Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 26

< 25 July	27 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Creator is a now blocked sockpuppet. NAC as it looks like PMDrive1061 may have forgotten to close this. Mauler90 _talk 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World of Wikipedia[edit]

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

I'm assuming this should be redirected to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, although since it is in the wrong space it may need something more severe. | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copy and pasted into new article, creator has also vandalized Amstel Brewery several times ([1] and [2]). Possible VOA. Mauler90 _talk 23:59, 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. JForget 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TriangleOS[edit]

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

Non-notable technology Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a student's hobby project. The article gives no sources at all. Searching has produced the author's web site (which says "TriangleOS was purely a hobby project, which I haven't touched for many years now"), blog posts, a screenshot on an archive site, a sourceforge listing, various brief mentions, etc, but no significant coverage anywhere, in reliable sources or otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS coverage … self-defined "hobby operating system" is hardly encyclopedic, and article fails WP:Notability (software). Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{22:22, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to lose weight fast and easy[edit]

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

Against WP:NOTGUIDE Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big fat delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go Away, Now nothing to see here, move along.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an encyclopaedia article on weight loss. This article provides nothing additional of value, and really provides no encyclopaedic content at all. Wikipedia is not this. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - It is not clear how an article like this could happen. Perhaps each signon should carry an internal flag that makes you click through a series of orientation webpages before you are allowed to create your first article. Racepacket (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. I would normally suggest a merge to Weight loss, but I get the feeling that the creator didn't plan for this article to be anything but a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - It's clearly a how-to guide: they've even put "Good luck! I hope this helped." in the last line. If that's not a sign of being a how-to guide, I don't know what is. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super speedy delete. Not quite an advertisement, but close to it. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't know why it isn't dead yet. 2D ℳaestro ^{Dribble/Scribble} 12:48, 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. JForget 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach bum[edit]

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

This article was first nominated for deletion back in 2005. The result was a keep, but significant issues were raised during that AFD. These issues remain uncorrected 5 years later, and I have significant doubts that the article will ever amount to anything more than a dictionary stub. Furthermore the article has remained unreferenced for a similar length of time. I recommend that we delete the article at this time based on the lack of references, lack of encyclopedic nature, and the potential for the article to develop into a collection of trivia rather than a true article. Triona (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This article is ridiculous. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, besides which the definition of this one is so vague. Please check out Surf culture if you are interested in the topic. Borock (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had a whole area of the planet that we didn't cover for five years. It was North Asia (AfD discussion). Five years is not unusual, nor some magic cutoff point. Neither, moreover, is lack of work by volunteer editors indicative of anything at all with respect to a subject. I also recommend reading the policy being cited. It explains the difference between a dictionary article and an encyclopaedia article. This is a stub encyclopaedia article, purportedly about a subculture. It's only deletable, per Wikipedia:deletion policy, if there's no possibility for the stub to be expanded into an actual substantial article. Interestingly, there is such a possibility to be considered here. Journalist and author Boye Lafayette De Mente has written about the beach bums of Hawaii, at some length, in ISBN 9780914778608, providing both a clear definition of what a beach bum is, and a typology of beach bums. And there are several other sources to be found, Borock, as well as organizations such as the USSA, that would take you to task for asserting that surfers and beach bums are the same thing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting take on things Uncle G, but in the end if the article is not sourced it still needs to be deleted. We do have policy on that for good reason. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your understanding of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is wrong. You need to re-read the policy. Actual policy is as stated above. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of verifiability and no original research policy is quite right, and yes we do regularly delete material which is not backed by reliable third party publications, preferably using an inline format. If no one cares to do that in this instance then the article should be deleted. We are not working on a deadline, but at the same time should be striving to provide informative and reliably sourced content to our readers. You and I may disagree on the finer points of how that is accomplished. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:21, 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 redirect to Small Talk at 125th and Lenox. JForget 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitey on the Moon[edit]

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

NN song, fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the parent album Small Talk at 125th and Lenox. There is some interest in the political stance of the lyrics because the artist is well-known for that sort of thing. Even so, the information could use some more verification if it is merged to the album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Small Talk at 125th and Lenox: Non-notable, unreferenced song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 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 no consensus. All points considered. By my best analysis there does not seem to be a consensus here either way. Shout-out to User:DGG's improvements. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant[edit]

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

Restaurant or company of no particular notability, one of thousands, written in the manner of a promotional review. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Also, AFD is not for cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not for advertising restaurants of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended as such. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I keep seeing people say that it's not neutral (or reads as an advertisement), but I've yet to see anyone provide any new sources to tone down the positiveness of the article, or even to attempt at rewording anything... I'll concede that perhaps it's a bit localized, but I (personally) don't have a problem with that. If there's a relevant guideline for restaurant articles, I'd be happy to revisit my position. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP as coverage must extend beyond significant local and incidental regional coverage.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't the New York Times (and its website) published globally? I live about 5000 miles away from this restaurant but I'm reading significant coverage from a reputable publisher... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared in the Regional section of the paper.Griswaldo (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which I read 5,000 miles away. How "regional" do you think this "coverage" is? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, can you please tell us if you read it in the edition that was printed for sale 5000 miles away, in the edition that was printed for sale in NY/NJ and mailed to you, or did you read it online? Obviously local papers with websites can be read anywhere. If it was printed specifically for international distribution that is a different story. The NY Times covers local events as well as national/internation ones. New Brunswick is part of the NY metro area, and its inclusion in that paper does not necessarily make the subject of regional importance (for the record it takes far less time to travel from Manhattan to the restaurant in question than it does to travel to places in Queens, Staten Island, and Brooklyn).Njsustain (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, yes, I read it in the internationally-published website. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk)

