that he had played in US Major League Soccer and the Croatian Prva HNL, started in a match against Borussia Dortmund reserves and was substituted at half time when the coach saw how bad a player he was. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this came up earlier at WP:AN. The article as it stood then was a hoax, but per Phil Bridger there is a genuine story here, with coverage in several sources. I'm thinking WP:BLP1E at this point, but I've not dug that much (and I'm relying on translate.google.com for help...) TFOWR 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as it stands is a clear hoax. If the story of the hoax gets any coverage beyond a flash-in-the-pan silly season story (which I very much doubt) then an article can be created about it - I note that the sources linked above are only from the last couple of days. It seems that this player, or his agent, exaggerated his CV, as many people do, and used Wikipedia to try to support that exaggeration. That doesn't make for encyclopedic notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - much (if not all) of the information is a hoax (his supposed time with the N.Va. Royals or Colorado Rapids would show up in a google news search). Even if the fake CV story has some coverage in the Polish press, I'm not convinced it makes him notable (and certainly the article would need a major overhaul to remove the hoax/unverifiable information). Jogurney (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil Bridger. -- œ™ 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil Bridger. I really wanted to see an article in this, but ultimately the only real story here is an unsuccessful hoax involving Wikipedia. TFOWR 14:06, 27 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) 00:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Tonight's the Night[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doctor Who: Tonight's the Night (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 just a non-notable episode, but a non-notable segment of an episode of Tonight's the Night. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 19:39, 24 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 . Early closure, but no arguments for keep presented and G3 Speedy deletions already completed on the first two items. Marasmusine (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Connect[edit]

Nintendo Connect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wii HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Millenium (graphics chip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peregrine (graphics chip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Project Romus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sparrow (microprocessor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xian (processor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I contested the prod here myself simply because I don't think the reason is accurate. This article appears to be a hoax (albeit a well-done hoax). After searching Google, I cannot find any information about a multiplayer series under this name aside from YouTube rumors. The closest I could come to something under the name Nintendo Connect at all is this, but that's just an e-zine. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just added Wii HD to the nomination, which is another article from the same editor. Aside from false positives, the only mention I could find for that supposed console is this, which claims a source from here, an article written in 2008 that speculated the console coming out in 2011. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both all as probable hoax, certainly failing WP:V. For what it's worth, in this article only four months ago Nintendo deny any plans for a Wii HD. In the last few days this author has put in five other unreferenced high-tech articles which are all sitting in CAT:HOAX; and his talk page shows that he has a history of deleted articles of this kind. I have given him a note explaining WP:V and asking for sources; unless some are provided in a day or so, I will bundle up his other articles in another AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both/all. Unsourced and defying all attempts at verification through Google News/Web. Hqb (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huh? For the second one, Wii HD is a term used by the press. FMasic (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but he is using it for a specific "home video game console under development by Nintendo", which he describes in detail; there is press speculation about such a thing but nothing to confirm what this article says and Nintendo have explicitly denied it only four months ago. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's what I meant! There are no sources, so it's obvious what to do.... FMasic (talk) 16:23, 26 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 delete a7 (I don't really see any assertion of notability per WP:WEB), g7 (author blanked the article). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrastudio[edit]

Ultrastudio (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 website. It has only been running for 6 weeks so has not yet established itself; no independent coverage has been found; the provided refs which mention it suggest they were written by the same author - there is an aparrent WP:COI here. Author contested PROD by deleting the entire article so techically speedy deletable as G7, but also fails WP:N and WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP. Delete, possibly with userfication, as the site does not yet meet inclusion criteria. I42 (talk) 18:46, 24 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) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Aviation Services[edit]

Inland Aviation Services (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 small air charter company, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just a few directory listings. At the recent AFD for a similarly sized airline some users argued that being scheduled somehow makes a small airline notable. This outfit doesn't even meet that bar. I'm not even sure they still exist, their official website has only subpages, the main page now points to a guide to tourism in Maine. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 26 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. NW (Talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass arrest[edit]

Mass arrest (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)

topic too vague and undefined. lack of reliable sources DivaNtrainin (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreement regarding what the definition of mass arrest is. When reviewing the references on the wiki site, one references (Baltimore Sun article) uses the term to describe an activity where African Americans were being racially profiled and therefore had an increased chance of being arrested. Other scenarios use it to describe the arrest any number of activists at a protest. The media uses the term to describe a wide range of activities. In addition, it is difficult to find any resources that discusses mass arrest. By reliable references, I am referring to an article, book, or source that discusses some aspect of mass arrests, such as the politics, legal challenges, definition, or history of mass arrests. There are a number of articles that reference the term mass arrest in the title but then the article discusses the protest or the protesters themselves. Using a term in an article's title doesn't mean that the article is a reliable source for a Wiki page. I am proposing that this article be deleted and to add a section to the arrest page to keep the discussion open. If in the future, mass arrests are defined and studied by scholors outside of Wikipedia, then we can recreate a Wiki page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, manifestly notable, and not too hard to define. In layman's terms, a mass arrest is when a bunch of people are arrested. Tisane talk/stalk 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, in response to Tisane's comments: If three people got arrested at once for all participating in an armed robbery, would this be mass arrest? If two protesters got arrested on two different days at a multi-day protest on different charges, is this a mass arrest? Both these circumstances meet your definition of mass arrests. There are infinite more examples where multiple people are arrested under generally similiar circumstances. Under what circumstances is there a mass arrest and under what circumstances is it not a mass arrest. Please provide references to back your statement.DivaNtrainin (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you look for sources for yourself? All that you're doing here is showing that you haven't looked at all, a logical consequence of which is that less weight is given to your claims that sources don't exist. After all, if one hasn't looked, one cannot know. Hint: When you hit the works that discuss Japanese naval police, you'll have reached a whole aspect of this subject that is discussed at some length in sources, from which this article can be significantly expanded, but that this article is currently entirely silent upon and provides no clue even exists as an aspect of this subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle G, the burden is on you. Please provide the sources you are referring to. SnottyWong communicate 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the burden is on DivaNtrainin and indeed on you to present a properly researched rationale, not a rationale based upon no effort that therefore cannot be given much weight. This has been the way to put deletion policy into action correctly since pretty much the first formulation of deletion policy. If you aren't doing this (and you aren't either, below) then you are zero help to AFD and zero help to the encyclopaedia. Opinions based upon no effort to find out whether and what sources exist are opinions with no basis, and not of any use. Contributing productively and helpfully here involves effort, to look for sources, double checking the research of others and covering the holes in the Swiss Cheese. I've given you a clue as to the sources that you'll find if you try. So try. Put the effort in, help Wikipedia, and do the research before commenting in an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your massive assumption of bad faith not only provides zero to the project, it actually contributes negatively to it. You're assuming that I haven't looked at the sources, and you're wrong. Why not just grow up and provide the links to the sources you're talking about, instead of endlessly arguing, wikilawyering, and wasting everyone's time by trying to "teach us a lesson" by providing clues to your "reliable source treasure hunt" for us to play. SnottyWong confer 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you would take the time to search for "mass arrests" in a certain academic database that is particularly popular among liberal arts students, then I think you'll find plenty of references that back up this article's notability. Until you've done your due diligence in that regard, I see no reason to waste further time disputing this matter with you. You've already consumed enough resources with your baseless allegations of non-notability. Tisane talk/stalk 05:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bigger surprise is that we didn't have an article about this already, and as Tisane points out, the definition isn't really in dispute. Arrests of a group of people who are all charged with the same crime (disturbing the peace, trespass, etc.) will in turn give rise to the problem of charging and trying the group as well [4], so it's certainly notable enough for its own article. In answer to the question by Decline about how many people are required for it to be a mass arrest, it's like the number required for a massacre or a mass protest-- however many people the independent, reliable and verifiable source wants it to be. Mandsford 19:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am amazed every day at what articles Wikipedia doesn't have yet. Tisane talk/stalk 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. - Absolutely a notable concept. The article is weak, but give it time. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G has pointed the way so all we have to do is follow, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you take a brief moment to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, you'll find 3,200 results. It can be defined as a "mass arrest" if the news media calls it that. Google book search has 449 results as well to wade through. Dream Focus 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, the WP:GHITS argument proves nothing. Also, 3200 google hits is a rather small amount, so your argument would seem to favor deletion. Google hits only shows how many times the term has been used on web pages, not how many times it has been significantly discussed in reliable sources. SnottyWong soliloquize 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google NEWS hits. The nominator questioned what could be defined as mass arrest, I pointed out that if the news media calls it that, that's what it is. And if the term is used that often by the news media, then its notable, plus the news results meet the requirement of it being verifiable. Yesterday I added a link to a magazine interview where President Jimmy Carter commented on "mass arrest" and how it contributed to the political unrest of the day. A list of all notable mass arrest in history would be quite encyclopedia to add also. Dream Focus 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong confabulate 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Arrest. I can't see any reason why the arrests of multiple people need to be discussed in a different article than the individual arrests of single people. They are all just arrests. Also, the nominator makes a point that there is no clear definition of "mass arrest". Sure, if 500 people are arrested simultaneously in the same general location for the same reason, no one will argue that that is a mass arrest. However, what if 2 people are arrested simultaneously? Is that a mass arrest? If not, how about 3? 5? 10? 100? Where is the cutoff point? Where are the sources which define this cutoff point? If 5 people getting arrested at the same time is considered a mass arrest, then what about 1 person getting arrested each day during a 5-day continuous protest? These questions are not answered in reliable sources (that I've seen). SnottyWong chat 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When has the term mass arrest been used for just 3 people? You have to have a large number of people rounded up at once to qualify as massive. Dream Focus 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the first Google news result shows a judge issuing an order, defining mass arrest is the arrest of a hundred people or more. [5] You most likely have a legal definition out there for various areas. Dream Focus 00:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I highly doubt dream focus actually read all the gnews results, the term is vague. fails in depth coverage test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs after me. Dream Focus 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have a fan! Tisane talk/stalk 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Massively notable and important concept, per the fact a US president has talk about the topic and there are over 9000 matches on google books, including a book specifically on mass arrest procedures and a Law book that seems to be recommending all US sate and municipal jurisdictions should have their own plans for handling mass arrests. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like this one is the "hot topic" of the moment, all the usual hyper-inclusionists have gathered round to protect this poorly written article about a topic, the definition of which is so vague and floaty that no two sources can quite agree on how to use the term. Most of the "keep, it's notable" !votes fail to understand that it's only notable when one commits enough WP:SYNTH to massage the topic into a single notable definition, ignoring sources which use the term in a completely different fashion. Anyway, until the collective consciousness of the English-speaking world can agree on a single definition for this (as they have for, for instance, race riot), it's too impossibly vague a topic to warrant an encyclopedic article. Not all sources have to agree on what breeds are Toy dogs, but if some sources used it to refer to small dogs and other sources used the term to refer to dogs made of plastic and still other sources used the term to refer to dogs owned and bred primarily for the purpose of entertainment... then Toy dog would have troubles being found a suitable encyclopedic topic as well. Badger Drink (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there does seem to be a common and consistent underlying definition – a mass arrest is the simultaneous arrest of a large number of people. The Baltimore Sun article signals that its using the term in a non standard sense by putting it in quotes. Where most sources differ its merely a matter of context. (Sadly google books is only offering limited preview on the most promising references, so it make take a bit of research to improve the article without violating our OR policy). Even if there were significant incompatible definitions in the sources, the best approach to a massively notable and socially important topic like this would be either to describe the different definitions in the article (e.g. as in done in Capital account where the sources use the term in a much more fundamentally different sense than seems to be the case here) or to just create different articles on the various meanings (e.g. Heavenly Twins (Sumner and Cunliffe) , Heavenly Twins (Catamaran) etc.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable subject with many reliable sources. Article could probably use a section on the Palmer Raids. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page appears to be little more than a listing of every review of the film with a focus on the negative POV. Film reviews are of course notable information but do not warrant their own article, especially given that the subject is adequately covered in the film’s primary page. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. PeRshGo (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply a POV Fork, subject already covered enough on the main page of the film. A8x (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This is pretty clearly the byproduct of a POV war, with an overblown POV-laden article met with this overblown, POV-laden critique article. Get the info together, reduce size of overall combined article by 85%, and it's golden. Upon further review, tone of the original article isn't bad. The massive critique page seems over-the-top. It's not technically a POV fork, as alleged above, but rather an example of using another page to "pile on." Carrite (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a split fully compliant with WP:SUMMARY, going into more detail of aspects summarised in the main article. Carefully sourced and balanced in accordance with NPOV. Notable information with historic relevance to the reception of the film, part of the continuing controversy over promotion of ID. . .. dave souza, talk 17:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May be compliant with WP:SUMMARY, but certainly doesn't need this level of detail. What's left in the main article looks about right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this seems to have too much detail, as does the main article. the article structure "Reaction to..." is not very common at WP. heres what we have:

Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL Reaction to the 1963 South Vietnamese coup Reaction to the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis Reaction to the Assassination of JFK (multiple redirects deleted) Reaction to the Fijian political crisis 2005-2006 Reaction to the Kosovo independence Reaction to the Passing of Ronald Reagan by World Leaders Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson Reaction to the death of Robert Byrd

we also have:

Reactions to 9.11 (many redirect removed here) Reactions to McCarthyism Reactions to excavations at the Temple Mount Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake Reactions to the 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings Reactions to the 2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack Reactions to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks

In no way is this film or reactions to it on a par with any of these articles. i know this is not a firm argument for deletion, giving examples of other article, but i think it helps get some perspective. I think the use of "reaction to" as an article header should rare, as with "criticism of" which is constantly being debated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as an overly detailed catalogue of movie reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 26 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. This is not, as the article author suspects, because of ignorance or prejudice; whether an article is kept in Wikipedia is not decided on the basis of editors' personal knowledge or preferences, but by asking whether other people, independent of the subject, have found it important and significant enough to write about. The notability test used is whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The unanimous consensus of the other editors taking part in this debate is that, in this case, there is not - not just that none is presented in the article, but none found by searching. And no, as closing administrator I am not paid by the State Department, or by anyone else. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Umar McConnell[edit]

James Umar McConnell (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)