Not to be argumentative, but the point I was making is that if you read it online, that doesn't make it "international." The entire web is by its nature international. The fact that you read a story which was printed specifically in the New Jersey section (i.e. for the metropolitan community) on the world wide web doesn't make it of "international" importance any more than reading about the Chipotle franchise in the Supulpa, Oklahoma weekly shopper's website while in Rome makes it of international importance. I'm not going to take a side on deletion, but do want it to be clear that inclusion of a New Jersey subject in the NY Times does not automatically make that subject of more than local importance.Njsustain (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be argumentative either, by any stretch, but if this is a potential policy/guideline change then fine by me. This restaurant has received global coverage being publicised by one of the biggest newspapers in history. If we need to modify our policies to cater for the fact that this may not be as clear as it seems, then fine. Perhaps this is a test case for establishments claiming notability via an internationally published newspaper, and perhaps we need to discuss it in a wider forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion regarding the criteria for inclusion of restaurants at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability - Regards, Njsustain (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears, on the face of it, to have received coverage from a number of notable secondary sources. Not quite sure how it currently fails our WP:N criterion, perhaps the nominator would be kind enough to expand on his accusation of "no particular notability" vs said policy, and if it's a promotional review, perhaps nominator could remove overt advertising or add some information to the talkpage to assist those involved. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P~~lease read WP:CORP as coverage must extend beyond significant local and incidental regional coverage~~ See my reply to Evula above.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This exact verbatim text appears to have been posted by the same user already, above. No need for duplicate spam posting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what SPAM is. The same response was appropriate for both posts.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, Griswaldo. I am capable of reading your comments, no need to overwhelm this AFD with your repeated opinion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no need for you to post the exact same text in two places on this same page. You could have simply pointed another user by saying, see comment, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry does not satisfy the more specific policy - WP:CORP. All coverage is local and regional, and that includes the two mentions in the New York Times appearing in the regional section there. One piece of information that was put forth towards notability in other discussions was established as inaccurate and removed by me here. What we have here is a puff piece written about a popular restaurant based on a series of local news paper and magazine reviews. There is absolutely no reason for an encyclopedia to contain content on this location.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zagat Survey rating of 24/30 is not local [3]. The New York Times feature selection in "Standouts Among the Year’s Best" is not local. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the Zagat Survey is highly highly local, and if anything 24/30 is a very strong argument against inclusion if we are to consider it at all. This is a totally ordinary restaurant of zero encyclopedic interest. Note that New York City alone has 198 restaurants with a higher food rating. 24 is totally unremarkable. It's a local wine bar with good reviews, nothing more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... a source that paints the subject in a positive light is a violation of NPOV (fair enough), but a source that paints the subject in a negative light is evidence that it's non-notable? Couldn't it, I dunno, be used instead to bring a more neutral stance for the article to counteract the perceived bias in the article? (ie: "Daryl's blah blah has received these awards, but Zagat disagreed saying blah blah" or something more coherent) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that high ratings in Zagat was part of the notability criteria, or a listing in a NYT regional restaurant review was either. If other people think that Wikipedia should be filled with listings for every well reviewed restaurant then so be it, but I don't. There are millions of similar restaurants around. Also please note that restaurant reviews are not part of the normal news cycle, they are part of a culture of public relations and marketing for restaurants. "Significant coverage" by local reviews is a beast of a very particular sort.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (slightly weakish but still). The "Reception" section could definitely be shortened - it is that section that perhaps gives the article something of a promotional impression. However, there appears to be a reasonably solid case for notability. There are quite a few NJ regional sources (not just the local town newspaper), as well as some regional awards, mentioned in the lede. Quite a bit of coverage in NYT (in the NJ section but still, that counts as regional, and not just local, coverage). Plus the restaurant was featured in a national NBC program - a national source. I would have liked to see a bit more - e.g. some mention in regional guidebook(s), but basically there is enough here to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful pointers. I would have gladly worked to trim down the Reception subsection, had this been politely pointed out in a specific suggestion on the talk page, however, again, AFD is not for cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the substantial coverage in reliable sources. Notability is easily established. This article is well-written, not promotional; it should be at GA or FAC, not AfD. Cunard (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be well enough sourced, and the restaurant has clearly achieved significant local notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me, local reviews are not "independent" coverage for a local establishment, and while the New York Times is read nationally (even internationally), it is still a local paper for the New York area, it clearly still covers regional topics, and its coverage appeared in the Regional section (re discussion above as to NYT being available internationally - so are all websites where not blocked by nations, and pretty much any written work can be distributed internationally, the point is focus). There appears to be no significant coverage of this restaurant outside of its local area and, while the article is well written, I don't see how it has the actual notability necessary to meet with WP:N nor WP:CORP. Further, many local restaurants get a one off appearance on Food Network or NBC...ONE appearance isn't significant coverage. I have not seen any policy nor guideline that says that the "Zagat" survey is relevant nor noteworthy here. From the site, it appears to be a user-based rating system, much like ePinions, only you have to pay to see them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is Regional, which is good enough. WP:CORP distinguishes between Local and Regional coverage, this is the latter. This is a review of a New Jersey restaurant by a New York paper; "Local" would be the same city. There is no shortage of New York City restaurants for the NYTimes to cover that it would cover an unimportant one in central New Jersey. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be "good enough." The guideline says: "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Not it it does not say "at least one regional, national, or international source is sufficient." Good judgement still needs to be exercised to determine "notability." That the coverage is in the "New Jersey" section (which caters to the NYTs large New Jersey audience) makes it less of a big deal, in many eyes, than coverage in the national editions. At any rate, the real dispute here is whether restaurant reviews of only local (or regional if you prefer) interest are sufficient to build an encyclopedia argument with.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Strong, multiple, continuous coverage by several undisputedly reliable sources means that it passes our general notability guideline with flying colours. No sane reason exists to dismiss sources only because most of them are "regional", especially if the "region" includes millions of persons. The "delete" comments above seem to squirm into a personal interpretation of notability which isn't supported by any guideline apart perhaps for WP:CORP -in any case, alternative notability guidelines are supposed to extend GNG, not to replace it, so the requirement of CORP of sources not being local is completely moot. Reliable sources are reliable sources and significant coverage is significant coverage regardless of the audience. An academic journal on some exotic mathematics field would have probably much less audience than NYT, but nobody seriously argue to dismiss it as a RS. To pick up "local" as a proxy for "nobody cares about it" is deeply biased. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may be missing something, so I'm not saying "delete" at the moment, but I do not see any assertion of notability. If this article is kept we are really opening the floodgates: every two-bit cafe in the world will want an article because local media invariably mentions every food outlet a couple of times, and we don't keep one article because it is well written and the restaurant has good reviews, while deleting another article on a local cafe because it is not (yet) well written and has bad reviews. Then there is every other business covered by a couple of trade magazines which invariably cover all vaguely relevant organizations: is Joe's Printing notable because it is mentioned in a couple of local papers and trade mags? I'm not saying "OTHERSTUFF", I'm asking how WP:ORG applies to this restaurant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are about establishing actual notability, not assertions of notability. Notability is established by guidelines. Even for establishments in its metropolitan area, The New York Times is generally not considered the "local paper". ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Though, like other large metro areas, there are other local papers in the NY area, The Times is indeed considered a local paper, as well as a global paper of record, to those living within the metro area. The Times happens to have excellent local coverage as well as covering topics of global importance. The review of this restaurant happened to be part of its metro coverage, nothing more. Is there a standard which states that anything that happens to be in the NY Times, no matter the context, deserves a WP article, and if so, what other newspapers are included in this elite list, and where is the line drawn? At the Pittsburgh Press? At the San Francisco Chronicle? At the Miami Herald? And who gets to decide what is on each side or this line?Njsustain (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, including its imputation of bad faith on the part of the nominator. Full length review in New York Times (which was in the version that was nominated for deletion) alone is sufficient to establish notability. Appearing on "best" lists in large metropolitan areas and being widely reviewed rebut the claim that the NY Times coverage is too local. Furthermore, it has won state-wide awards in a state with population of nearly 9 million. ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review in question focuses on the founding chef (no longer there) more than the restaurant, and suggests that said chef had some notability when the restaurant was created. One suggestion in another discussion was to merge the appropriate amount of information into the entry on the chef instead. Also, is there any indication that this review, located under the heading "DINING | NEW BRUNSWICK" was published in the national or international distribution of the New York Times? It doesn't go beyond local just because its the Times unless it is actually distributed outside the region.Griswaldo (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "state-wide awards" were readers choice awards from New Jersey Monthly with a self proclaimed maximum readership of 515,000 total readers, not 9 million. Clearly those who actually voted on this are a much smaller number than that as well. That said are you suggesting that all of the restaurants winning these NJ Monthly prizes each year, over 150 in 2007 alone are also notable and deserve entries here? Maybe we should multiply that by 50 for each state that hands out these types of awards in their monthly magazines. We're talking about over 7,500 restaurants every year that are equally notable, probably two or three times that given the fact that there are multiple state wide organizations handing out these types of prizes.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the awards included Critics' Choice awards recognition as well. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that the notability guidelines are far broader than might be desirable, you will not get disagreement from me—personally, I think they're absurdly over-inclusive and lead to many, many thousands of articles on unencyclopedic topics. But there they are, in black and white, as the only authoritative basis to opine in deletion discussions. This restaurant—and probably many far less notable (in the real world, not Wikipedia sense) ones—meets the guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 03:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. The guidelines are possibly a bit ambiguous but they are not plainly broad. They are being interpreted broadly by some and narrowly by others. It's an odd choice to take the broad interpretation while wishing openly that guidelines were more narrow. It is certainly odd to admit that this and other restaurants do not belong in an encyclopedia but to claim being handcuffed by a guideline in a way that you can't do anything about it. To each their own I guess.Griswaldo (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the interpretation of the guidelines can only be done on the margins. The topic of this article unambiguously meets the guidelines. It's better to choose one's battles than to tilt at windmills. ^Bongo_matic 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Griswaldo and AnmaFinotera. Fails notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! - run by a Scientologist [4], so we've got to support Cirt's crusade by documenting their every move. Got to keep those Thetans out of our soup on theatre night. Cookiehead (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Warning regarding this comment placed on talk page James (T C) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Warning also placed on talk page. Also warning on this page of an extreme lack of a sense of humor coupled with a heady dose of condescension, and an inability to determine the difference between "keep" and delete". Cheers. Cookiehead (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cookiehead, your sarcastic humor is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive here. You bring to the forefront a completely valid point, and snarking about it diminishes the impact of the point. Many of us have puzzled about why an article about a completely run-of-the-mill restaurant with some good local reviews was singled out for an article. Some wondered about a conflict of interest. The fact that there is a Scientology connection explains a lot, and not in a way that is favorable to the cause of this article. Cirt writes a lot about topics connected to Scientology. That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it isn't relevant. It can be relevant for internal chit-chat about Cirt's motivations as an editor, but editor agendas/motivations have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a subject for WP. FWIW, the creation of this article may be part of an evil plan of Cirt to conquer the world, but it is nonetheless none of our business. The restaurant is notable by multiple coverage by reliable sources, and that's all what counts. If you have problems with Cirt, solve them in the proper avenues - taking down his articles is not the way to go. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, Cyclopia, much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In response to above comments, I have trimmed down the size of the Reception subsection, from [5] to [6]. It is now a bit more succinct and concise. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability and depth of coverage appear to be satisfied.Jarhed (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A new-ish restaurant getting positive reviews from local papers and Zagat does not make it notable. SQGibbon (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More - WP:CORP states "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" which seems to be the case here. Further the article reads like an advertisement and without anything notable about the restaurant means it should be deleted as per WP:CORP. SQGibbon (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP's requirement for "at least regional" coverage. I personally feel that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are too broad or too vague, and that a guideline written specifically for restaurants might be written with tighter standards, resulting in deletion of this article. But with the existing guidelines as they are, the requirements are met. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is what wikipedia will become when paid editing is allowed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Peter's comment. My initial thought is that keeping an article on this subject may be OK, but we need to gut this sucker.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was no paid editing involved with writing this article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I am completely flummoxed, then.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets the main general notability guideline, does not go against any policies, so there is no reason we should not have an article. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. The subject may meet the notability guideline (barely), but the article is poor and should be rewritten completely to make an objective look at it possible. Things like "In 2007, The New York Times highlighted the restaurant in a piece, "Standouts Among the Year's Best", and gave it a rating of "excellent"" in reality mean that the regional New Jersey section of the NYTimes reviewed 42 restaurants in 2007, and mentioned the ten best of these 42 again in an article at the end of the year. The current sentence gives the impression that this is comparable to a selection of the ten best books of the year by the NYTimes, when it is just the selection of one food critic from his weekly regional restaurant visit. It may be a somewhat notable restaurant, but this is a puff piece fileld with trivia and blog sources. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Griswaldo and AnmaFinotera. Not much more than local notability. Them From Space 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely ordinary restaurant with local reviews only. Article reads like an advertisement. Primary author apparently has a connection to the subject via his well known (anti)Scientology activism. Connection to Cirt/Scientology may help explain why it was created, but does nothing to establish notability. Apparently the founding chef, who is no longer at the restaurant, may be notable, so a merger of some of the content may be appropraite.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - per edits by User:DGG--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Local reviews" on RS are still RS coverage. "Article reads like an advertisement" and COI issues are not reason for deletion: the first can be dealt with editing and our deletion policy asks us not to delete, therefore ; the second is irrelevant (what is important is the subject, not the reasons behind article creation). --Cyclopia ^talk 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales, as primary author, I do not have a connection to the restaurant. Yes, I have written WP:FA and WP:GA content on the topic of Scientology, and found out about the topic regarding one of the founders of the restaurant from a blog of Mark Rathbun, but that is the extent of it. I have no conflict of interest relating to the restaurant or its founders. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Sorrentini is a Scientologist who has been reported in the blogosphere to have left the Church of Scientology. She is now, along with her daughter and son-in-law (actress Jamie Sorrentini and Italian singer Tiziano Lugli), friends with dissident Scientologists like Marc Headley, Mark Rathbun and Amy Scobee. All of these people are highly critical of David Miscavige, although they are not necessarily critical of Scientology as taught by L. Ron Hubbard. Would it be fair to say that you morally support their cause, and that this has something to do with your having written the article, as well as the article on Jamie Sorrentini? --JN 466 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, above, it was through the blog of Mark Rathbun that I initially became aware of the topic. However, the characterization by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is not a fair or accurate assessment, neither is it related to the discussion of notability of this article page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my characterisation so much as that of a named contributor on a cirtics' website. To use his words, he stated your position, as maintained in private correspondence with him, is that you are "fervently (almost to the point of panic) opposed to the Church of Scientology". He stated that you "monitor people and organizations who have ever been 'threatened' by the CoS", and that you believe you are "'assisting' or 'rewarding' those victimized people by giving them the 'gift' of coverage in Wikipedia." I just wondered if that was true. I can let you have the URL where the claim was made, if you like. --JN 466 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, No one is arguing that have not easily been one of top contributors, but just becuase we have sources on a topic does not mean we should write about a topic. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jayen466 (talk · contribs), your strenuous attempts at ad hominem and poisoning the well are noted. -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above leaves two possible interpretations: either the off-site poster at WR is lying, or you are less than honest in your dealings with the community. I note that we had a very similar situation recently with another article of yours on a non-notable subject, Kenneth Dickson. This too was strikingly promotional in its tone, was written in the run-up to a local election in which Dickson took part, and it too had a Scientology connection. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination), [7]. I note that then, too, you attempted to initiate admin and noticeboard action against the editors who criticised the Kenneth Dickson article as a blatant puff piece, just as you did here in the case of Njsustain. You are a talented writer and editor, but writing puff pieces in support of the cause of the Scientology dissidents does not reflect well on you, nor does the fact that you consistently try to bring admin sanctions down on the heads of those who call you out on it. --JN 466 17:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assessment: this article is not a "puff piece", see for example the Keep comment by Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), here [8]. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's alleged bias here is not relevant to the article or its notability. We have no "editor's internal motivations" test at Wikipedia - COI comes close, but a vast majority of work is done by people interested in a topic or a related topic, even if it's tangental.