NPOV and peacock issues aside, the subject of this article does not appear to have any media coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lack of understanding of traditional Sufi training is very much apparent and at the core for this propsed deletion. Notablity to this editor, constitutes academic training from universities. McConnell received his Ijaaza or Academic Certificate to be an Imam from one of the most recognized Islamic Universities in the World, Abu Nour University, but he correctly notes the certificate is not worth the paper it is written on, according to real heavenly or traditional Sufi methods of teaching, something few people understand. Even so-called Islamic Scholars trained at the instittuions have little understanding of traditional Prophetic methods of teaching. To remove McConnel from the field of "Islamic Scholars" such as Zaid Shakir, who celebrates his attendance at the same school, Abu Nour University, but never actually attended classes, and the likes of hateful and ugly teachings of Bilal Phillips is to deprive Wikipedia readers of the diversity they need to understand the difference between the Sufi methodology and academic titles and degrees offered by businesses.
McConnell, one of only a handful of students, studied for thousands of hours under the guidance and direction of the top Islamic scholars of the day, Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani and Sheikh Adnan Kabbani of the Distiguished Naqshbandi Sufi Order. As stated in the introduction, as to avoid this fiasco, McConnell is trained not to assume titles or degrees as proof of his teaching. McConnel could have opted like others to run after degrees of importance recognized by Wikipedia as real refrences and learning, but this is not the Sufi way, nor was it the manner of teaching from all of the Prophets and Saints.
How does an engineer and military buff come off entering this subject area so quickly and creating conflict before even considering the subject at hand or asking questions. This is foolishness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) — BeNothing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I have requested constructive comments and feedback and have received no communications, supporting my assertion that this is more about sport and amuzement than thoughtful efforts to improve this article out of a sense to improve this BIO. I have taken the advise already given and have made efforts to correct concerns, adding references, etc. I do hope this is enough. If it is not, then please provide specific comments and concerns with examples in the talk pages and I will do my best to address them. I appreciate constructive input, but have seen none to date. Therefore I am considering this matter resolved and removing the banner. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've edited it for WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, and the creator has also added some independent, WP:Reliable sources: links to two interviews on Australian ABC television. Notability is still weak, however, and most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, so more work is needed. Empty Buffer (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence at all of independent coverage. Nearly all of the references in the article appear to be to one cite to which McConnell has connections, and there is also at least one reference which at present is a dead link, and two to pages not mentioning McConnell. The arguments given above by BeNothing do not relate remotely to Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest that BeNothing may like to read WP:Notability and WP:BIO. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any independent reliable sources - I can't see any independent sources at all in the refs list, save only the university - and that's a ref to the uni itself. No other indications of notability meet my eyes. BTW, I am not an engineer, just in case the creator thinks I might be, whatever it is that's wrong with engineers. Please do not use words like foolishness before YOU have considered Wikipedia's standards and requirements. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. Peridon (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceptional Case Sufi Murids are not trained under a certificate or academic standard as has become common in the West. The doctoral degree program was in fact adopted from a traditional "Sufi" education or mentor/student, sheikh/murid methodology. During the dark ages, elite members of western society sent their sons to these traditional learning centers under Ottoman rule, because they were considered to be the very best education available anywhere. In a traditional Sufi teaching environment, there are no grades, memorization, tests, as is commonly understood in the Western method of education. In fact a middle of the road student on an academic level may be the nmost celebrated student because of his pure heart. What is seriously lacking in the a western style of education is the moral component, so important to Sufi training. We only need to look at the NBA programs and Medical Schools focus on academics as opposed to raising honest or noble human beings, to understand why our western society is rapidly deteriorating. To exclude McConnell, is to ignore this traditional method of teaching that was focused on raising whole (holy) human beings above all else. Because there is only the Sheikh to attest to a person’s notoriety or acceptance, the only reference is the Sheikh himself and evidence that the person actually studied under that authorized and noble person. In the past a student need only say I have taken initiation with so and so, and everyone would know and respect that acceptance, or confer with the Sheikh if uncertain. Traditionally, students might sweep the halls for years before a Sheikh would accept them as a student/murid. There is no graduation, certificate or even what has become to be known as an ijaaza. An ijazza, traditionally, was an oral approval. It has turned into a written certificate to compete with the western style of education – but it is wrong. Those who are taught under this system who desire such evidence of their success, over and above the silent approval of a Sheikh, heart to heart, often get the certificate as a further test for their egos. Be careful what you ask for . . . .

So when I point out that you are an engineer, take no offense, I am simply pointing out that you obviously lack even the basic understanding of what it means to be trained under a real Sheikh/Master/ Authorized Guide system. You are not alone, most of the Muslim world now run after universities for degrees - and take a look at the Muslim world!!!! So trained under a system of no certificates, titles, accolades, etc, the only possible verification of a persons notoriety is to ask someone in touch with heavenly stations to tell you if this person has arrived. That not being possible on Wikipedia or among persons who have not be purified and activated the senses of the heart, we must rely upon the amount of hours trained, the level or reputation of the teacher and if the student was accepted. Any student lying about this would be exposed and ostracized very quickly. I am happy to add countless references of who Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani is and who Sheikh Adnan Kabbani is, but they also are not people who require or run after titles and it is counter to the Sufi Way. I also remind you that most of the references and books that filled libraries in the Ottoman empire and can support what is said here - were burned to the ground. There is in fact a student of Sheikh Nazim's, Hisham Kabbani (all over Wikipedia and the Internet), who has worked hard to establish organizations and make the Naqshbandi Way more appealing to the western style of titles and degrees. He claims he received his doctorate in Lefke, Cyprus, at the Naqshbandi University, which is an outright lie. This so-called "university" is a Derga - the house of Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani. I could have perpetuated this lie, referenced those lies and we would not be having this debate. But titles and degrees are not the Sufi way. If wishing to kill this system we should delete McConnell - one of the few examples of what it means to be trained in the traditional Sufi method. Sure, people can come and claim the same, but then they must be judged according to the Sheikh they claim to study under and provide some verification that there was much time spent with that teacher/mentor/sheikh. The interview with Foreign Correspondence, I believe, clearly establishes that McConnell spent much time in the Derga where Sheikh Adnan “taught” and I believe I might be able to find confirmation of his time spent in Cyprus, but again, it is counter to the methodology. McConnell would never provide a letter from his teacher. He is not trained to be someone special, but I believe it is critically important to let one example survive. Otherwise, how will people know the difference?

Not in any way to compare McConnell to Christ, but what were Christ's verifiable references? Give it some thought. On a material level, McConnell had signed contracts with Broadway video to produce the show he was responsible for creating which turned into the most successful genre of television in this decade. He gave all that up for his journey to find truth. If that is not notable, I have a hard time understanding what notable is. Point to another, who gave up certain success to be a weak servant? We need more like him, try not to rob the world of these few remaining examples. Now for fun, go see Bilal Phillips and tell me if he meets your standards. Thank you for the constructive input and changes. I will attempt to do more, but please consider what was said. BeNothing (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the verifiable independent references for Jesus being extremely scanty. However, there is a big follow-up industry that has improved his notability. As to Bilal Phillips, I've added a refimprove tag there. Now for McConnell: there can't be one rule here for Sufis and another for Anabaptists, and yet another for Knee-bending Absolute Anti-Revisionists. If you want to, you can start a Sufipedia - I would think Wikia would host it. At the moment, we have your word as evidence for the claim of notability. I am not saying I doubt your word. I am saying that it does not comply with the requirements here on Wikipedia. Quote: "simply pointing out that you obviously lack even the basic understanding of what it means to be trained under a real Sheikh/Master/ Authorized Guide system". Firstly, how do you know this? Secondly, there is no requirement on Wikipedia to be expert in subjects. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

McConnell meets the criteria of being "worthy of notice". if not because of his direct training from one of the world’s leading Sufi teachers and leader of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order, then because he created the most successful genre of television this decade. Either way he is "worthy of notice" which is the foundation of notability. That standard has been met, with the ABC interviews, Sufi Films website, links to renowned filmmakers, etc.

There not being a requirement to be an expert on a subject to edit it is a big problem with Wikipedia. Even if there is no requirement, self restraint and good judgment should be utilized before entering a discussion or quickly nominating a subject for deletion without even any upfron questions, research or discussion. Wikipedia quickly becomes a popularity contest if it is open to anyone weighing in on any subject. There are as you know, many people hostile to all things Muslim, if majority rules here, we do not have excellence, we have what is popular. People need to show both respect for the "other" and self restraint. So a military buff, started this process, followed by someone who i no longer editing, and canceled their Wiki account. Now we have people voting on a subject they know little or nothing about. If I am wrong, I would love to hear some supportive evidence - the same you are requiring t support McConnell. Is your goal only to have Wahabbi, or Salifi Islamic scholars on the pages of Wikipedia? Once again, the references are all there that have been manufactured to follow the ways of Wikipedia and the western educational standards. Go see Hisham Kabbani to see what I mean. But this is not the Sufi way and it is a fabrication. So we stand on real honor and if you wish to delete a true servant, McConnell, then the responsibility is all yours. BeNothing (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


I have looked at the Bilal Phillips article with the post that reads, this article needs additional citations for verification. Why are you not nominating it for deletion? McConnell has attended a much more prestigious school than Phillips and received his certificate to be an Imam. The training under Shiekh Nazim is light years ahead of these institutional teachers. Why not asking for references to prove Phillips attendance to the school he claims he went to. There is a definite double standard because people do not want traditional Sufi teaching methods to be mentioned or presented - methods that cause people to question the academic/university method. Also, why not placing the notice, this article needs additional citations for verification, on McConnell's site and giving the same opportunity for the editors to make changes before causing the editors to spend all their time discussing and defending, rather than improving the article. It is very subjective! I say this is an attack from people prejudice to the subject matter and who know little or nothing about the subject. They are quick to judge based on bigotry or ignorance and DO NOT afford the same consideration to McConnell as they would to subjects more palatable to their narrow expertise. It is correct to assume a military buff, likely trained by the military who is documented as promoting hatred about all things Muslim, to have an agenda in entering this matter and acting improperly. I have edited Sufism pages in the past and have encountered the same ignorance, bigotry and double standards. The complaints in this area fill the Internet and are at the heart of the problems with Wikipedia.

What people object to here, while ignoring the actual academic training, high accomplishment in television, ABC interviews and the undisputed standing of Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani, is the fact that the contemporary method of teaching people to go to school, buy a title, rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt only to become a debt slave to a master/employer is flawed at the core. Having all received your identity from this system; you are coming down hard on anything that challenges that. Sorry to say, it is all ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are more likely to encounter anti-Sufi prejudice from certain quarters of Islam than from me. You have got time to post additional references. Several articles up for deletion have been completely rewritten during the discussions, and most editors are quite prepared to change their !vote. I do wish, though, that you would stop wasting your time telling me what my background and prejudices are. You do not know what my background is. (Other than as a real ale drinker, I am unlikely to be Muslim - although I have had a pint of bitter taken off me and replaced by hers by a Muslim lady I know, and have drunk wine and eaten bacon butties at her house. (She didn't like her pint - thought mine was better. She was right.)) You seem determined to be a martyr. We are not ignoring the academic training - but note that having trained under someone notable does not confer notability on you. Sorry, on the subject of the article. We are asking, repeatedly, for evidence in the form of independent, reliable sources. These are the rules of Wikipedia. If I went to Iran, should they change their rules because I wanted a pint of bitter? Would they? We don't accept someone's say-so without backup. You aren't providing any. What should we do? Peridon (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some notarity[edit]

I have to agree, the prejudice from the Wahabbi side is much more intense. In fact, McConnell has been refused from uploading his videos to a number of so-called Muslim sites as indicated on the friendlycombatant.com site uder about us. Further indication of his notability, in my book. I am working on the article and I forgot to mention perhaps one of the most notable things about McConnell he is a cupping practitioner and author of what from my research is the first English publication on traditional cupping or hijama. It was released as an ebook with an ISBN and is now avaialble for free. McConnell is interested in diseminating knowledge, not profiting from it. He lives a very simple life. Thanks for the input. I have been spooked by previous bad behavior on wiki, so forgive some of my reactionary behavior.

Again, what you are asking for is there. McConnell does have a certificate to be an Imam, verified as much as anyone elses claim to education at a known institution. What is required, a copy of his certificate? I do not see that requirement anywhere else. If someone satys they are a graduate from a universtity, anyone who challenges that can call the alumni office or registrars office. Abu Nour is well recognized and well known. I have provided information on the Sheikh McConnell took Biat with and intiated under. You can contact him at www.saltanat.org if you challenge this FACT. It is a refrence, better than any book. There are so many methods for publishing today, it is a bit silly to take a book over a living person. A person is a verifiable refrence, more than a dead author. It is not possible to get a letter or certidficate proving this as it is not permitted, but the refrence is verifiable for anyone who wishes to check.

Why ignore McConnell's work as a filmmaker? Who is more notable in the field of the Sufi genre? Why ignore the refrences provided working for some of the top filmmakers in the industry? Why ignore the fact McCOnnell created Reality TV? If he had sued Broadway Video he would have been a millionaire, but it was his fault for leaving, his choice. I am aware their were signed contracts but I do not know how to get hold of them. All that aside, McConnell is arguably the most proficient cupper in the West as evidenced by his traditional cupping education course and years of work in the industry.

Yes, I believe there is a double standard here. People are not making these kinds of challenges with other articles, not with the vigor and haste shown here. I still firmly believe there should have been dialogue, respect, and a simplier approach asking for more refrences than making me jump through these hoops. Busy accomplished people take offense when there time is wasted and yes, I do think this is hobby, sport, entertainment for most. You can still get a pint in most Muslim countries . . . . But showing an ID when you are 80 years old is ubsurd. Sometimes references are foolish when accomplishmnet is obvious.

Go compare pages like Bilal Phillips and place a deletion notice on his article if you are balanced and sincere. This does no excuse bad work with this article, but it is just one of thousands of pages not met with the same standards applied here WHY???????? 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"McConnell is arguably the most proficient cupper" - is this fire cupping or wet cupping? And why is practising an 'art' regarded as non-beneficial (if not positively mediaeval and harmful) by modern medicine a source of notability - with no source for this proficiency into the bargain? If you don't think other articles are pursued with vigour, have a look at WP:AFD and scroll down to Archived Discussions. You wouldn't believe the amount of discussion in some cases. "I still firmly believe there should have been dialogue, respect, and a simplier approach asking for more refrences than making me jump through these hoops." Please see WP:RS]] as references from the subject's own company are not valid for establishing notability. We are trying to give respect, but are being met with what approaches invective. When we find this, it is usually down to the article's creator not understanding our requirements, or, quite often, trying to bluster through. I prefer to assume not understanding until it becomes clear that bluster is the order of the day. As to other articles not complying - I patrol new account edits but do find older articles in the course of this. I don't think I'd heard of Phillips before. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow Thinking Abounds on Wikipedia[edit]

A narrow prejudice is revealing itself once again. Once again, accomplished people need to waste their time addressing people that do not have a clue!!! If it aint AMERICON it aint any good. Cupping, wet or fire, is practiced in two-thirds of the world and is thus accepted by most as very beneficial. Because the medical mafia does not support something they cannot charge thousands of dollars to perform, is not a surprise. Nevertheless, cupping has caught on like crazy in the West and is avaialble at most accupuncture clinics. I suppose you think accupuncture is useless as well. Cupping has been proven very effective and is used by medically trained doctors in England, the Far East, the Middle East and many other countries. THIS IS what I mean by people entering and judging things they know nothing about. Scientifically speaking, cupping only removes dead blood cells. No living cells are extracted in the cupping process. Have your American Web MD expert explain that -- Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Bringing a treatment that cleans the cardiovascular system to America is perhaps very foolish, we should let everyone die of heart disease and pay millions for "approved" medical treatment, is that what you prefer? Try searching google "traditional cupping hijama", McConnell is everywhere!!!!!!!!! Unflipping believable. Go have a pint on me. But don't drink and edit. Like I have said many times before, this is mostly sport and entertainment for people with nothing better to do. BeNothing (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— 

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

There is nothing self serving about McConnell if you take the time to look. BeNothing (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All due respect to the subject and the editors favoring keeping this article, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. A google news search for "cupping hijama McConnell" finds no hits. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Again Google Search Results for "cupping hijama McConnell"

Mobipocket eBook: "Traditional Cupping (Hijama) Education Course ... Presentation page of the ebook "Traditional Cupping (Hijama) Education Course" by James M. McConnell. Read it on your PC PDA or Smartphones: Windows Mobile ... www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?... - Cached - Similar

Is cupping an effective treatment? - by James Mcconnell - Helium Cupping - Effective Treatment or Not? Cupping, Hijama, Buhwang . . . Effective Treatment or Not? Known by many ..., James Mcconnell. www.helium.com/.../667449-is-cupping-an-effective-treatment - Cached - Similar

James Umar McConnell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to Cupping Practitioner and Author‎: Traditional Cupping, Hijama. McConnell received formal permission to provide cupping services from Sheikh ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Umar_McConnell - Cached

Cupping Hijama Directory of Practitioners Cupping, preventative cupping, hijama, buhwang, santa fe, abiquiu, workshop, ... James McConnell. NSW Authorized Cupper Broken Earth Signatory - Yes ... www.brokenearth.org/Hijama/directory.htm - Cached - Similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.58.161 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notarity[edit]

Notarity in traditional Sufi teachings is based on the teacher who has taken the student under their wing. As in the case of job refrences, former employers are often considered above everything else, especially when tyhat employer are themselves leaders in their field(See the articles clear refrences). The teacher who has taken McConnell as a student is living and can be contacted at Saltanat.org by anyone disputing that connection or referance. I do not see copies of certificates or degrees proving people attended a university for any other living bio. It is taken at face value and people are free to contact the schoool if in doubt. This teacher is by many accounts the most highly respected teacher in the field of tasqiya alive today and is the head of the Naqshbandi Sufi Way. Notarity must also be condsidered in the field it is being judged. There are very few filmmakers in this genre and therefore anyone in the field is notable as they are all unique. Apart from that McConnell attended both the Baltimore brnch and main Abu Nour University for which few Americans have been selected or invited to attend that same program. It is a program that only selects those persons who are already proven leaders in their field. The fact that McConnell does not give it much regard does not nigate its standing in the world or status as a reference.

One need only review the list of "Converts to Islam" who appear on wikipedia, to understand that McConnell stands out above many other entries. Religious people - real religious people, are not prone to self promotion. Traditionally, the top student of a authorized Sufi teacher is the one cleaning and arranging people's shoes in the back of the room. Out of sight, not wanting to be seen. If you remove McConnell he will not care, but many people will then only have these self-agrandizing frauds to learn about their religion. Lets hope the admin judging this has good reason and a good heart. 97.123.58.161 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While a search for "cupping hijama mcconnell' in the google NEWS search, reveals no results, not surprisingly, there are also not any results for "hijama" and only a very few for "cupping", most dealing with coffee drinking. This then is the basis for removing McConnell from Wiki? I also find it very interesting that nuuJINN New Jinn or New [Genie]] would present such a position. Interesting. The Bias is mindboggling!!!! 97.123.58.161 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting interpretation of my handle. Seems a stretch to me, but hey, interesting nonetheless, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Teacher[edit]

It is starting to occur to me that the most notable thing about McConnell and what might likely be the issue here, is that McConnell is the only person in America asking the question, “Why does the State Department flood America with these polarized radical and progressive Muslims into America” Not only is he the openly person asking this question, he is the only person with the direct experience to answer it. There is a video circulating the Middle East that presents McConnell as the worst teacher to have ever taught at ALC, when the facts, student reviews and all available information confirms otherwise. Another teacher at ALC while McConnell was teaching was the famed James Yusef Yee, a graduate of West Point, Captain and Muslim Chaplin, who was targeted by the US government when returning to America to expose the Guantanamo Bay fiasco. If you remove McConnell, you remove the only voice against this orchestrated flooding of America with hand selected advocates for a brand of democracy designed to destroy and rule the world. BeNothing (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with all due respect, the issue here is notability as defined by wikipedia's policy. McConnell, sinner or saint, regardless of his statue as religious person, however good or bad he is, does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources as defined by wikipedia policy. And for what it's worth, I personally do not believe that wikipedia is the only venue for his "voice", nor do I think it is an appropriate venue for same--we're an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole he has more than many other Bios that remain unchallenged which leads me to believe it is bias, not wiki rules. Again I point to Bilal Phillips as just one of many examples. I do believe it is the position on the State Department allowing hand selected imigrants to poision the well, representing Islam to Americans, that is behind this campaign to challenge McConnell. That position alone is notable as well as true. McConnell was selected to study at Abu Nour University because of his proven accomplishment and unique training at the Baltimore branch he helped to develop and establish. This was an exclusive Imam and Khatib program that perhaps only a half dozen Americans have attended. Are you questioning that qualification. I think not, just selecting things that support a very narrow argument. You said nothing about my NuuJinn observation, I guess I am spot on. Now go and propose Bilal Philips for deletion and other radical hate mongering Muslims who were invited into America and trained by Saudi (Wahabbi) Muslims most hostile to the West. But, no, people I suspect to be shills are here to promote that hate and attempt to remove anyone with an attractive perspective on Islam. The refrence are there, there are more. No one has worked to make any contribution, only try to remove this one good example of Islam. Let's hope we get an admin with a broad and global view to judge this matter. One not paid by the State Department. Any removal of McConnell will be challenged to the fullest extent possible. It is no surprise McConnell will get little to no support from the immigrant Muslim community that comprise of most Muslims on Wiki. Rest assured anyone mentioning the term State Department is on the radar. BeNothing (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Guidlines Not Followed[edit]

What is at issue here is the person who proposed deletion did so without following guidlines. The second person in no longer has an account, all very suspicious. If proper procedures were followed, instead of this rush to delete, then the author could have spent more time researching and investigating references. No one has made any constructive input, all intent on deleting over improving.

Before nominating an article for AFD, please: 


         o before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Does anyone see any advise on the discussion page????

Please show me where other bios have a hard copy of their degree to prove their attendance at a university????

McConnell, being one of the few invited Americans and someone who worked side-by-side with the Director of the Baltimore branch of Abu Nour, helping him to establish that branch, is clearly qualified to be on Wiki.

A Good Example[edit]

       A man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, as you would expect from people who are trying to build a house.
       Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough."
       The builder replies, "They aren't finished yet."
       The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly.
       "Of course not," the builder replies, "We haven't finished it yet."
       "And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on."
       "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!"
       The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

Just as in this absurd story, we as Wikipedians must look to the house we are building. Wikipedia, the potential "sum of all human knowledge," as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. Every article is still being written, albeit slowly. Rome cannot be built in one day; neither can an article be perfect first time around. A building, like an article, takes time to build. Imagine if this building were constantly ripped apart at the seams during construction!

When an article is being written, and sources are being found and validated, then the article will be small and mostly unsourced and not very full of information. This is, of course, called a stub. Stubs are stubs because they have yet to be expanded.

Oftentimes, an article or set of articles will be run across that seem devoid of much information. Sometimes it will be nothing but cruft that must be removed. But often, the subject matter is simply in-progress. Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it.

Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily.

As with a house, knowledge takes time to build. Don't be the inspector, prying the seams apart before the product is even near-presentable. You cannot expect every article to be full and complete when it is first written. If this were so, then Wikipedia would have failed long ago. Try not to forget the spirit of Wikipedia: sharing knowledge. BeNothing (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Birmingham. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tame Valley Community School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school; orphan article tagged for no references since November 2006. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 24 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) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hume Barbour Trophy[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Non Notable state secondary school debating trophy. No indication that it meets WP:GNG as has zero GNews hits and what G hits are mainly of WP mirrors. Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 24 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) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VISIS Software[edit]

VISIS Software (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 was removed so taking it to AFD. This is an unsourced company overview; I have tried to dig up some reasonable sources but without much luck - appears to fail WP:CORP. Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:31, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Abedinifard[edit]

Mostafa Abedinifard (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:AUTHOR. There is some sources in the article but not enough to establish notability. I searched his name in Persian, and all I could find are book-selling websites. Farhikht (talk) 14:11, 24 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 Monthly Asuka. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barajō no Kiss[edit]

Barajō no Kiss (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)

Search for reliable third-party sources came up with nothing but forums and scanlation website distributing the author's works without permission. No indication that the article passes the general inclusion criteria or the specific inclusion criteria for books and manga. Author's article is already prodded for also failing the inclusion guidelines, so a merge/redirect would not be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Monthly Asuka as a possible search term. There are fans of the magazine out there and people who may read the manga, author is up for being deleted but the series is currently running in a magazine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monthly Asuka Fail both GNG & WP:BK. No evidence of notability found. No licensor found in French, German, Spanish & Italian. Note, that the author is getting published in France starting with Stray Love Hearts! depending on how it will fare more titles from this author may come to France. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:13, 25 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. Other than couple sources from The Standard, nothing else really constitutes significant coverage. His notability is borderline at best, but the coverage is minimal. —fetch·comms 22:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zimmerman (politician)[edit]

Paul Zimmerman (politician) (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 of BLP. Non-notable politician who doesn't hold office (according to the article, he ran and was not elected.) Even if he had won, holding a LegCo seat in Hong Kong is not assumed notable. Nothing else in the BLP suggests notability. Article was also created by current IP sock of a banned user, but that doesn't need to be relevant, it would make it eligible for CSD... SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) -[reply]

Comment article has also been nominated for speedy deletion, db-g5. Empty Buffer 12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. [6] Is it non-notable with 129,000 results? 116.49.135.38 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)socks of banned users don't get to make their opinion[reply]

  • declined speedy delete article can stand on its merits as it does not appear to be bad faith. Even if the creator does not ahve the favour of the community. However being a candidate for these elections is not notable in itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The lowest of all possible barriers should be placed before active politicians for inclusion in Wikipedia, in my estimation. Politicians are inherently public figures and having their neutrally written biographies here one of Wikipedia's greatest public services. Carrite (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is outside the consensus of WP:POLITICIAN, and would result in an explosion of self-promotional biographies. Besides - he's not active, failed twice in a row and isn't currently running for anything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete There's nothing that says that all active politicians are inherently notable, and thank God for that, otherwise we'd have an article for every asshole and his sister running for public office. Persons who get elected to certain offices are presumed notable. I hasten to point out that the word "politician" as used in Wikipedia tends to follow the British English definition rather than the American English one. Mandsford 19:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in here meets the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has anyone commenting above actually checked to see if the subject is notable by looking for sources? It seems not, as none of the comments make any reference to such searching, and discussion is revolving around a minor part of the subject's public life. Basic searches such as this show that the claim to notability is not based on his candidacy for LegCo, but on his work on promoting the development of Hong Kong's harbourfront, so this discussion should be about whether sources such as [7], [8] and [9] satisfy the general notability guideline, rather than about the irrelevancy of his election candidacy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with the articles that Phil Bridger provided above, two of them primarily about the subject of the article and another substantially covering his actions and comments as part of an organization, this more clearly meets "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" than many other articles that have passed AfD. Active Banana (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have some articles that are not from The Standard? Has SCMP ever written about him? We do want multiple sources. Can you rework the article to remove the writing emphasis on his being a politician? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
No free article about him, but his activism is noted and he is quoted by forbes and time and asia sentinal to name a few. And the fact that the article needs to be a little refocused is not a reason to delete. Active Banana (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a wiki is that anyone who wants something reworked can simply do it, rather than ask someone else to do it. And why don't you check yourself whether the SCMP has written about the subject (hint: Forbes says that it has)? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Havent actully worked the new sources in yet, but the lead cites him as an activist and not politician. Is that better?Active Banana (talk)
  • Comment: There is no requirement for multiple sources to establish notability unless the single source does not provide in-depth coverage. To quote the policy: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In this case, there are at leat two articles in The Standard that are relatively long and solely about Zimmerman. I believe that constitutes "in-depth" coverage Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has hundreds of thousands of Google hits for him and appears to be written about by multiple reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failure of WP:BIO. Being quoted in a newspaper article about another topic does not count as "significant coverage". "Paul Zimmerman" is quite a common name and most Google hits are simply mishits. There's 78 GNews hits on "Paul Zimmerman" "Hong Kong" and most of those are simply not about him. The only reliable source actually about him is the one from the Standard [10]. cab (call) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I'll take this opportunity to point out that Asia Sentinel is a glorified blog entirely lacking any editorial oversight --- they regularly reprint anonymous bloggers with an axe to grind, and don't bother fact checking them at all, e.g. [11]. IMO it fails both WP:RS and WP:ELINK. If Paul Zimmerman's article is kept, that Asia Sentinel post should not be used as a source. Thanks, cab (call) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage about subject does not appear to be significant. --PinkBull 14:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zimmerman appears to be (mildly) notable as an activist, but not as a politician. A failed candidate, as a rule, does not meet the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, we need to look at the general notability requirements, as mentioned above. The policy states that a "...person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Standard has at least two articles soley about Zimmerman: the one mentioned by CaliforniaAliBaba, above and [this one]. On that basis, I think there is (just) enough to meet the notability policy I quoted. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 31st century. Consensus is to redirect. The suggestion of 31st century as a target makes more sense to me but no prejudice against it being changed to the Clark novel since that is the consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3001[edit]