If you feel that there's a systematic problem that violates policy in some way then a user RFC would be appropriate, but the discussion here is not appropriate for an AFD, where none of the alleged issues have surfaced in the article in any way that anyone is citing.

Please don't use this as a forum to bash on Cirt - this is about the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt introduced this aspect by stating to Jimbo, above, unasked, that s/he had no conflict of interest with regard to the restaurant and its owners. This may or may not have been economical with the truth, but I agree that continuing this discussion here can serve no further purpose. --JN 466 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #1[edit]

Delete - explicitly without prejudice for or against any editor involved in the article or this AfD. However well the article may be written and sourced, the problem is the subject isn't notable. Zagat and, indeed, any number of food column reviews do not confer or show notability. That is, after all, what they do, so those sources are not really independent of the subject. There's a definite symbiosis there. It's almost like saying an academic is notable because he publishes scholarly papers. We draw the line there - we say that academics must be recognized as having contributed something significant to their field as one of the criteria to establish notability. Simply publishing is not enough; presenting papers at conferences doesn't do it, and even the combination of the two isn't enough. If and when this restaurant is shown to be notable - longevity, notability in the restaurant and/or wine worlds, notability of one or more of its owners, something that is more than simply maintaining its existence - that would be a different story. Frank | talk 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A restaurant doesn't publish anything: other people review it. An academic is not relevant because he publishes, but is relevant if he gets secondary sources coverage. That's what we are discussing here. I don't understand the "symbiosis" argument -in what respect aren't reviews by RS considered not independent? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary coverage for a restaurant would be a piece which is written about the restaurant outside of a review of it. A review of a restaurant merely indicates that it exists, not that it is notable. Regarding academics, publishing a paper means the academic exists, not that he is notable. When other academics start referring to one as a recognized authority, that's a different story. Same with a restaurant. Frank | talk 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You again seem to imply that reviews are somehow primary sources, like if restaurants write reviews themselves. That's obviously nonsensical. Your argument would hold if we were talking of press releases and advertisements, but a review means that someone else took note and wrote about the restaurant, so it is secondary sources coverage no doubt. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's a symbiosis there. Restaurant reviewers exist (or at least are employed) simply to review restaurants. The presence of one or more reviews of a restaurant does not confer or indicate notability. Such reviews merely confirm the existence of the establishment. From where I sit, it appears you have characterized my portion of this discussion in your own way and then cast stones at it...then you've said my "...argument would hold if..." but you don't appear to be actually reading what I've written. Your inference may not match my actual implication; that doesn't make what I'm saying "obviously nonsensical". Frank | talk 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies if it seemed that I misrepresented your arguments -I probably simply have misunderstood them. But anyway, I still can't get it:

Restaurant reviewers exist (or at least are employed) simply to review restaurants.: Yes. So what? Biographers exist simply to write biographies. Journalists exist to write news articles. Does this mean that biographies or news articles are not, usually, secondary, reliable sources? Really, what's the point?

The point is that a restaurant is a limited thing with a limited scope that applies mostly locally and can be consumed (if you'll pardon the pun) multiple times. A book or a news article is not the same thing, and so biographers and journalists are not the same thing. Even book reviewers are not the same thing; books often sell into the millions of copies. My point is that there is a highly symbiotic relationship between restaurants and their reviewers; it's a very closed society - so much so that objectivity is less than in other pursuits.

The presence of one or more reviews of a restaurant does not confer or indicate notability.: And why? Record reviews and book reviews usually confer notability. Why restaurant reviews do not?

Again, music and book reviews are different; they are mass-market items (generally) while restaurants are not. If a restaurant is to be thought of as notable, it must be mentioned outside the routine arena of a straight restaurant review. Take Tavern on the Green or Sardi's for example. These are storied establishments that are notable for more than just being restaurants, and indeed their food isn't always rated the best. But they are still notable. Besides - I hope nobody is suggesting that every album or book that's ever been reviewed is automatically notable. I certainly disagree with that notion.

Such reviews merely confirm the existence of the establishment.: No. This would be right if reviews were primary sources, but they are not. They are secondary sources coverage. So they establish notability. Read WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; see my point above. The symbiotic nature of the relationship between restaurants and reviewers makes this sketchy. But I would say this: if the restaurant is otherwise notable, it's perfectly appropriate to put in additional material from reliable sources - even if they are reviews. I'm just saying that having only reviews isn't enough. Frank | talk 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand better your argument. You have a good point, but it seems to me more of a NPOV issue than a notability one -that is, it may be biased coverage, but it is still independent third party coverage (i.e. they are not primary sources). --Cyclopia ^talk 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that if the only coverage we can find smacks of POV...that's not enough. Surely many of our articles regarding truly famous people include sources that are NPOV...but they aren't the only or even a majority of the sources. And - if the only coverage is POV coverage, that kind of negates the idea that the subject is independently notable. If a subject is truly notable, it shouldn't be a problem to find truly independent coverage that demonstrates that. The comment below regarding traffic reports and roads seems apt as well. Frank | talk 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of notable subjects where it is very easy to find RS coverage but very hard to find NPOV coverage. Good luck finding unanimously considered NPOV sources on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example (Although one could say that in that case you find POV sources from both sides). --Cyclopia ^talk 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very fair point. My counter to it is that in such cases, the controversy itself is quite likely notable. If anyone cared enough about this restaurant to generate significant POV content as both "love it" and "hate it" - that would be notable, in my opinion. Frank | talk 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. If two cites by the New York Times and the NBC station are regional coverage, any hole-in-the-wall should be so lucky to get substantial coveral like the television station's review. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What I see is a local restaurant getting local reviews. It happens all the time and is part of the regular coverage of local establishments. This does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In this DIFF, Whpq deleted my iVote. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)

Comment - Even if the removal was accidental, the AfD debate should not be modified especially as another comment was added. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following opinions expressed have no basis in the guidelines:
- Whpq: "What I see is a local restaurant getting local reviews."
WP:CORP distinguishes between "local" and "regional". NYT coverage (and statewide coverage) is regional, not local.
- Griswaldo: "coverage must extend beyond significant local and incidental regional coverage."
CORP states that "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary" (i.e., "incidental" regional coverage is sufficient--in this case, of course, there multiple regional sources).
- SQGibbon (quoting CORP):"'attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability' which seems to be the case here."
As above, CORP distinguishes between local and regional.
- Frank:"any number of food column reviews do not confer or show notability. That is, after all, what they do, so those sources are not really independent of the subject."
While there is no topic specific guideline for restaurants, this logic is opposite the analog articulated in both WP:NB and WP:NF, each of which infers notability from reviews by professional reviewers.