3001 (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)

Notable science fiction books have many dates important within the book, possibly within their titles - I can't find guidlelines on this, but I'm not convinced it warrants its own article. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 3001: The Final Odyssey - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Richard C.; this one dates from 2005 for no apparent purpose other than a 996 year head start. In those days, IP addresses could create articles. Not surprisingly, many of those made by people who didn't want to register, also didn't have anything to say. Mandsford 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 31st century in line with what is done with other years (e.g. 3002). 3001: The Final Odyssey is already there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 26 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) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junketsu Kareshi[edit]

Junketsu Kareshi (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)

Manga series that just started or is about to start but has not received any significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. A clear case of WP:CRYSTAL as far as notability is concerned. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability issues are at hand here, the series is currently running in a magazine in Japan and is too new to be notable. I do not see any redirect possibilities as the author is also up for deletion and the magazine this is currently running in has no article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A brief entry on the Anime News Network site is not sufficient to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:42, 29 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 FT2 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heighington Pre-School[edit]

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

Non-notable pre-school. Only 41 unique hits on Google, and none of those are to reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only non-notable, it's also promotional and spammy. Netalarmtalk 12:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has been deleted per CSD. Netalarmtalk 12:58, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Orr[edit]

Bonnie Orr (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)
Keyboard warrior killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American filmwriter and film producer. No evidence this meets WP:CREATIVE at all. Refs are IMDb and from studioes. There appears to be very little third-party coverage at all. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:16, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McKenna (announcer)[edit]

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

Notability. Scottish radio broadcast announcer, unsourced for 2+ years. No references in Gnews, Gbooks--some primary sourced info via Gweb but nothing to establish notability directly. Occasionally even the BLP Rescue Squad has to let one go, but if you can find good secondary source, always happy to hear it! j⚛e deckertalk 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I too could not find any sources establishing notability, and would have nominated this article myself (see diff). Hallucegenia (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:00, 24 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. Nominator proposes a MERGE rather than deletion, and no other users have argued for deletion. See Help:Merging for instructions on proposing a merger. (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail drip marketing[edit]

E-mail_drip_marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Rohrabaugh[edit]

Gary Rohrabaugh (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 artist. All citations point either to sites that have nothing to do with this artist, or to a site called "Fine Arts America" which bills itself as an arts social networking site allowing artists to promote themselves. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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) 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Los Angeles Area[edit]

Greater_Los_Angeles_Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

There appears to be no official or unofficial definition of this geographic area.

The concept is definitely in use, for example Greater Los Angeles Area Mensa --Ancheta Wis (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ancheta Wis - this term is definitely in use, including by the United States Census Bureau, which defines a Combined Statistical Area (CSA) consisting of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties - see page 105 of the following Census document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/bulletins/fy05/b05-02_appendix.pdf --66.229.211.131 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not definable since the linked source never uses the phrase "Greater Los Angelas". How does the source support the article?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. we should move the article to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 66.215.12.219 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not the place to discuss page moves. There was a proposal on the article talk page a few months ago to move the article to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area and other proposals were also discussed. There are many "greater" or "metropolitan" articles - there's no reason to delete this one just because the title isn't ideal.   Will Beback  talk  11:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the title not ideal, but apparently, there is no official designation of what this area is. Nor are there any unofficial references that do so as well. Click on some of the citations in this article, you may have one of those, "WTF" moments, like I did.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The phrases "greater Los Angeles area" and "Southland" are widely used in writing and everyday speech, and the area they describe is not synonymous with the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA. It is much larger, encompassing Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties as well as Los Angeles County. See Southland Tales, Southland (TV series), [12], [13], [14] etc., etc. The area is not precisely defined and maybe the article should be rewritten to reflect that, but the terms are real and everybody understands that they refer not just to Los Angeles but to the whole sprawl from Ventura to Camp Pendleton (north to south) and from the ocean to the Inland Empire (west to east). --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, find a reliable source. There aren't any in the article. I googled "Greater Los Angeles Area" and found nothing.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added several sources showing the use of the terms and the areas they are applied to, and I have clarified that the phrases are a matter of "common usage" rather than something officially defined. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that your fact finding mission wasn't a good attempt, but those sources don't exactly say Greater Los Angelas Area, they say southland. Secondly, one of the sources is a blog, and is not reliable. Finally, the article is just a mirror of Los Angeles metropolitan area, which also calls it the southland. So the question is, do we really need two articles saying the same exact thing?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was more interested in demonstrating that "Southland" is a term in common use and is much broader than just the Los Angeles metro area. But I don't understand why you say you found nothing for "Greater Los Angeles Area". In fact there are ten pages of Google references to this term [15]. In any case, I agree that the page goes into way too much detail which is duplicated at numerous other articles. I would have no quarrel with changing the title to Southland (Southern California) and deleting most of the duplicative content. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a name change doesn't hide the fact that they cover exactly the same information. They cover the same cities and georgraphy. I just don't see th epurpose of both. BTW, we need reliable sources. Much of what I find in a Google search wouldn't pass as a reliable source.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The lack of citations at the top worry me, but if someone could find them, i'd remove my comment. I think the Southern California article does most of what this one does though regardless, so there's that obstacle as well. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - They both seem to be talking about the same thing. Greater (Insert city here) = (Insert city here) metropolitan area WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also when sourcing one should use secondary sources that explicitly state things. For instance "The terms are not officially defined but are in common use in speech and writing" should be sourced with a statement from a publication that says exactly that. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG and MelanieN. If an editor has lived in or near a metropolis like Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York, you will know that there is a difference between the "greater" and "metropolitan" areas of a city. The difference is mostly found in the general parlance found used by not only its citizens but chiefly by newspapers, TV and radio stations that will the terms to use them. What was surprising to me as a former L.A. resident, is that Palmdale, California actually is considered within the boundaries or definition of the greater L.A. area. Granted, it falls within the Los Angeles County but most long-time citizens would never think of it that way unless heard on the radio (as per the I-5 south approach) or looking in the Los Angeles Times. The greater area as used in refering to counties that differentiates the outlying areas while the metropolitan refer to the closer contiguous city proper.----moreno oso (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With complete and utter understanding that these terms are used and acknowledged by the people of the area, how does this article differ from Los Angeles metropolitan area, and are there citations to support the difference. They seem to be one in the same, and there is no need for both.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem determined not to acknowledge that the "Greater Los Angeles area" is bigger than the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (which is defined by the Census Bureau as LA and Orange counties). Look, for example, here where the "Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Health Care System" serves the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Kern, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!. Perhaps you should take another look at WP:RS, to determine what is a reliable source and what isn't. Unfortunatly, your source doesn't define what 'Greater Los Angeles is, nor does it say how it differs from Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Wikipedia requires reliable sources.
2. Another point....In each of the two article's infoboxes, they both claim to be ranked 2nd in the United States in population. Now if they are two distinct geographic areas, they can't both be 2nd. And if they are both 2nd, by what standards are they being ranked as such.
3. What wikipedia requires is a reliable secondary source that actually states that "Greater Los Angeles area consists of ......." Without that reliable source, theres no point in speculating because officially, the there is no such area.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Executive Board] even LA County uses the term. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 31 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Brandon[edit]

Isabelle Brandon (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 judge - per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:VICTIM, we shouldn't have articles on people who are only notable because they were a victim of a crime which received significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article creator has created other articles about people killed by immigrants - he's been blocked for his racist editing. I speedied one clearly not notable article. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume per WP:IAR, WP:HOUND isn't an issue here ? I'm currently using the tool set to go through all the articles he created and deal with any issues which come up. Claritas § 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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) 00:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Ellison (footballer born 1991)[edit]

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

Contested PROD (by article author) on basis that the player has made an official appearance (the author believes the U-16 cap for England meets this). Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG as has only played youth team football at present. Recreate when/ if plays, first team, senior football in professional league/ cup competition Steve-Ho (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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 appears to be in error. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Wakefield[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. He's had only 3 professional fights, none in a notable promotion, all losses. WölffReik (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Foulston[edit]

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

There is no references and seems not to complete the biography's of living persons guidlines. sillybillypiggy 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Gilbert (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)
Lkutaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appeared in The Real Housewives of New York City, and then only briefly. Her other activities (entrepreneur) are minor. Article is a promotional piece. No substantial coverage in multiple sources. Fails WP:BIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless I'm missing something, her contributions are not notable Vartanza (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gausten[edit]

Joel_Gausten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Who the hell is this? Who the hell is this guy and why is he in Wikipedia? He created the page himself, methinks. DELETE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.246.175 (talk • contribs)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comment - This article is probably a hoax. A 33-year old guy with 2500 articles in several different fields? Assuming he starts at age 15, that's nearly 3 a week. Hmmm... WorldCat shows zero libraries worldwide holding books by this purported multiple-book-writing "author"... Excellent challenge, good catch. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After having perused some footnotes, I'm convinced it's not a complete hoax. Let's just call him a "non-notable rock journalist prone to exaggeration." Carrite (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not to say he's not watching this outcome with baited breath:
From: misfitmole@XXXXXXX Subject: "A non-notable rock journalist prone to exaggeration"
To: [email protected] — Date: July 24, 2010 2:45:09 PM PDT
[Message]: "This coming from a failed record label owner reduced to getting his rocks off via Wikipedia policing. How the mighty have fallen. [End.]
—Carrite (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject contends that "2500 is actually quite conservative" and adds: "Also, you may or may not be aware that the initial reason for my page being scrutinized is a person's vendetta against me, but that's another topic for another time." So I'll soften things up in terms of my own statement and leave it to you all, taking that under advisement... Carrite (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting statement: "Also, you may or may not be aware that the initial reason for my page being scrutinized is a person's vendetta against me, but that's another topic for another time." - A source for this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.246.201 (talk) 07:14, 28 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) 00:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Linebarger[edit]

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

This is a BLP with no independent sources. It's been tagged for over a year. The article claims he "has won many national and world tournament championships", but no sources are given. If the claim is true he's certainly notable, but I can't find an independent source to support it. Astudent0 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 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. —fetch·comms 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Scots[edit]

List of fictional Scots (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)

Indiscriminate list, there are thousands of Scots appearing in books, films, TV etc etc. and I can't see this becoming a useful page. Category:Fictional Scottish people is a more suitable method of collecting such people. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per lack of WP:NOTE of the concept, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. Nom is right that categories also always better than such lists. Verbal chat 12:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just commenting to note that although the article has changed, it still has all the same problems and should still be deleted. Verbal chat 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Category more viable. --Deskford (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relevant guideline, WP:CLS, tells us that there is no preference for categories over lists as they each have their good points and so complement each other. Size is not a significant issue because Wikipedia is not paper. The list is nowhere near the size of our larger lists such as List of minor planets which, with its numerous sublists, has about 250000 entries. Furthermore, the list before us here contains good sources which reference the notable topic of Scots in fiction. Provision of such sources is one of the advantages which lists have over categories and so our core policy of verification is better served. Removal of sourced information is not our editing policy and the nomination is purely negative, contrary to this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. We've had AFD debates on the List of fictional New Zealanders and List of fictional Armenians, both which resulted in a strong consensus to delete (links are to the debates). This is clearly a pointy creation in an attempt to legitimise your opinion on the matter. This isn't a useful navigational list, and could be adequately replaced by a category.Claritas § 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of fictional Jews seems to be doing fine at AFD - heading for a snow keep. I have not looked into Armenians or Kiwis - it might be that some national stereotypes work better in fiction than others. The Scots seem highly distinctive in this respect and the lack of a corresponding list seemed a significant omission. Characters such as Dr. Finlay are national treasures and merit good attention. Providing an index to our articles of this sort is my point and it seems a good one. Lists are entirely legitimate for this purpose and are well-supported by practise and policy. Your attempt to suggest otherwise is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here seems to be that being Jewish is an ethnicity, a religion and a nationality, whereas being Scottish is just a nationality, and there's less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction. Claritas § 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a nationality!? You are suggesting that the Jews are the chosen people and so all other nations are unimportant? Anyway, getting back to actual policy, please note that WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant as that is concerned with commercial directories not Wikipedia lists. WP:SALAT explicitly supports lists of this sort with its specific examples such as List of Albanians and its guidance that lists which are too general in scope should be split into sections or sublists. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas, your remarks strike me as absurd. Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that there is "less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction." Ben MacDui 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply feel that the Jewish cultural/religious/national identity is by its very nature stronger than the Scottish national identity. Such matters as the Wandering Jew, the portrayal of Jews in Wagner's operas and in the New testament, warrant independent encyclopaedic attention, whereas there are arguably few such entities concerning Scottish fiction. Perhaps a weak argument, but not absurd. Claritas § 11:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the English-speaking world at least there are numerous well-kent stereotypes of Scots- the engineer, kailyard Hielander, kilted berserker etc. The total numbers of populations involved are of a similar order and the differences strike me as being less obvious than the similarities. Ben MacDui 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're just not hearing the consensus concerning the application of WP:NOTDIR - it applies to any sort of directory, not purely "commercial ones". Claritas § 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of our policies is ascertained by reading them. In this case, the relevant section is directed at "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." and the accompanying text clearly indicates the commercial focus of this policy which is directed at things like Yellow Pages. This is obviously not a general prohibition of navigational lists which are considered a different sort of object here, explicitly governed by different policies. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of Lists and so your attempt to extend an irrelevant policy to them is obviously not our consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, which clearly applies to more than lists about commercial products. The meaning of WP:NOTDIR can indeed be ascertained by reading it, which some people have obviously not done, or done in an overly selective manner. Specifically, I'm referring to items 1 and 6 of WP:NOTDIR:

Wikipedia articles are NOT:
1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)...Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List).
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.

This article clearly fits item 1, in that it is a list of loosely associated fictional people, who are clearly not famous primarily because they are Scots. If they are notable, they are because of their inclusion in a popular fictional book. This article also clearly fits item 6, because the intersection of fictional people and Scottish people cannot be shown to be a culturally significant phenomenon. SnottyWong spill the beans 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This classification is demonstrated to be culturally significant by the references provided as a sample of the independent coverage of Scottish people in fiction. We have to divide our lists and articles in some way to fit within the constraints of WP:SIZE. The Scottishness of the characters listed is typically a primary quality of the character. This directory nonsense doesn't stop having a List of Scots and this article is a natural companion to that which would otherwise have to be placed with in it, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Scots doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIR because it is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Once you start trying to break down that list into smaller and smaller lists of different categories of Scots, you run the risk of violating WP:NOTDIR if that categorization cannot be shown to be notable. In this case, it is not notable. SnottyWong spout 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Scotsman is a reputable journal which has been published for nearly 200 years. It is a reliable source; your unsupported opinion is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're incorrect. I'm fine with List of US Presidents or even List of Digimon, because these have strict inclusion criteria and can reach a level of completion. Digimon and US Presidents are strongly linked together. What's in violation of WP:NOTDIR are lists where the members have only a superficial or arbitrary connection, or are cross-categorizations, such as this. Claritas § 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems inconceivable to me that the topic of fictional Scotsmen has not been addressed at the meta-level. Colonel Warden, can you find some sources? Abductive (reasoning) 08:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no they're not. All you've done is shift the policy violation from WP:V to WP:SYNTH. Reyk YO! 01:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are because you have just admitted that your basis of criticism and the relevant policies is now different. This is not a vote and so, for contributions to be valid, they must be based upon reasoned argument. As for WP:SYNTH, this is the drawing of a conclusion from different sources that the sources did not make. This is not done here - there is no general conclusion or thesis. If you disagree, please state clearly what this synthetic conclusion is so that the list may be updated to remove it. Without clear substantiation of this sort, the argument is empty hand-waving. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. A category would work fine. Ben MacDui 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A culturally notable topic as required by the guideline and as shown by the following. A book entitled "Scotland as we know it: representations of national identity in literature" [16]. Some excerpts from other books/articles: "The question of the role of schemata in Scottish literature is a pertinent one, particularly when the expectations of Scottish characters, and their regressive or progessive qualities, have long fueled a heated debate (cf McArthur 1983a..." [17]; "Before the 1750s, Scottish characters had only appeared in English drama in a very miscelllaneous fashion...In the second half of the century, all this changed. Two stock Scottish characters appeared." [18], "A more fruitful stereotype, one that has yielded several high quality books, films and plays, could be called the Hardman. This male character type has been a recurrent feature of some of the most powerful Scottish art...". [19] From the intro to "The mighty Scot: nation, gender, and the nineteenth-century mystique of Scottish masculinity": "As this study of nineteenth-century cultural representations of Scotland shows, stories and counterstories about Scottish masculinity..." [20]. Most of the list entries now have a ref and some context, nice, contexts are a benefit that lists offer and categories can't. Novickas (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not simply whether Scottish people in fiction is a notable topic, but whether this is a cross-categorization on a par with List of fictional New Zealanders. I'm pretty confident that both Scots in fiction and New Zealanders in fiction would be acceptable articles, but Wikipedia is not just one big list. We don't have lists unless the serve a purpose which categories cannot do, and the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary. CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people in fiction (i.e. - portrayal of individuals as Scottish), so we might as well scrap this list (which was a pointy creation) and write an article on the topic. Claritas § 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to address your points in sequence. 1. The issue of its cultural notability was raised above. I think it's been addressed and the book links show that an article could be written about it. But does such an article need to be created before the list is, and would its creation render the list unnecessary? I don't see that stated as an imperative in the various guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong. We have a Brain tumor article along with a List of brain tumor patients. 2. Re "We don't have lists unless they serve a purpose that categories can't do" - Lists do serves purposes that categories can't, adding contexts is one such list purpose per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, there are quite a few others Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_lists. And the entries here do have contexts now. 3. Re "CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people..." I disagree, because I see many book results for "James Bond Scottish identity" [21] and one ref is currently present, which should suffice in a list, further development can and should go into the article itself, one good ref will do here. 4. "the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary" - I don't see this and I don't think we should go into discussions of whether these were 'real Scots' - what matters is whether a reliable source describes a fictional character as a Scot. 5. Re "it was a WP:POINTy creation", this is a strong charge that I don't see as supportable here, given the effort that's gone into it, including expansion and referencing, and the serious responses. I see POINT as applying to edits/articles that are easily identifiable as satiric, sarcastic, attacking, hoaxy, or clearly against current consensus, none of which apply here. Novickas (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I can see the argument for fictional Jews being an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - the influence of Shylock and Fagin has clearly reverberated through society to influence how people came to see Jews. And you can't really describe them as being part of Jewish literature - quite the opposite! But the Jews are something of a special case. It's hard to argue that James Bond has had the same infuence on perceptions of Scottishness (or Swissness for that matter). In fact you could probably say that the main influence on such perceptions has been the treatment by artists of "real" Scots such as Wallace, Macbeth and the Young Pretender. And I'd argue that they have no place in a list of fictional Scots, because they really did exist. So I wouldn't say it is a totally non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, but at best it's a very weakly encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - and that should be set against the facts that this list is very open-ended, a bit of a nightmare to maintain, and the function is already served by the category. There are also issues with defining "Scotland", particularly when you go back to Macbeth, a Pict who was brought up in an independent mormaerdom of Moray before seizing control of the "foreign" kingdom of Alba. Even then, he had tenuous control of the Borders and had the Highlands occupied by the Norse. I'd also suggest that assuming TV/film characters are Scottish based solely on their accent is tantamount to WP:OR unless they self-identify as Scots or the cameras show us their birth certificates! Le Deluge (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re a nightmare to maintain - most WP articles are. :( But List of brain tumor patients, which is featured, contains the hatnote "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." We can apply the same standard here. Novickas (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"List of brain tumor patients" is a slightly lesser order of cross-categorization. The reason it is egregious is because it makes an implicit assumption that somehow the illnesses of "notable people" are more important (notable) than those suffered by other people - but that is another story. Ben MacDui 09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the accent point, there is really no doubt that the characters, Amy Pond and Montgomery Scott are both Scottish in their stories. No assumption is required as authoritative sources such as the BBC verify this. And, if we should have borderline cases, the list format is able to provide context, qualification and sources to fully inform the reader in a way that categories do not. Note that Amy Pond, for example, appears in Category:Fictional Scottish people without any source or explanation. Lists are thus superior to categories in respect of this important core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above contributions by Le Deluge & Novickas strike me as containing good arguments for an article about Scots (and Jews) in fiction, but not a list. Ben MacDui 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think this way about it - if it's a valid category, and would make a valid article, why not a list? (Since its more meta, further discussion might better be conducted at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.) I just don't see anything at that guideline disparaging a list like this. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll do my best. The topic of "Scots in fiction" is notable. There are clearly any number of potential articles about notable fictional Scots. However, the list is potentially unmanageable - there must be thousands of potential members - and I can't think of any meaningful criteria based on either fame or influence that would limit them. Minor characters in Walter Scott novels, walk-on parts in River City, anyone appearing in The Broons etc. What then could the list achieve that a category could not, other than innumerable red links? I could get enthusiastic about an article, but I can't see how a list per se adds anything very much. Ben MacDui 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me the primary advantage of a list is context and wikilinks, secondary one is brevity, which eases navigation. Wouldn't you want to see a list like this one if you were for some reason interested in Fictional Lithuanian characters or Fictional Thai characters and found only the category pages? Very familiar to some of us - totally incomprehensible to many - a dedicated article is good but takes a while to develop (and to read). About the uncontrolled growth problem. List of Honorverse characters is I believe one of the largest articles on WP. But don't you find that all articles show tendencies towards growing out of bounds? WP keeps things like, say, country articles within limits by routine, ongoing editorial decisions about notability, verifiability, moving details to subarticles, the usual slog. The management here would be that if/when minor characters show up, condense the entries along these lines: River City, a popular television soap opera set in Glascow, features a cast of characters connected through family and work. Novickas (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our editing policy to build upon contributions rather than deleting them and starting afresh. If you would prefer a different title then this would be best achieved by a move, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to copy the contents of the existing article into a sandbox, turn its contents into the beginnings of an article, and consent to the list being deleted I'd be happy to support your efforts. Ben MacDui 09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be pleased to help any effort to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Claritas § 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actions such as move and content editing do not require deletion and it is our usual policy to retain the edit history for licensing and other purposes. Per our deletion policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userfy or Delete. I had hopes that this article could be saved. But when I searched by combining famous fictional Scots, (such as "Connor MacLeod" "Montgomery Scott" Taggart) I did not find any previous attempt to compile a list except www.lonympics.co.uk/new/10Mostfamous_fictionalScottish_people.htm (the spamfilter prevents linking to the site). Nevertheless I believe that an article could be constructed on the portrayal of Scottish people in fiction, addressing the stereotyping and all that. That article could link to the Category:Fictional Scottish people. Abductive (reasoning) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list aids in navigation, everything on it having its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I note that already the list contains entries that redirect either to the book a character appears in or to the author who created the character. I'm intrigued that this has generated so much discussion, but on balance I still can't see that this article will serve any useful purpose, except to attract spurious entries from fans wanting to enter their favourite character and authors (or their friends and agents) wanting to promote their latest creation. --Deskford (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our editing guideline states clearly that "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". I could, if I chose, nominate and argue for deletion of the category which seems poorly populated, annotated and verified and so risks misleading our readership. If we proceed in that way then, as the guideline indicates, we will have competitive destruction, rather than collaborative and synergistic construction. As for useful purpose, the purpose of this list is education and navigation. In working upon the list, I have learnt quite a few things - the history of Fingal, of Thomas the Rhymer and so on. Promotional activity can afflict any article but there is no evidence that this has or will be a particular problem in this case. We do not delete articles for the sake of purely hypothetical problems which can be remedied by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain your preference for a list rather than an article? The allegations about "pointyness" above hint at some previous engagement, which I assume is irrelevant, but I am intrigued as to your reasoning. Can you also explain, given my reservations about the potentially large and trivial nature of the entries, how you think they might be limited to avoid the worst excesses? Ben MacDui 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article like Scottish people? That seems rather scrappy and rambling, is covered in cleanup tags and is going nowhere. It has a section about Scots in Poland which seems both large and trivial. By comparison, the list we are discussing seems quite tight and to-the-point. What makes you think that an article is easier to keep under control than a list? My impression is the contrary. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all unsympathetic to the concept, which I support as being a notable one, and the article you mention is indeed below par. However, the above might apply more to a list with a more limited set of members. My concerns remain that a list would be indiscriminate and without the text of an article that would have to explain the value of the topic, it is likely to be little more than a place where lovers of popular trivia add the names of unimportant characters in TV shows. I don't see any explanation of the criteria that might be used to ensure it would be "quite tight and to-the-point". Ben MacDui 16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be kept in good order by applying our general principles of balance and summary style. We have no particular bias against television as this would not be a neutral point of view. Deletion should not be used as a means of applying cultural prejudice because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that it's a concern that this list get inundated with "names of unimportant characters in TV shows", where the show itself is set in Scotland and about Scots, this list could just link to the separate character lists for those TV shows, incorporating their contents by reference rather than duplicating them. Many lists operate this way. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and Ben MacDui (talk · contribs) – ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a simple, straightforward, and notable topic, and I see no valid or substantive arguments for deletion. The claims that this violates WP:NOTDIR as an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are contradicted by many of the same commenters, who have stated that an article on fictional Scots generally would be notable and acceptable. I fail to see how a list of examples of an encyclopedic topic could be unencyclopedic. Further, some claiming this is a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization have incredibly stated that the same topic would be nevertheless acceptable as a category. The only valid concern I see here in any of the deletion comments is that the list may be indiscriminate, but on that I point there has not been any substantive discussion, only the nom's unelaborated opinion. So I am not convinced that the list is inherently indiscriminate and that no threshold or inclusion criteria could be adopted or maintained. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree. The topic of the portrayal of Scots in fiction has many sources. There is even a source that is a list. I never made the argument that the list is indiscrimate, and once the list source was demonstrated to me, I changed my mind. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research as a topic for a list that does not exist in reliable sources. Individual entries might be notable, but the list as a whole is not notable. 24.114.232.33 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can it be OR if the portrayed nationality of a fictional character is verifiable? If you find any entries that have been included without justification, based purely on an editor's assumption (i.e., presuming any character with a Mc in his last name is Scottish), feel free to remove them, but there is no basis for saying that the very organizing concept of the list is inherently OR. Plus many comments above have already shown that there are multiple reliable sources regarding the portrayal of Scots in fiction. postdlf (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category of the same name is all that's needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a mere category would lack the ability to evolve such notable themes as Scots stock characters and perceived national characteristics. An article on fictional Scots or Scots in fiction, such as we have here, can develop encyclopedically. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list meets the criteria for WP:List. All the tedious arguments in AfDs on Lists that a category is sufficient makes me think that WP:CLN is written in some foriegn language, unintelligible by those opposed to lists. The subject of this list is notable, the entries are notable and sourced and WP:NOTDIR is much too thin and broad a brush to paint here. Nothing Indiscriminate in this one.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think comparing fictional Americans to fictional Scots is not apt, however, because there is not and never will be a native literature and media in Scotland as voluminous as that of the U.S. In most cases, depictions of Scots in fiction are going to be in works by non-Scots. And that is what Macbeth has to do with Groundskeeper Willie, btw; both are portrayals of Scots in non-Scottish media. Those portrayals are centuries and countries apart, true. This list does have a long way to go: it obviously should have a lot more entries, and it should be organized in some way into meaningful groupings, such as by culture of the portrayal (fictional Scots in English culture, fictional Scots in American culture), by time period, and/or by medium. But that's work for the future, not a reason for deletion. No one has made a convincing case that it is conceptually unsound or unencyclopedic to list fictional characters by their depicted nationality. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warden, you continually prove that you don't fully understand the word "precedent". A precedent for this list would be List of fictional Americans, which does not exist. The other lists you provided, while indeed lists, are not a precedent of this list. SnottyWong talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These lists of lists are excellent precedents which destroy the false arguments from WP:NOTDIR that the list in question is indiscrimate or an arbitrary cross categorization. These lists are supersets and, because of their great potential size, have naturally been subdivided in various ways - by ethnicity, profession and so forth. They demonstrate very clearly that lists based upon nationality are acceptable but that, for convenience, such lists may then be subdivided using an additional categorisation. Fictionality is a sensible sub-division as it is quite notable and we naturally wish to distinguish people who existed, such as Dr Livingstone from those who did not, such as Dr Finlay. We have other lists which use this form such as List of fictional Jews and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The portrayal of Scots in fiction may be notable, but that isn't what this article is about. Portrayal of Scots in fiction is a totally different topic than List of fictional Scots This article is specifically about the list of fictional Scots and not the more general subject of how Scots are portrayed in fiction. The argument that this list should be kept due to WP:CLN misses the fact that we have different guidelines for what is a proper list and a proper cateogory, and these guidelines don't synch up perfectly. There are many, many categories on Wikipedia that are not proper topics for lists, because we have guidelines such as WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR that limit the focus of our list articles to topics of the right breadth. So while extraordinarily broad lists are disallowed we allow categories similar in scope. Unlike list articles, categories are meant to function as a directory. WP:CLN should be rewritten to include this as it is being misused to keep all sorts unencyclopedic lists. ThemFromSpace 07:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SALAT states clearly that we may have Lists of people and so is no bar to the list in question. It advises that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles" and this is what has been done here. The list is therefore compliant with this guideline. WP:SALAT therefore supports retention of the list while WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant, being concerned with directory style and content, such as telephone numbers and addresses. Lists are covered by WP:LIST not WP:DIRECTORY and so that's where we look for guidance. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:STAND explicitly states that standalone lists are articles and therefore are equally subject to our content policies such as WP:NOTDIR. WP:SALAT states types of lists which may be acceptable, if they do not infringe on any of our other policies and guidelines. WP:SALAT is also pretty clear that lists of too broad a scope have little value due to the breadth of the topic, and it is my opinion that this list is far too broad for a discriminate article to emerge from it. This is because there are no bounds to the list as any notable fictional Scot would be allowed in, regardless of whether any reliable sources have made the connection with that particular character and any of the other fictional Scots on this list. ThemFromSpace 11:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with your interpretations. WP:NOTDIR tells us not to make business guides or directories of non-notable things like Addresses of automated teller machines in Washington, D.C. or Telephone numbers of attorneys in Buffalo, New York. It also tells us not to make lists of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations like List of attorneys from Buffalo, New York who served in the United States Air Force or List of companies that have red logos; this is directed at lists of non-notable topics, which we obviously don't have here if the organizing topic is notable and if a category of fictional Scots would be acceptable. So the only relevant guideline I can see here would be the caution at WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT not to make lists that are too broad, like List of people. But that problem with lists is cured by organizing the list into subheadings or splitting into sublists, as in Lists of people. Which is an editing concern, not a deletion one. My comments above have suggested several ways that Scots in fiction could be organized, so there are definitely ways this could be accomplished.