^Bongo_matic 13:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, we are not any less correct than you are since the policy you quote only lays out the bare minimum needed to establish notability - "at least one regional, national ...". It does not, anywhere, state that only meeting this bare minimum requirement always establishes notability. Like I said to you elsewhere there are competing interpretations here of a policy that is much more ambiguous than what you are claiming. In my view the policy could be strengthened, but until it is my interpretation remains much more narrow than yours, and for good reason. Wiki-lawyering over the policy text is less important here than keeping non-encyclopedic puffery out of the encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CORP distinguishes between local and regional, but doesn't indicate what "regional" is supposed to mean, whether one US state qualifies or whether it should be someyhing larger, e.g. the Midwest, New England, ... List of regions of the United States indicates that "regional" may range from only four in the whole of the USA, to sub-county level regions. The guideline definitely needs to be rewritten to clarify or eliminate this (apart from the fact that a lot of people seem to feel that the guideline is not suited for restaurants and the like). It is impossible to judge whether those opinions have, as you say, no basis in the guidelines, or accurately reflect them. Fram (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews were written for readers in the local area. There is nothing in the reviews content-wise or where they were published, to indicate that people from outside the local area should take notice. The restaurant is not being held up as one deserving state-wide, national, or international recognition. It's just another of any number of insignificant local restaurants only of interest to the people who live nearby. SQGibbon (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concur. In response to Bongo's statement, I don't see that these local/regional restaurant reviews as making a restaurant notable;it just makes it be the current dining hotness in the New York area. Has this restaurant received attention from further afield? For example, something like a Michelin Star or a James Beard award would demonstrate that the restaurant has been noted, as opposed to reviewed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources provided to establish notability are local and regional restaurant reviews. Restaurant reviews exist to review restaurants; it's a little like trying to establish notability for your local highway intersection based on the fact that it gets a mention on the radio traffic news every couple of days. This is not an establishment that has achieved wider cultural relevance and influence (e.g. Delmonico's, or even The Ivy) nor is it famous for the quality or inventiveness of its chef and cooking (e.g. The Fat Duck or The French Laundry). This is a very minor local establishment. Pyrop e 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if Cirt deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyster Bay Restaurant for lack of notability, this one cannot stay. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt closed an AfD discussion as delete where both votes were to delete because of a lack of coverage in secondary sources on a closed restaurant. What relevance does that have here? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the closure of an AfD debate is a representation of the WP:CONSENSUS of the discussion at hand. In an ideal world, Cirt's own opinion of that article would not have entered into the decision to close the AfD. The degree to which that is true is possibly debatable but actually beside the point; please read WP:OSE for details. Basically, one has nothing to do with the other. Frank | talk 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm voting "delete" here and this is an article largely written by Cirt, I wanted to weigh in and agree strongly with Freakshownerd and Frank: admins who are closing AfDs should work really hard to set aside their own view of the deletion debate and just close based on the consensus that has emerged. I'm very confident that Cirt would do that. He's a great editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep by precedent~~ Delete (My !vote was sarcasm so I am changing it before this closes) For over a year I have watched notability arguments about products and companies. The clear precedent in software, children's toys and other products is that any two reviews of any length by any RS establish notability. Therefore, every taco truck, hot dog cart, bar, and non-franchised coffee shop will also easily be notable. Anyone who wants to delete these things hasn't been paying attention to the direction notability has taken in the last year and it is too late now. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell us how you (don't) really feel.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The establishment has no notability within the U.S. restaurant industry, nor does it appear to be noteworthy as a New Jersey attraction. Local restaurants inevitably get reviewed by local newspapers, and Zagat is a Wiki-style publication where anyone can offer opinions. Even worse, the article looks and smells like an advertisement. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it may be overwhelming positive because there is nothing negative to say? appears to be notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Local reviews of a restaurant aren't enough, as these are often promotionally tinged. The type of coverage available to us is of a completely different standard with restaurants like Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, which receive serious (not just promotional) coverage that goes way beyond local media. [9] It is somehow poignant that we don't have an article on Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, but have an article on Daryl Wine Bar & Restaurant—for reasons that are related to Scientology. --JN 466 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and ideally delete). A liberal reading of the notability rules sadly probably suggests this place passes the threshold as currently drafted, and nor can I see anyone closing this saying there's a consensus for deletion, even discounting the "Keep, seems notable" comments. However, as noted that's kind of the problem. Strong Delete after thinking a bit more and reading further comments below. A strict/common sense reading of notability guidelines would exclude basic reviews. And we can still exercise judgment about notability rather than simply rely on bare minimum sourcing. WP should not be a review aggregator N-HH talk/edits 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Are we saying commercial establishments such as restaurants and even shops or hotels can be included purely on the basis that they've been reviewed once or twice? That every such place that's ever featured in the reviews that appear weekly or even daily - outside of the main news sections - in the 10s of 1000s of local papers around the world and in the local/lifestyle/travel sections of the national papers can get a page here? Welcome to the world of spam. Plus if this page stays, it needs gutting from all the PR fluff and hype currently in it. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we saying commercial establishments such as restaurants and even shops or hotels can be included purely on the basis that they've been reviewed once or twice? - If twice or more, I would personally answer a resounding "yes" and I don't see how this qualifies as "spam". It only means we cover information that has been noticed by reliable sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the case with all products including individual models of toys. Most product articles with two press mentions anywhere, of any length, will survive AfD. Welcome to WikiMall. Miami33139 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know that establishes "notability" as commonly understood. It just means the hotel or restaurant exists, and that a newspaper or magazine sent their reviewer there, or the reviewer was invited to pop along, that week. I know news sections are hardly free from the predations of the PR industry either, but surely there is - and WP should acknowledge as much - the distinction between news reporting of places and events in serious newspapers, and the reviews in travel and lifestyle sections of everything from the local freesheet upwards? And if we're going to rely on hard policy here, we could also look at WP:NOT, which clarifies, among other things, that WP is not a directory, a travel guide or a means of promotion. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia

It doesn't simply means that the venue exists: it means that a secondary source has taken note of it and published about it. There are concerns of potential bias in such coverage (see above exchange with Frank), but this is not a problem for WP:GNG. Also covering venues documented in multiple RS does not make a directory, travel guide or means of promotion of us, no more than for every other kind of article. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I misread your name, and you obviously missed the "and" after "exists", which introduced the second part of the sentence/point. All square. Look this kind of page has no encyclopedic value. Based as it is entirely on reviews - because there appears to be no other or substantive coverage in reliable, third party sources - what information is it giving the reader other than that they might get a nice meal if they go there, at least for a few years until the place closes down and the space hosts a different business? Where is any information about the significance of its existence or history, or even of its menu, or about its relevance as an institution to the area or locality? You know, the kind of thing you might find in an actual news report, or an academic work. And if we allow this kind of thing, on this weak criteria, there are 100s of 1000s of pages on restaurants, hotels and shops waiting to be written. Which is when we would indeed become a directory. N-HH talk/edits 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with N-HH. We become such a directory at our peril. --JN 466 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. Wikipedia has a big problem. Because this is a wine-related article, I'll point out that almost exactly the same debate we're having now already happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards. The article was deleted, using the deletion rationale outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) (a proposed guideline, not official). That guideline was written specifically to clarify the issues we're having with notability thresholds for Daryl Wine Bar. The closing admin clearly recognized the problems and deleted the article in spite of no consensus (and remember, this isn't a vote; the arguments are what matter). However, the article was restored in the subsequent deletion review, because in the end, it could conceivably pass the fuzzy, muddy thresholds as currently drafted in the official guidelines. That's why I gave this restaurant a 'keep' vote in spite of my misgivings. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't a place to change a guideline, it is the place to interpret them (all of them, not just one). This isn't a machine to grind through, it's people discussing what is rational and sensible. As you point out, the guidelines are fuzzy, so people should consider, does or could an article about this restaurant improve WP? Is it an encyclopedic topic? Does it fulfill the spirit of the guidelines as well as the muddy letter thereof? Njsustain (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and while the sources seem to be sufficient, I find their application WP:UNDUE. Or I'm wrong and every similar little resto should have such an article. MURGH ^talk 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IAR. Even if this article meets WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP, the encyclopedia is harmed by its precedent-setting inclusion. That is, if this article really does meet WP:N (and I'm not saying that it does), then that's an indication that WP:N needs to be refined, not an indication that this article should survive deletion. The above comment about the nature of product (especially restaurant) reviews are spot on--a review of a product simply can't establish notability; note that product reviews are not the same as either scholarly reviews or artistic reviews. Allowing local reviews (or regional, or however we define the non-national/international aspects of the WSJ) will, as others have pointed out, necessarily imply that hundreds of thousands of local restaurants deserve inclusion. It even leads to the somewhat perverse (in the general sense of the word, not the sexual sense) result that restaurants in smaller locales will be more likely to be included, because in a smaller region, fewer restaurants means fewer reviewing targets, and thus a greater chances of achieving the threshold number of reviews than a restaurant in a larger region. My point is that I think this is definitely a case where we need to look more holistically at the issue, rather than just focusing on strictly applying the guidelines one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something, but how is WP harmed if this article is kept?Jarhed (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite our best intentions to evaluate most things (especially AfDs) on their own merits, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS inevitably creeps into discussions. If we keep articles like this on the basis of several reviews and nothing (or not much) else, the sentiment is that it will open the floodgates to more, similarly questionably notable articles to be created. Whether the actual result of such a condition is harm or something else may be debatable, but I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest it would certainly change things around here. Frank | talk 06:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what essentially what I meant. There's no particular harm from this one article; the harm is in the more general idea that company/products with this level of pseudo-coverage (i.e., review only) merit their own article. Of course, the real solution is to do some work on the more explicit policy, like GNG, but in the meantime, we should delete this article (and others like it) on the grounds that the encyclopedia would be harmed by a proliferation of these types of articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the encyclopedia would be much harmed instead if the article is deleted -and if similar articles are deleted. It would mean that we apply an arbitrary bias on the RS coverage to decide what is encyclopedic and what not. We should be firm and logical and not apply such personal biases in deciding what is worth an article. We have an objective criteria which is WP:GNG: if N>1 reliable sources talk about a subject, then the subject is presumed to be notable. Deviation from this criteria means that we select articles on the basis of our personal preferences on what should be in the encyclopedia, not on the basis of objective criteria. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete puffed up directory entry that looks like a promotional effort for a minor new jersey restaurant. There is no encyclopedia article lurking here.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have sat and watched this for several days and have decided after reading lot of arguements that its a boderline case which i have to lean torwards delete. as it fails WP:GNG, Just because there are sources on a topic does not mean we should have an article on the topic. My mother worked in the restaurant review media outlet during her college years in san diego, if anyone reads them regularly like my mother still does (even though she is an accountant) one is quick to realize they are often press releases called masquerading journalism. Get me something outside of Awards, Restaunts Reviews and the such and i might reconsider; but right now i am leaning torwards getting rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
Comment. This is an interesting discussion, but it seems to be overlooking one element of General Notability Guidelines, namely significant coverage in reliable sources creates only a presumption of notability. This is relevant, because as someone who has published a restaurant guide, I can attest that almost every restaurant in any country with modern media meets the significant coverage test. But as the guideline says, this does not guarantee that the restaurant deserves a stand-alone article, and editors may conclude the contrary. Especially if inclusion contravenes What Wikipedia is Not - which I think it would on numerous grounds. I don't think editors supporting deletion need to argue that sources such as reviews are inherently unreliable. Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition of notability. This comment applies to just about any commercial business of course.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Delete, weakly. KD Tries Again has it exactly right. It's not about counting sources; it's about what the sources say that determines whether a commercial business is notable or not. While the sources establish that the restaurant exists, that it has been reviewed in newspapers and ranked in surveys, they do not establish that this restaurant is significant to its community's cuisine or culture, or that it is a local landmark or otherwise significant. So this does not appear to me to have the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY we should not attempt to list every restaurant, nor have an article on them. If this article satisfies a technical interpretation of WP:ORG, then that guideline needs tweaking to clarify that getting some good reviews for a restaurant is not sufficient to establish notability. While this article would be excellent at wikirestaurant, it is simply not encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. The restaurant business has established procedures for having reviews published: people like to read what's hot; publishers like to fill space with readable stuff; restaurants like the exposure. That process means we need to examine sources carefully and discount routine coverage, even when that routine coverage involves top media outlets. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KD Tries Again put her finger on it: "Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition of notability." Hear, hear! We don't have to include any articles we don't want to, OK? This article belongs in a restaurant guide but not in a general encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this restaurant page is formated similarly to and better sourced than most of the other restaurant pages out there, of which we can find multiple examples Category:Restaurants in the United States by state. Now I don't usually edit restaurant pages but when compared to what the restaurant community here on wikipedia deems appropriate for inclusion I think this article goes above and beyond the requirements for restaurant articles. here is another list of twenty which do not have nearly the sourcing etc as this article Category:Restaurants in New Jersey. so while KD is right that secondary sourcing does not necessarily mandate notability, when compared to what is notable for a restaurant article on wikipedia this article fits the bill. with so many other restaurant articles out there I wonder why people specifically targeted this one, it looks like a vendetta rather than a positive regard for the encyclopedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in an AfD. The restaurant category is a serious mess, filled with poorly written entries and non-notable restaurants. Please help to fix it instead of holding it up as a benchmark.Griswaldo (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have smelled the WR implicit canvassing far away, sigh. Thanks for pointhing this, Coffeepusher. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I for one read about this on the WP:WINE talkpage. Please don't try to smear those making well-reasoned arguments about why we should not have quasi-adverts for random restaurants of no obvious note above and beyond the fact that they are places that serve food as being part of some bizarre vendetta. And even if everyone here did have that motivation, it wouldn't debunk the arguments they are making, or provide a reason for keeping this kind of stuff - or other examples like it, as it happens. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, no smering was intended. It is just information that can help the closing admin assessing consensus. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted the link...I think it speaks for itself quite well.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment while I do agree that WP:OTHERSTUFF DOES NO...damn caps lock...t make a valid argument, when I comment on areas outside the philosophy sections of wikipedia I do look at what the encyclopedia community in that section deems appropriate for inclusion and what that community consensus appears to be (so I don't become a fly by night editor raining my holy and well informed vengeance upon the uniformed masses of...whatever wikipedia community I have deemed unfit for editing...cue "Flight of the Valkyries"). so since I am not familiar with what makes an appropriate restaurant article according to community consensus I took a look at those articles and the talk pages to get a feel for the already existing standards, and what I found informed my comment. What I discovered was that this article is actually held to a much higher standard than what that community on wikipedia deems notable, that it follows the formating of those articles, and uses more secondary sources and is better written than most of the restaurant articles. So while other stuff does exist, that other stuff demonstrates a community standard and community consensus that has existed on wikipedia for several years now and which this article not only follows but also goes above and beyond that standard.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no basis for saying that the community deems all existing restaurant articles notable. These articles have not undergone scrutiny, certainly not AfD. Like I said the whole category is a mess. I also seriously resent the notion that people are here because of some third party website that reviews various Wikipedia related issues. This is simply a smear and an attempt to get the article creation sympathy votes. Whatever they do on that website has no bearing at all on whether or not this entry should be kept. Keep your eyes on the relevant policies please ... or in your case start looking at those policies please.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my basis is the already existing articles that have been edited for years which do establish what the community standard is regardless of wither or not they have undergone direct scrutiny. and I didn't say that they deem all existing restaurant articles notable, I said that based on what exists in the various restaurant articles this article is held to a much better standard than the average. And you can go ahead and resent the fact that this article has shown up on wikipedia review on an anti-cirt webpost prior to the AFD and afterwards has become the most heavily trafficked restaurant AFD in the history of wikipedia, resent it all you like, it isn't a smear but an accurate observation. How many restaurant and wine articles in the AFD have this much traffic? Can you point to even one AFD that has occurred in the last month in these categories that has generated this level of discussion or even half the discussion as shown here? yet this article is a better example than most that already exist (as you pointed out). yet I recognize some of the names here from past AFD's that have shown up on WR on Cirt specific posts. while I do understand that not every editor here is a WR meatpuppet, the wikipedia review thread is very informative on why this AFD has garnered such attention.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point to precedents set at various AfD discussions of such articles that's one thing, but what exists is meaningless if people aren't even paying attention to it. I've been trying to clean up some of these articles in the last few days and many have been tagged for 2-3 years already -- clearly a lot of attention is being paid to these articles. You could help fix this problem or you could continue to find novel ways to rephrase WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regarding that other website you're still not making any relevant arguments, but instead appealing to the notion that the article creator is a victim of some kind or another. Should we also consider the people voting keep here? Are these regulars at AfDs of restaurants? Doubtful. How did they find out about this? How did you find out about this? I found out about this after noticing the complaint about User:Njsustain on AN/I. I felt he had been treated unfairly by the responding admins, and after reviewing the article I felt that we have a serious problem in this category of content. My response was not to AfD but to start discussions at various relevant venues like the WP:CORP policy page. Once the AfD was underway I made my way here. I bet if you asked individually most of the people at this AfD found out about it through the already ongoing discussions, one of which was at User talk:Jimbo Wales for Pete's sake.Griswaldo (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #2[edit]