    There is no requirement that the entries in a list organized around a notable topic/trait must have already been been combined in a list by a reliable source or otherwise compared (though strangely you don't think categories should be subject to the same requirement?). That is not a fair interpretation of any guideline, and it has no merit in practice. It is completely sufficient that a reliable source have said that A is X, and another reliable source said that B is X, to include them on a list of X, where X is a notable topic. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite sources this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization that violates WP:NOT. People are not supposed to build a WP:COATRACK of quotes that are synthesized together into an original topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with respect, its the list not the topic that is under discussion. I don't think there is much doubt that the topic is notable. Ben MacDui 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful navigational aid. I cannae see the average reader being able to scan the contents of a category so conveniently. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL? Badger Drink (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point made by WP:ITSUSEFUL is "you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless". FeydHuxtable did explain why - that the list is useful for navigation and browsing. His observations are therefore quite proper. Now please consider your own contribution below where you simply put WP:INDISCRIMINATE without providing any context, evidence or justification. Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE which explains what is needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it immensely degrading to be expected to provide exhaustive surveys showing that a majority of people prefer sunny weather to cloudy weather in order to say it's a nice day outside. Others have already shown why this is indiscriminate, I am agreeing with their conclusions. Sorry to not indulge your love of process-wonkery. :( Badger Drink (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the first person in this discussion to use the short cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE and so it falls to you to explain and justify its relevance. The nominator uses the word indiscriminate but the essence of his argument seems to be that we should use a category rather than a list for this purpose. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not address this list vs category matter and so seems irrelevant. WP:CLS is the relevant guideline and specifically advises against deletion in such cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you trolling, aspergic, or are you truly this enamoured with ritualistic formalized process to the detriment of even the most rudimentary attempt to connect your own dots? I have no strong opinions regarding a category, but I feel that this indiscriminate list should certainly be deleted from article space. I'm quite sorry if I failed to make that clear when I said "delete" and linked to a policy stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats happened here BadgerDrink is that you made an invalid accusation that my vote was not compatible with guidelines, and the Colonel clearly and politely pointed out your mistake, adding that your own vote suffered from the flaw you incorrectly accused others of. Please try to react to constructive criticism with better grace in future. Normally Id give a formal warning for your personal attack; fortunately for you in this case youve tried to slagg off an editor of such impeccable character that Im not minded to take your WP:NPA breach that seriously. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's happened here, Feyd Huxtable, is that you offered a somewhat slipshod rationale for inclusion. I asked for clarification; offering, in the infinite generosity of my kindest of hearts, a chance for you to better explain your position. Then, like a bat out of hell - or like a learning-disabled kid falling out the back door of a schoolbus, I'm honestly not sure which particular image best captures this turn of events - the good Colonel (a fellow hyper-inclusionist, surprise of surprises) shows up to offer some much-appreciated rules-lawyering and process-wonkery ("why, he DID say how it was useful, because he said lists are useful! I note that you, Mr. Drink, did not fill out form 397f ("Restatement of that which has Already Been Said") in your rationale"). Matters, such as they are, evolved from there. I must admit, I felt my heart skip a beat, no doubt my face visibly paled at your subtle mention of formal warnings - praise Armok - I repeat, once more, for emphasis - praise fucking ARMOK - that you saw fit to let me off the proverbial hook with but a mere sternly-worded tongue-lashing. Badger Drink (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a catch-all which may be used to delete anything which you don't happen to like. It is a list of six specific things such as lyrics and statistics. The topic before us is none of these things and so this policy is irrelevant. Please read the text of policies and guidelines rather than using the WP shortcuts indiscriminately, as if they were ordinary words. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither is WP:USEFUL, or "it's useful because it's useful", but surely an obvious non-partisan like yourself wouldn't deliberately let a useless rationale slide if it happened to coincide with your personal Wiki-political leanings, which you don't have as you're a complete non-partisian. Anyway, might want to reach around and give Feyd a friendly reminder about what a personal attack is, while you're on the subject of throwing around Wikilinks WP:INDISCRIMINATELY. Badger Drink (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please Wikilink a few more words? I feel your tone isn't quite condescending enough. "Now" and "see" are a couple ideas, I'm sure there are other opportunities for square brackets as well. It would have been a non-sequitur to reply to Feyd's argument of "it's useful" with "WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC". Continue playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, this is quite a solid investment of our time. Badger Drink (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL isn't a useful retort if one is comparing the relative benefit of maintaining information in list and/or category form, as many comments have done here in urging that only a category is necessary. The utility to readers and editors of the particular format in relation to its content, or the utility of maintaining the information in multiple formats, is obviously relevant to the discussion. postdlf (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still no valid reason presented by Mr. Huxtable as to how a list is better for navigation and/or browsing than a category. Badger Drink (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily he's not the only participant in this discussion. I've already provided reasons above as to why the list format is important for this topic, if not necessary. Though there's no requirement (or good reason for requiring) that the list be better than the category for both to be maintained, only that there is a benefit to maintaining each or a lack of a compelling reason not to maintain both. postdlf (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As argued above, this is a non-encyclopedic directory listing. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Badger Drink (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The depicted nationality of a fictional character is a significant aspect of that character, and the depiction of nationalities in fiction is, as observed above by most commenters, a notable and encyclopedic topic at least in this instance. So I fail to see how this list of examples of such is indiscriminate. postdlf (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Then, with all due respect, I feel it's quite a nationalistic way of approaching fiction you have. It's one thing for, say, Braveheart, but to say that, for instance, Hamlet being Danish is automatically as important as, say, his relationship with his uncle... is stretching the bounds of "importance". (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not about me; that was a very strange statement to open your comment that I'm not sure I understand the point of, so perhaps you could explain what you meant. It also doesn't matter that nationality may be more important for some fictional characters than others, because 1) that the trait may be trivial for some entries may be reasonable grounds for excluding them without invalidating the whole list (see the example of List of atheists at WP:SALAT) or alternatively 2) it may not be a problem that an entry's inclusion in a particular group is not as important to the topic as other entries, as the ability to source, organize, and annotate lists can help give proper balance and context.

          Re: Hamlet (to take your example), his Danish nationality doesn't need to be "automatically as important" as anything else for it to be in and of itself significant enough for documentation. It's not a competition; different facts or traits can be organized in different lists, and any one entry could be placed in multiple lists (or categories, or templates...). So the point isn't whether the Danish setting, and nationality, of the characters is the most important aspect or theme of Hamlet. It doesn't need to be. It certainly would be rather preposterous to assert that Hamlet being Danish is insignificant to The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, such that he wouldn't be worth mentioning in a list of fictional Danish characters (I honestly can't even think of any outside of Hamlet in English literature). But it's curious that you point to Hamlet as an example when Macbeth is instead relevant to this list, and is known as "The Scottish Play". postdlf (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep'. This list has grown from 1421 bytes on July 9 to 12,977 bytes now, and from the history several editors have contributed. That is enough for me to say that editors are interested in this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how "editors being interested" in a topic has any bearing on inclusion whatsoever. Plenty of editors were interested in, for instance, Brian Peppers... and meanwhile, Somatopleure has precisely three (3) edits since 2007 - but the former is not included (with good enough reason, and the latter undeniably merits inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting suggestion, and although mainspace to category redirects are rare, keeping the list in the history would help the process of adding any fictional Scots who aren't currently in the category to it. Claritas § 09:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand Lists and categories complement each other, and a list can give a small amount of identifying information next to each entry, such as this one does. It can also be made more elaborate by adding information about author and date, and making it sortable. Everything here is verified , or is trivial to verify. The subject is significant, and there;s no reason for deletion. That there may be thousands of significant Scots in notable fictions is no objection--we're not paper, and if the list becomes too long for practicality, it can be divided. It's not indiscriminate, because it deals only with notable works of fiction and, at present, only individually notable characters. On the precedent of hundreds of other lists it could also include central characters in notable fiction about whom articles have not yet been written. Editors being interested in a topic is an argument wrth respect to a list, because if editors are not available to maintain a list, it gradually grows worthless. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAKO Model[edit]

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

Essay of original thoughts of the author. Gigs (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Due to an edit conflict I also nominated this for deletion with the rationale: "Article about a business model placed by the creator of the model and with no references or indication of notability. PROD legitimately contested by the author; speedy tag also removed but the criterion did not apply; possibly speedy deletable as db-spam, though. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:OR". I42 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first line clearly indicates that it's original research ("named after a shark for which I have a mysterious liking") Netalarmtalk 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym MAKO was derived from a shark, not the Model itself. It is based on IT Governance and the need for identifying roles and responsibilites within IT Governance and the oversight of IT. If needed I can source many entities on IT Governance.--Marccrudgington (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MicroServo Voltage Controller[edit]

MicroServo Voltage Controller (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 cannot find any third-party sources to establish notability. PROD was contested by creator. PleaseStand (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The coverage of the only source is promotional. Not notable. Minimac (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References

http://2.imimg.com/data2/AI/WO/IMFCP-1825941/micro_servo-250x250.jpg Pgarg78 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images on Google

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:etHJiv5Me0U3UM:http://aeeindia.com/images/micro_servo.jpg

Pactin (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — Pactin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment I am not sure what the point of those links is. All they link to is a couple of photographs of the object. The existence of those photographs tells us nothing about the notability of the product. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain It

Found below links on Google News http://www.free-press-release.com/news-microcontroller-based-control-unit-for-servo-voltage-stabilizer-manufacturers-1277621593.html

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-microservo-voltage-controller-an-innovative-product-for-servo-voltage-stabilizer-manufacturers-1277623515.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by PICKIT (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — PICKIT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Those are press releases, which are first-party sources that do not establish notability. PleaseStand (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)2010 July 24[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Minimac above Etrigan (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 15:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Exactshit DVD 2[edit]

Now That's What I Call Exactshit DVD 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage of this bootleg/self-released album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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. It's apparent from the discussion that consensus hasn't changed from the previous nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS (economics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PIGS (economics) (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 dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.

This acronym has an extension, that is a list of some countries. But its intension is indeterminate. To qualify for an an encyclopedia, a concept in question must be there, which has at minimum a range of a clear, identifiable meaning. It does not help to give a dictionnary account, or to do own research to deliver a history of acronym usage. That could only establish a theory of his own research.

This argument against encycplodical quality represents as such a new argument, which was not considered at the first deletion discussion that centered on neutrality. Meffo (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Widely used enough to easily pass notability, with many sources discussing the term itself. See refs in article and search for more. Though not an argument, see language wikis for some indication of use. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think that this article provides more than just a definition. It helps to explain a particular social phenomena that is relevant to understanding how the financial crisis played out internationally, and the controversy surrounding it. vckeating (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those arguments are bypassing the question, if there is any determinable concept which could be linked to the acronym. There is not "more than a definition"; in the lemma there is 1. no definition at all, 2. which could be verified by a reliable source. The explanations given are not more than 1. original lingusticial oder media research of verbal usages, 2. the frequency statistics (Goggle etc.) measure no singular concept, but not more than a combination of letters. Wikipedia as an enyclopedia is more than a dictionnary or a list of acronyms by translation. --Meffo (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. "Widely used enough to easily pass notability, with many sources discussing the term itself." Note that much of the opposition found, not here but on the talk page and archives, revolves entirely around perceived offensive connotations. We just don't censor - and removing the article would simply airbrush this from our encyclopedic record. It's not the appropriate, nor neutral, response. 69.144.240.162 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Are trendy buzzwords needed in the Wiki and sould't Romania be included in the list if the UK is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.192.27 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--82.18.192.27 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- Or even 'RUPIIGS', one stie added Romania and the UK.--213.81.122.5 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - PIIGS is the flip side of BRIC and is a generally used economic term. It would be a step backwards for Wikipedia if this lemma would be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.201.42 (talk) 08:30, 30 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) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's Alliance of New Brunswick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
People's Alliance of New Brunswick (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:Notability DefensiveBlack (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not particularly notable yet, but sources are there and a Gnews search shows even more coverage from multiple reliable sources. Hairhorn (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Registered political parties are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Knapik[edit]

Richard_Knapik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Discussion for the deletion of Richard Knapik:

  • For Deletion-Mr. Knapik does not meet notability guidelines, positions he has held are insignificant and unremarkable.Joshua D. D'Lima (R) Texas (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Middleton[edit]

Sarah_Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Nn actress. Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 01:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software[edit]

Siemens PLM Software (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 page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
    • The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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. except for Television news music, there is a consensus to delete that as well but there is tendency in bulk nominations to throw out everything so I think its best to leave that and allow individual relisting of that is still felt necessary Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X-2 Package[edit]

The X-2 Package (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining AfD noms. Adding...

All the links listed above are listed for deletion (and were their own AfDs before this combined AfD) under the same nomination and reason. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:28, 13 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Scooter[edit]

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

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC Regancy42 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jon Postal[edit]

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

Subject not notable nomination by User:Johnsmith4321, and the only edits by that username (added by Peridon (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment Plenty of stuff in the article - how much is actually notable? Over to you, folks. I'll look again tomorrow. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha (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 swami, related to a notable Swami Vishnu Tirtha, but notability is not inherited, thus delete. Wikidas©

  • Delete - no independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent from the subject that support notability, thus it does not pass requirements for inclusion. Previous AfD did not adhere to the policy. 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Wikidas© 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. There are no sources independent of the subject that support notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Sheik[edit]

The_Wild_Sheik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This is a poorly-written article about a completely non-notable independent wrestler. Outside of working for Jim Kettner, there is nothing of any substance to warrant a Wikipedia entry. ECWAGuru (talk)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Ride (Goldie album)[edit]

Watch the Ride (Goldie 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)

Non-notable comp. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - part of a DJ series listed on the Watch the Ride disambig page. None of them are notable nor is the series itself. Each release could be briefly mentioned at each respective DJ biography page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there was an unusual delay of several weeks here due to the missing step in the AfD. See the Watch the Ride disambig page, where two other albums in the series have recently been deleted after being originally nominated at around the same time as this one. There is a fourth album in the series by an artist called Zinc that so far has not been nominated for deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 25 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vunak[edit]

Paul Vunak (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)

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how he meets WP:MANOTE since the system he created was deleted as non-notable in 2007. Aside from the one Black Belt magazine article, the other references appear to either be about his instructor or self-written (non-independent, at least). Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep well-known, significant martial artist, described by Black Belt (magazine) as "renowned" and the "best-known" in Bruce Lees' JKD system. A quick check of his web site [22] shows three Black Belt covers he's been on, but he's been the subject of a great many articles in it--I don't udnerstand how anyone making an effort to verify his notability could think he's only been in it once. He's published numerous books and videos. This is Dan Inosanto's best known protege and is highly notable on his own. As to the comment that he's not notable since his system was deleted, that's both using WP itself as a measure of notability and identifying him with his art. See his site for how many federal and otehr agencies he's trained to see he's notable outside of his art. JJL (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he's only been on the cover once, I said the article only gives 1 BB magazine reference. Using his site as a reference for who he's trained doesn't satisfy WP:RS. I've known literally dozens of martial artists who claimed to have trained Navy Seals. I need to see some proof. I mentioned his art because I was looking at the article's claims to see what it mentions that would allow him to pass WP:MANOTE. Being Dan Inosanto's student is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Give me reliable sources that show he meets WP:MANOTE and I'll happily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 24 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) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bittan[edit]

Patrick Bittan (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)

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:42, 24 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) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Japan Kickboxing Federation[edit]

New Japan Kickboxing Federation (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)

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:27, 24 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, as spam and copyright infringement. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neprinol[edit]

Neprinol (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 drug. While the article contains nearly a hundred references, none of these are actually to the drug. Rather, the references concern the conditions treated by the drug, as well as the ingredients of the drug. The only content on the page that directly relates to neprinol is infact unreferenced. Looking for reference myself, Neprinol is not mentioned in any significant scholarly publications that I could find, and while the number of ghits is very large (hundreds of thousands), all that I skimmed were blogs or sites selling the drug.Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems a waste to lose content that could improve our nattokinase and serrapeptase articles (q.v.) just because it has been written in a single article. Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article have been cherry-picked, so all ingredient sections need to be removed, in the current state they mislead the reader. The side effect section is pseudoscientific babble. Narayanese (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy delete as unnotable spam. A mix of notable ingredients does not make the mixture notable and the article makes no effort to describe the product as notable. It is not a drug, it is a dietary supplement, so implicit medical claims push this into the pure spam arena. Consider Recommend speedy deletion.Novangelis (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP . According to the article Neprinol is not a drug, but rather a dietary supplement. The American FDA does not have a process to regulate dietary supplements based upon their ingredients alone. The fact that the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements, does not make the product more or less notable. Health Canada (Canadian FDA) considers that the documented science behind the ingredients is enough to determine safety and efficacy. A brief of their policy can be found at:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/hpfb-dgpsa/access-therapeutic_acces-therapeutique-eng.php#2.1 Neprinol was granted a federal therapeutic goods status or Natural Product Number NPN #152601 [1]based upon the submission they received. This review takes into consideration safety and efficacy of each component to determine what health claims may be made for the product as a whole. This policy protects the integrity of natural ingredients from which no patent protections can be made. Given that current law does allow for the protection of intellectual property for natural ingredients; it is likely that there will be little interest for large double blind FDA approved studies. There is therefore little or no incentive to clinically investigate the product beyond its ingredients. The full S&E report can be found at http://www.neprinol.org/?page_id=239 . Therefore it can be assumed that the validity of the information and the federal policy of Health Canada’s HPFB should be argument to the contrary of Spam or non-notable products. Neprinol given its NPN status is legally prescribed by Canadian physicians as well as covered by their socialized medicine program. New therapeutic products can be sold in Canada once they have successfully passed a review process to assess their safety, efficacy and quality. Quality is determined by GMP and ISO “Good Manufacturing Process and International Standards Organizations”. Only goods manufactured in GMP approved facilities are eligible for NPN status. Responsibility for this review process rests with Health Canada's HPFB or Health Products and Food Branch. There is no evidence to conclude that the ingredients science is no longer valid or notable once the ingredients are combined and sold as a single product. I would also consider the Wiki policy for deletion point #10 If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I would ask that you consider researching the elaborate Canadian NPN review process before expressing an urgency to delete neutrally fact based research. I would also ask that you consider positive feedback and careful editing that might strengthen the article. Calling the article spam without sighting any evidence to back up that point of view can be viewed as ignorance on the subject matter itself. --Hazyma (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the notability guideline. Everything you just said is irrelevant. If no studies have ever been done of this drug, and no significant, independent publications have ever discussed it, then it is not notable. A drug is not entitled to an article on Wikipedia simply because it exists, even if it has been identified as safe by a governmental agency. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Are you guys kidding? At least 50 percent of those 80 some-odd references are from academic sources that treat of Neprinol in significant detail. Academic sources are independent, reliable sources. I will put the {{rescue}} tag on this article because your arguments against are weak. Dcsm23 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am not kidding. I don't get to write an article about "My Mix CD" even though every song on it is notable and has a review in "Rolling Stone" and three other significant reviews as references. Reference counts do not establish notability if the references do not discuss the subject.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article differs a lot in its conclusions from [23]. Though perhaps the difference just comes from what sources are considered acceptable. Our article uses in vitro and mouse data, and non-blinded clinical trials, to justify medical claims. Compilation of sources like this are generally not favoured around here (WP:MEDRS), reviews in journals are preferred. Narayanese (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where are these so called Medical Claims? There are no medical claims tied directly to Neprinol. The article was not written to express Neprinol as a drug or other agent to mitigate disease. Dietary supplements are valued on their structure and function or ability to improve health as a whole. The same might be said for science written on the components of a healthy diet. Again this is not a drug, and therefore should not be held to the same scrutiny as a drug. A drug is likely made form ingredients that were man-made or developed in a lab. Therefore they have no basis to reference its components. A complete study Phase1- Phase4 must be done to evaluate safety first and efficacy second. Of course the process itself is severely flawed. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003. [2] Your mixed tape argument fails to discuss whether you sold the mix to Time Life Books, and it became collectible. Removing the inclusion of notable components adds no more notability to the article itself and on the contrary actually make the article confusing to the reader. Articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobenzym , only discuss the product exists how does this article carry more weight than the one in question? Is it because it survived the deletion process? --Hazyma (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The burden of proof would be upon me to show that Time-Life bought it. If it became collectible, there would be reliable third party sources discussing it. The other article you cite has no apparent history of being in an article for deletion review, nor is the article we are discussing here. That article does have two references, which in addition to referring to the specific preparation, refute a wholly dishonest medical claim (bold text for emphasis is discouraged) in the article we are discussing: "No serious or adverse side effects or hospitalizations have been reported from taking systemic enzymes." This shows that the references are cherry-picked and that the text is promotional (spam).Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I agree that section lacked proper referencing and as mentioned above safety references have been for animal studies. That section has been edited and cited.--Hazyma (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someguy1221 I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the differences between a dietary supplement and a drug. I would also ask you to educate yourself about the differences between structure and function claims and disease claims. I would also ask you to cite a single instance where Neprinol is discussed as a drug and where it claims to mitigate disease. If you can find that I will find your study. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't have clinical studies because they simply don't warrant them. I don't see any studies on Coca-Cola. Its probably because Coca-Cola doesn't say its a brain tonic anymore. Would the inclusion of medical studies on the effects of sugar make Coca-Cola a drug?--Hazyma (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a dietary supplement, there seem to be quite a few diseases/conditions mentioned in the article. I think I understand the difference between a drug and a dietary supplement - a drug is officially licensed for treating conditions, while a DS cannot claim to treat them but in many cases is advertised in such a way as to lead people to believe that it can. There are undoubtedly non-notable drugs, and notable 'dietary supplements'. This isn't a drug, and doesn't appear notable outside blogs, where it is often discussed in terms of 'curing' which may not be the fault of the manufacturers.. Coca-Cola has quite a notability outside its origins as a 'tonic', and anyway what another article is doesn't affect this one. We aren't discussing whether the stuff works or not - we are discussing notability and promotional material. It doesn't look over-promotional to me, but does make a difficult read. I would comment that a technical breakdown such as this is more often associated with officinal (in the old sense as in 'officinalis' found in plant names) preparations than with foods and herbal tonics. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright violation and spam, as demonstrated by Novangelis below. (I'm not sure about 'plagiarisn' being a Wikipedia ground for deletion, but copyright violation definitely is. And this is... Peridon (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It always felt promotional to me and now I have the evidence. I was looking at the article again. I noticed an odd typo in the section on Rutin, that was not a proper "citation needed" flag: "In human clinical researchfact, rutin was shown...". I dropped "human clinical researchfact" into a search engine and found two hits, the article and this write-up from the manufacturer. As a result of discovering the source of the text for the bulk of the article, I have modified my recommendation to speedy delete as spam, plagiarism, and possible copyright violation.Novangelis (talk) 02:41, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Krajewski[edit]

Sebastian Krajewski (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)

Deprodded article. I cannot find sourcing to verify claims in this BLP, aside from subject's own website, and cannot find sources in either Polish or English to find notability. One of the last of 458 unreferenced BLPs that were tagged in April 2008, which the Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue project worked on this month. Milowent • talkblp-r 04:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sad to say that I agree with the nominator regarding the dearth of reliable sourcing. If anybody else has anything like better luck than I did looking around, I'll very happily change my vote. I've a soft spot for unsung composers (no pun intended). Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Polish could look at this (I do not know if the nominator speaks the language). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I do not speak Polish. I am pretty good with google translate and basic translation strategies, but that's it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be a straight translation of an article appearing in Polish Google. If he's notable enough for them, he's notable enough for me. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 24 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can fly[edit]

List of fictional characters who can fly (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)
List of fictional characters who have super strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional characters who can teleport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per overwhelming consensus at:

these articles are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and original research and their deletion is uncontroversial. Some of these were prodded and declined without rationale by an editor who habitually declines prods on fiction-related articles. Reyk YO! 04:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per consensus noted at related AfD's linked by nominator, per the notion that we don't include non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and with good reason, and per the difficulty in maintaining such a list, and even in defining key portions of it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That rationale doesn't … fly. Notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability specifically excluded lists such as the above because of the existence of main articles such as pyrokinesis and teleportation. It's not a cover-all for these articles.