Keep. Meets the General Notability Guideline, and Wikipedia:CORP#Primary_criteria, which specifically says "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." and the New York Times is at least a Regional source. (Actually it's international. I can see the argument that the review going in the Regional section means it's only Regional, but that's good enough. It's a paper from a different state for goodness sakes. Clearly more than Local.) --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This begs the question whether a review counts as "incidental" or "substantial" coverage, and in any case General Notability Guideline makes it clear that coverage alone does not establish notability. I'd just add that I didn't vote to delete this article - it looks like a pretty good article - but the arguments for keeping it largely overlook what General Notability Guideline actually says (to be fair, so do the reasons originally given for deletion).KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

That the New York Times offices is 45 minutes from this restaurant by train has everything to do with why this restaurant was reviewed. That it happens to be in another state is irrelevent. The fact that it is placed in the regional section means specifically that it was a subject worthy of the paper's local readership, not to its wider audience as a paper of record. That the paper's section is called the "regional" section doesn't mean that it matches the WP guidelnes, and doesn't make the argument "good enough." What I see is people grasping at straws in order to try to fill the technical requirements of notability, but are ignoring the spirit of notability. Even if hypothetically the beancounting of restaurant reviews (and nothing but reviews) filled that peg, that still only meets one of the technical requirements of the guideline, and is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for notability in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Njsustain (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is admittedly in the section of the paper for "regional" coverage shows that it is not a "local" source. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has been noted before that there is absolutely no clear criteria to determine the difference between "local" and "regional". Please bare this in mind. People tend to use the terms differently.Griswaldo (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The New York Times source discussed is "Standouts Among the Year’s Best", listed in the New Jersey regional section of the paper, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm quite sure The New York Times' intended meaning of "Regional" was not based on a Wikipedia notability guideline, and to assert otherwise neither means anything nor shows anything. Njsustain (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, The New York Times clearly knows the difference between the words "regional" and "local". It used "regional". -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chosen title of that section is simply recognition that NY and its metro area is a very large one. That Daryl is in the NY metro area shouldn't make it any more notable than a similar restaurant that happens to be in Midland, MI, or Gettysburg, PA and happens to get covered by smaller papers which would dub their local audience's lifestyle section "Local." Njsustain (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not lose Njustain's more important point that bean counting reviews is not enough. These reviews might indeed be reliable sources in WP terms. But restaurants aren't like books or movies. The overwhelming majority of the reviews and awards cited were won by a chef no longer associated with the restaurant. Restaurant reviews don't have enduring validity. This is why I am inclined to think that editors are entitled, per the notability guideline, to make a judgment in this case despite the existence of press mentions (national, local or regional).KD Tries Again (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Beg to differ, restaurant reviews are indeed similar to reviews of books and films. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a ten year old review of a restaurant is as reliable as a ten year old review of a novel? Of course not, and as if to illustrate my point, note that chef de cuisine at Daryl is now one Chuck Howlett. I don't know if Fernandez is still involved with the restaurant, but we are already two chefs past David Drake, who won the good reviews. This is the nature of the business. The menu will probably be overhauled before this AfD is closed. Moby Dick may garner different interpretations as the years past, but Ahab is still skipper of the ship.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Yes, both are as reliable, because we are presenting chronological history, not simply current events, but a totality of historical info on a subject in an article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to using old reviews as sources of historical info. We are talking about notability, and relying not on the factual content of the sources but their appraisal of the restaurant - an appraisal which is now two chefs out of date. There is a reason restaurant guides are republished annually.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

We're not relying on their appraisal at all, merely the fact that they gave one. They could have written that the restaurant was a jewel and the reviewer would never eat anywhere else again, or that it was a pigsty, crawling with cockroaches, and the reviewer need to get her stomach pumped immediately after leaving. For purposes of notability, either would do. The important factor is that the New York Times judged the restaurant important enough to write about. So should we. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment. I see many of the delete comments trying to squirm around the fact that it received multiple coverage on RS, and referring to the "presumption" clause of WP:GNG. Now, the "presumption" clause is not a blanket to justify deletion of whatever we we dislike. It means that an article can be at odds with WP:NOT, or that information can be better merged in another article. We must have some damn good reason to explicitly delete reliably sourced information from here. Some of the comments amusingly try to say that it meets WP:NOT because "we would then become a directory of restaurants". This is other nonsense masked as if it was policy, since the fact that we cover a lot of X doesn't mean we become a "directory" of X. Does the fact that we list Nobel prize winners violates WP:NOT because we become a "directory of Nobel prize winners"? Of course not. Now, there is a reason for WP:N to not care about how general and how outstanding from the mass is the subject: because we want to avoid bias. We should not judge how "important" is a subject. We should take as good indicator the fact that RS have judged it important enough to write on it. We may not like it, but that's the way it is, and we shouldn't put our "who-cares-about-restaurants-in-ny" reaction in front of this fact. I personally don't care at all about the restaurant per se. But I care of the fact that RS have written about it, and therefore it is sourced knowledge that we can and should cover, once someone has written about it. Everything else is just our bias: we are simply not used to see restaurants in encyclopedias, and so we react. But that's not how we should work. We should be objective. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that Cirt has opened a thread at RSN about the status of the New York Times as a local or regional source, and posted links to the discussion on the talk pages of a couple of the Keep voters above, along with thanks for their keep votes. --JN 466 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was not asking for them to comment there, just commenting to hopefully get some clarity on the desperate attempts by a few users to discount The New York Times as a source. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified at the (two) userpages of those users, that I was not asking them to comment at WP:RSN. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOT point is too easily dismissed. Of course covering one example of X doesn't mean we become a directory of every example of X, but it needs to be taken seriously that almost every restaurant in a country where the media is at all developed will be mentioned more than once by reliable sources. The directory of restaurants possibility is a real one, not just a debating point KD Tries Again (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

I don't get it. If all restaurants have been covered more than once by RS, it means they're presumed notable unless very serious reasons come to think otherwise. WP:NOTDIR does not mean "we should only cover a subset of a given category of things". We cover all chemical elements, practically all asteroids and so for: does this make a directory of WP? WP:NOTDIR means something much different, that we shouldn't create entries which are mere directories, like if we compiled a directory of all products currently in the Tesco catalogue. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors had supported inclusion on the basis that reviews called the restaurant "standout" and "excellent" and referred to its Zagat score. I hadn't fully recognized, until I saw GRuban's comment above, that one might support the inclusion of lousy restaurants, so long as they've been mentioned in a guide or a newspaper. Presumably the same would go for any business. Interesting.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