      And you're going to have to do a lot better to argue that it is difficult to define a list of characters that are capable of pyrokinesis and teleportation. "These are fictional characters that are capable of pyrokinesis/teleportation." is pretty easy to type. It's not a difficult definition to construct at all. Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Points -- and pun -- well-taken. I stand by my personal non-encyclopedic cross-categorization concern, independent of any exclusion volunteered at a preceding AFD... but I suppose I have to agree that it's not terribly difficult to define these lists, and even maintenance wouldn't be a terrific issue. And your point regarding the previous AfDs is an important one. So... thanks for obliterating most of my delete rationale with your superhuman powers of rhetoric. I will append you to my forthcoming List of non-fictional Wikipedians who can manipulate opinion with logic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Permutation lists, add little, no sources indicate those particular categories are indicative of notability (the ultimate test if you get down to it), and didn't we just go through one of these? Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Shadowjams' comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Super strength and the ability to fly are two of the most common "superhuman" powers, so much so that they are the most trivial of cross-categorizations. But that doesn't make the other two teleportation and fire manipulation any better. Many of the entries on the list also fail to meet the inclusion guidelines for stand-alone articles. Including all fictional characters who has these superpowers is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO. And the fact that these lists are trivial cross-categorization between loosely associated topics, thus violating WP:NOTDIR doesn't help matters. —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not something that can be fixed by adding a few sources. These are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations which are what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There is no way these lists can ever be anything but a WP:COATRACK that synthesizes together a bunch of disparate quotes. Even if the quotes could come from reliable sources (and many are not) it's still being compiled in an original way and Wikipedia is not original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There is a reason why these were kept as they are notable - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Perfect valid Wikipedia list, helping find articles for characters that have something in common. Dream Focus 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all perfectly valid is not a criterion. seems like Dream Focus likes inventing anything to keep stuff. 88.194.24.215 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User 88.194.24.215 has made three edits total, two of which were to respond to me in AFDs. Dream Focus 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, it's trivial cross-categorization at best. Wikia or some other fan site would be happy to host this kind of content -- those sorts of sites have much lower standards.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:LISTPURP: Useful as informative and for Wikipedia development purposes. Also, exhaustiveness of a list is not a reason for deletion. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all indiscriminate list. there are many fictional characters not known outside the english speaking world so would not even make this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs. Dream Focus 20:01, 30 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

600 home run club and 700 home run club[edit]

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

Both of these pages are reproductions of 500 home run club (and you can see that they are copied from a prior version of that page). More to the point, while the terminology of the "500 home run club" is well known, nobody ever talks about a 600 or 700 home run club. Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search for the phrase "600 home run club" yields 221,000 results. So I wouldn't say "nobody ever talks about" it. In fact, "500 home run club" only yields 24,600 results, but this is because the majority of references (391,000) are listed as "500 HR club", whereas for some reason, the same ratio does not exist for 600 (only 94,300 for the abbreviated version). I don't know if this is relevant for Wikipedia's deletion policy, but I think it shows something. Myavantssoslow (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a very interesting one. Some Googling certainly reveals both phrases ("600 home run club," "700 home run club") being used, but I concur with the nominator's assessment of the respective notability of the "500 home run club," which is a very notable phrase of long standing, and the two newer "club" phrases. That said... I reserve the right to change my mind on this. The 600 and 700 phrases are used. I just don't know that they're notable as a per se club. Will be curious to see other persons' thoughts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people have used these terms, but not with the regularity that would establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Yes the term gets used occasionally, but a club term gets created for virtually any statistical group. 500 HR Club is the only one which draws truly notable coverage. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's difficult to conceive that for a sport where having played just one major league game gets a guy into Wikipedia, which I believe is the case, that something like this would draw a challenge. If these were retitled "List of Major League Baseball players hitting 600 home runs" and "List of Major League Baseball players hitting 700 home runs," would there be grounds for a challenge? I doubt it. So, rename and move along. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who plays a single game gets entered in the Baseball Encyclopedia. In the case of renaming these articles, there would still be quite a bit of redundancy with pages like List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters‎ and of course 500 home run club, without any particular notability to the terms "600 home run club" or "700 home run club" that would merit inclusion. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appearance at the Major League level virtually guarantees you will satisfy WP:GNG and passes WP:ATH. 600 and 700 home run lines, while mentioned are merely subsets of the 500 HR club that fail any real test for stand alone lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sufficiently covered by 500 club article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Now that I understand the history behind this a little better, I can see that I misunderstood the premise of the nomination. Although the term 500 home run club is well known, both of these are artificial variations made by a person who, perhaps, thought that there should be a "600 home run club" and a "700 home run club". Another great idea would be to have a 755 home run club for Aaron and Bonds. Cheers for A-Rod, who might hit his 600th homer this afternoon (9th inning, Royals at Yankees), but there's no "club", simply a milestone to be mentioned in his article. Mandsford 19:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename I created these pages because although the simple terminology may not be notable, I believe the data on here is useful and not presented in this fashion anywhere else on the web. It used to be on the "500 home run club" page and then was deleted. I was actually considering naming them "list of MLB players who have hit at least 600 home runs" but chose not to. I would support the name change, which I think is better than deletion altogether. Again, although the terms aren't notable, all you have to do is watch any baseball broadcast surrounding any of these milestones or talk to people in the sport about them, and you can see that fans and insiders alike are very interested in the milestones and the data surrounding them. (And there is a reason these HR balls are worth well over $100,000 if caught...) Myavantssoslow (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of all sorts of ways that this could be accomplished within 500 home run club, including a prominent stripe between Ruth and Mays, and another one (soon) between A-Rod and Frank Robinson. While one could make a list of four active members of the 500 club (Rodriguez, Thome, Ramirez, Sheffield), the information is conveyed more effectively by the use of a color code. Mandsford 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, A-Rod might hit his 600th homer today [24] in a game going on now in its 3rd inning. Mandsford 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it could be accomplished within the 500 HR club page. And if you look at what it looked like before July 11, it was on there. However, someone thought that all of the date/age/pitcher information for 500/600/700 didn't need to be on there because of all the columns that were mostly empty, so I thought I would put it on a different page. I really think this info should be somewhere on Wikipedia. Myavantssoslow (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point on that, and it makes a difference to me. Mandsford 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to 500 home run club. DCEdwards1966 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per prior keeps. The "nobody ever talks about" statement is, as pointed out, clearly incorrect.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MLB itself uses the term 600 Home Run Club : [25] . There are thousands of hits for these terms. The nominator obviously does not know what he is talking about. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I misread the original nomination as saying that these were redundant to 500 home run club. In looking closer, I see that the statement is that these are "reproductions...copied from a prior version of that page" and the word "prior" cancels out the concept of this being redundant to an existing article. The 500 home run club page does refer to six (and, soon, seven) people who hit more than 500 home runs, and the date upon which they reached the 500 milestone. I'm not objecting to Staxringold's revisions of the format of the table (he said that he would add in the opposing pitcher info if it was sourced, and I'm hoping that the age info will be displayed again, even in the clumsy looking years and days form-- Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Griffey and Sosa were all 34 when they made it to 500). Still, the 500 table stops at 500, and the circumstances of those same five people (or of Bonds) reaching 600 aren't on there, ditto for Bonds, Aaron and Ruth hitting 700. I agree with Myavant that this should be on a table somewhere-- baseball fans thrive on this stuff. Mandsford 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche and Mandsford above. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 31 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nethology[edit]

Nethology (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. Appears to be a Non-notable neologism. The edit summary on the PROD removal reads "there is a website called nethology.net that has the term used under irish law". I'm not sure what that means, but it seems to me that the word has been coined by a company of the same name, and has no common usage. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:50, 24 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) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Li[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lena Li (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:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. All Gnews hits refer to other, similarly named people; no nontrivial GBooks hits. No reliable sources in article, refs are SPS and retail sites. Survived AFD in 2007 on grounds that an (unsourced) claim of appearing on the cover of Playboy-related magazines (but never appearing in the original title) was sufficient to establish notability, an outcome that's not consistent with current practice or guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Playboy model/cover girl is just as notable today as it was in 2007. The only thing that has changed is that a group of biased editors has changed our home-made definition of "Notability". This is the height of POV and OR, and is against the spirit in which Wikipedia was founded. It is a disgrace that Jimbo allows such bigotry and censorship to go on by editors who rarely, if ever contribute anything to the project but argument and ill-will. Dekkappai (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the subject has never been a "Playboy cover girl," at least in terms of the notable magazine, as opposed to its non-notable related publications, and since there is no reliable sourcing even for that claim, this ranting should be given negligible weight. I hope, when the AFD is closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:11, 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, JForget 00:31, 17 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, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed with MelanieN, can't find evidence of notability sufficient for WP, or RS. She clearly did appear on the cover of several special editions and foreign issues of Playboy, but that's not sufficient. Watch the tone on both sides of this discussion, folks. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MelanieN. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 30 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) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CreaToon[edit]

CreaToon (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 assertion of notability since that was requested in May of 2009. Also, it seems kind of spammy. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:17, 17 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, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage of this software in reliable sources. Current sourcing is a blog and the software's website. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can verified with independant sources Ryan Norton 03:11, 25 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) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runner Up Records[edit]

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

I found a source (yes, singular), and also found that this label does not meet our guidelines for notability. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 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, 24 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 Coldfire Trilogy. Strongest argument appears to be in favour of a merge. While there is some notability, as established by sources provided, it seems there isn't enough to sustain an individual article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When True Night Falls[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) RJFJR (talk) 04:31, 17 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, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on all the reviews found by UsernameRedacted. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think it would be fine to merge this, along with Black Sun Rising and Crown of Shadows, to The Coldfire Trilogy. There are plenty of reviews, so I think that the book is notable, but there isn't really much to say specific to this particular volume of the series. We should just redirect all three and then there would be enough info for a decent article. UsernameRedacted (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged if you want to post all the summaries on one page, but that could be rather long, otherwise keep them as is and restore the Crown of Shadows Page. Either way, I believe the summaries should remain in existence in some form and not be completely deleted as was done to Crown of Shadows (though I saved that page to my computer from Google cache when I saw it had been deleted, so I have it available) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.145.77 (talk) 05:32, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Brightman[edit]

Amelia Brightman (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)

Nice-looking article. Dramatic photo. Not a notable musician, not by a long shot. Easily fails WP:MUSIC. Has never released an album. Has never toured, except as a backing vocalist in the band. Her sister is notable; that doesn't count. Article looks like the kind of article a notable musician would have; don't be fooled. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't speak to the discography, but I certainly challenge the verifiability of much of the biography. I tried to find sources. (None are cited.) The only person saying anything at all about albums is this person xyrself, writing on MySpace. We all know that people writing on MySpace about their wonderful forthcoming achievements that haven't quite yet reached the world is something to be taken with a large sackful of salt. I couldn't even find that much to back up the content about pseudonyms. (The BBC's biography was sourced from this article, notice.) About all that the world has independently written about this person in terms of biography seems to be, from what I can turn up, is that xe is a sibling of someone else. Even the full date of birth doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia-sourced information. Uncle G (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I found some sources abroad: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Nuujinn (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - she might be kinda close to notability given her many contributions to other people's works (mostly her sister, nonetheless) and the sources located by Nuujinn above might be worthy of argument over whether they're reliable and significant enough. (I'm undecided on that particular sub-issue). But it appears that Amelia has not been noticed enough for her own achievements. She could possibly be mentioned briefly at Sarah's article. Till then, Amelia needs to gain more notice as an independent performer, not just on her own MySpace page, and that forthcoming solo album needs to become a reality. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 19 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, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Mere association with those who satisfy WP:MUSIC is not enough to justify an independent article when there is no other claim to notability. – Smyth\talk 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I find myself in agreement with DOOMSDAYER520's evaluation. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 30 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. However, another comment or 2 would have been helpful. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Paws[edit]

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

Non-notable book series; unsourced for many years. Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 17 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, 24 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. feel free to renominate in a few weeks, but there's not enough participation here to get a clear picture one way or the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1979 United Kingdom general election result in Essex[edit]

1979 United Kingdom general election result in Essex (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 a result of my noming of 1983 United Kingdom general election result in Essex, I am nominating all the other (Year) United Kingdom general election result in Essex, largely for the same reason - a completely unnecessary list of the (year) election results in Essex. All of the information is already available at both the constituency's article and the List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election for the relevant year.

As a result of the above, I am also listing the following articles as well:

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, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:STATS, since there's no context offered (such as how did this compare to the overall results in the nationwide election, or how did it differ from the previous result) The only purpose of having little snapshots of the percentage of votes in a particular location would be for comparative purposes, and putting them all on separate pages is a rather dimwitted way to present electoral statistics. Certainly, there would be room to place these all on a single page, and if someone wants to merge them together into one article, I'd support something of that nature, but individually these are all pointless. Mandsford 02:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Suitable content. Agreed that merger might make for a more helpful article. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:STATS. No context given, only numbers without the bigger picture. Could be included within an article covering all general election results for that year, as long as that article is not just stats either.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per 1983 precedent. We could only keep these, if we were going to have similar articles for every other county. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all – The current organization is clearly of little use. However, the overall results tables would have some value if placed side-by-side in a single article in the same style as the constituency articles, or even better, combined into a single table of party vs year. – Smyth\talk 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – Links at the bottom of the 2005 article show that there are similar series of articles for 7 other regions, though apparently only covering 2005 and 2010. This does not come close to covering the whole country, but I don't see that as relevant. If the pages are useful, then they're useful even if they only cover one region. Conversely, if the pages aren't useful, then extending them to cover the whole country would not change that fact. – Smyth\talk 16:29, 29 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. At first glance, this could be a "no consensus", but I'm going with delete. A difficult one in light of the lack of participation, but i found the arguments that it duplicates a category rather convincing. This is just a list of names with no real content or clearly defined inclusion criteria. There are also WP:BLP concerns to consider- by placing a person in this list, they are labelled as belonging to a group, but no sources at all are provided to prove that they belong in said group. The other policy consideration is WP:INDISCRIMINATE- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this list is little more than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam film actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Malayalam film actors (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 list is not comprehensive and does not provide any useful information. This article just has a list which is difficult to maintain and is just a subset of the Category:Malayali actors. Sreejith K (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, pointless list. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and WP:NOTLINK. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looking more closely at the notability guidelines for lists of people, and observing the fact that numerous other articles quite similar to this one already exist, I am changing my vote to Keep. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 15:59, 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) 00:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sad thing about an indiscriminate list is the waste of an opportunity. This tells us nothing about any of the persons mentioned, and essentially reflects that the authors never actually cared about Malayalam film actors. Turns out that Adoor Bhasi is a comedian, and Babu Antony often portrays villains, but no, I don't want to click on the links to find out about the rest of the persons on this list of names in alphabetical order. If you can't want to do anything more than parroting a category, don't even bother, you're wasting your time and ours too. Mandsford 02:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it stands, its really a lousy list, and i hate lousy lists. the lede is possibly incorrect (malayalam is the language not the people), and doesnt elaborate on the criteria. the list should have some hidden text telling people not to add redlinks or unlinked names without references. each name SHOULD ideally have one other piece of info: birth date, birth province, other notable facts like whether they are also directors, writers etc. however, since its entirely reasonable to say that a list of malayalam/malayi actors is possible, i think on principle it should stand and not just exist as a category. I know, no one is probably ever going to fix it, and its horrible. If it passes afd i will add some of what i list here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:54, 24 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) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Track Studio[edit]

The Track Studio (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)

Dallas-area recording studio. Other than name-dropping, no suggestion -- let alone evidence -- that the studio itself (not the people who rent it) has acquired any notice outside (or even inside) Plano, Texas. Created by the suspiciously named DallasRecordingStudio (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 16:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should i change my username? yes to be honest i created this wikipedia entry to help search optimization...i'm disappointed with the results however. i plan on scanning the "plano profile" newspaper clipping that our studio was featured in and uploading it as an image. would that be sufficient, or do you have any other suggestions to help improve the quality of my article? DallasRecordingStudio (talk) 19:12, 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) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and suffers from spamref. Every link seems to go to a place where we can buy an album. Sometimes they even give us several outlets to choose from. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those are the only places where i can achieve our studio's name on the album... i will ask drag city/relapse/kirtland records if i can have permission to scan their album artwork and upload to commons. it is going to take me a while, would you be willing to help me?DallasRecordingStudio (talk) 21:15, 25 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.neprinol.org/
  2. ^ http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_24&oldid=1142641270"