I think there was a bit of misunderstanding. As far as I understand it, these editors pointed at that because these "awards", for want of a better word, were further coverages indicating notability. It would have been the same if it had been listed in an hypothetical "NYT Hall of Shame of Restaurants": in both cases it meant it would have had being chosen for a particular aspect by RS. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, then, what the presumption clause in WP:GNG means?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

It means that there are instances in which a separate article is not necessary. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Hills_Crossbill: while the subject is obviously notable, it is best covered in another larger article. Also, a subject can be notable but an article on it could violate other policies like WP:BLP1E for example. But it should NOT be a blanket to say "we should delete whatever we don't like, ignoring blatantly that RS talk about it". --Cyclopia ^talk 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not the latter, but it absolutely doesn't say the former either. It could easily talk about articles ripe for merging, but it just doesn't. Tedious to quote, but it says precisely this: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." It then gives one example - presumably not exclusive, because it's an "example" - of a reason that consensus might not be reached.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP by a mile, we might as well stick up every two bit fastfood takeaway as they would be have an article based on the reasoning given here by some. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage is sufficient, and the article does read neutrally enough now. We cannot disregard all reviews, even though restaurant reviews are notoriously kind to restaurants. We should be wary of trade press, but coverage in high circulation regional papers and the NYT is enough to indicate that this restaurant is worth writing about. Are we to now disbar film reviews or any other kind of review from counting towards notability? That argument is not sustainable. Yes, hundreds more restaurants in New York and New Jersey might be worth writing about too, and someone should get around to writing about Gordon Ramsay's restaurant at Claridge's, but really that's irrelevant to this debate. Slippery slope arguments like Cameron Scott's just above are hysteria, as nobody is suggesting that every takeaway, kebab shop or chippie should have an article. Cirt should take care to avoid writing puff pieces and writing about things other than those connected with Scientology critics would seem wise, but Cirt's motivation in writing this should not have any impact on our decision - and I feel that many editors want this deleted to "punish" Cirt as they thought he was a paid editor. Fences&Windows 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there is an element of the latter, magnified by the way Cirt aggressively seeks to invoke administrative sanctions against anyone seeking to interfere with his or her articles. But personality and behavioural issues aside, the more important point about notability is that all the sources cited are written for a local audience. Notability, to me, means that the subject of an article is of interest to a general audience. Films and commercial products have an international, or at least national, distribution. They are of general, not just local interest, and that to me is what distinguishes the two. We should not become a directory of local restaurants for every neighbourhood in the world. --JN 466 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, any number of these already exist, such as Wikicompany.org. Frank | talk 14:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although not every takeaway, kebab shop, etc has coverage in reliable sources, I am certain most of them (in countries and cities with developed media) in fact do.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Arbitrary break #3[edit]

Keep, the plethora of references on the page make it rather obvious that it meets WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious to me that the "plethora" of references are all run of the mill (i.e. they all occurred in due course of time) reviews and nothing more. Beancounting does not itself satisfy the GNG, as others have noted. Njsustain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources. NYT isn't your normal small town paper. A small town paper may have 10 restaurant to write about, and then write about all of them. The NYT has to actually choose which to write about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, it just means it's a restaurant that's been reviewed in the local/lifestyle sections of a couple of newspapers - one of which happens to be the NYT - and restaurant directories, like most restaurants have been. All the article tells us, for the most part, is whether those reviewers liked the decor, ambience and the food or not. None of the content or sources point to notability or explains why this place is significant in any particular way. As WP:ORG says - "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment ..." Come on, we can do more than count G-hits, even if they do bring up the New York Times. N-HH talk/edits 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Peregrine, you're basically saying that every restaurant covered by the NY Times by default can have an article on WP, period? What other papers are of this lofty position, and who decides them? The NY Times has a local readership, just like any other paper, and the NY Times happened to pick this local restaurant to review. That it is an expensive restaurant that happens to be in the NY metro area doesn't mean it automatically deserves notability. Njsustain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but the arguments here have become utterly absurd. The answer is "Yes". A full-length review in a newspaper like the NYT, Washington Post, LATimes, Times of London, The Guardian, Herald-Tribune, etc.... ie. nationaly and internationally preeminent news organizations are, by defintion, notable. We are not talking about the Free Weekly Podunk Picayune. That is what notability is; it is established by coverage in prominent, reliable, independent secondary sources with reputations for strong editorial review, not by tortured rationalizations by Wikipedia editors. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews appeared in the New York Times' New Jersey section, which is distributed locally, not nationally. You wouldn't have been able to read about it if you had bought the NYT in California. --JN 466 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tortured rationalizations" are rampant on both sides of this debate. Many people believe common sense says that this is just another restaurant (it may be good and may be expensive... but so what?) and there is nothing of particular note about it. That an expensive restaurant 45 minutes from Manhattan was reviewed (not covered for something notable, just for the fact that it serves food... a restaurant that serves food... how amazing) by the Times was an ordinary event, not a notable one. Njsustain (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental misconception here. Notable does not mean "out of the ordinary". Notable means "deserving to be noted". What is our criteria to determine if something is "deserving to be noted"? To see if other reliable sources have, effectively, noted it. Since they did, we can say with confidence that it is notable. Out of the ordinary events are usually deserving to be noted, but the implication does not goes the other way round. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a fundamental misconception, but a fundamental philosophical difference which is at the basis of many discussions like this on Wikipedia. On the one hand, if it has any coverage in a WP defined RS it deserves an article, end of debate. On the other hand, simply appearing in an RS here or there is only the starting point; editors can then make a decision as to whether it's encyclopedic. The discussion about the Times here is almost beside the point - almost any restaurant is mentioned in restaurant guides if not in newspapers. That makes it encyclopedic?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

My opinion is that, while here there is a reasonably objective definition of "notable" (having been noted in >1 RS), there is no objective definition whatsoever of "encyclopedic" (that I am aware of). What lurks behind words like "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" is usually "I am used to see/not see these subjects covered in paper encyclopedias". We still reason with expectations that come from a previous world, in which there were definite practical and commercial constraints to what went into encyclopedias and what not. Wikipedia can do better than this, because it doesn't suffer from those limits. We can therefore bypass the editorial decisions that old reference works had to do because of their constrains, and rely on objective criteria, like the definition of notable. Am I used to see tons of restaurants in encyclopedias? No, I am not. Is this a rational reason to remove restaurants from this encyclopedia? No. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that besides the point of whether it CAN be included in WP is whether it ought to be. Simply because it is possible to prove that something exists in RS does not mean that there ought to be an article on it. Why should there be an article on a restaurant, the extent of whose notability is that, yes, it is confirmed in several papers that it is a restaurant? Is that the purpose of an encylopedia (electronic or otherwise), to list restaurants which, hold onto your hats, serve food? We have different opinions on this, but frankly, if this is included, than anything and everything (not just businesses, but any ordinary topic of non-general interest, will be in WP. That isn't WP's purpose, from my perspective. Njsustain (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect reliably sourced information and present it in a structured form to the reader. I think any objective definition stops there. And I yes, I am not talking of "can", I am talking of "ought". That topics of non-general interest enter the encyclopedia (even paper, old school ones), already happens: how is sedenions a "topic of general interest"? It interests only a small subset of mathematicians. Yet nobody would seriously argue to remove it.

Note that I am emphatically not talking of violating WP:EVERYTHING. We have a reasonable criteria to restrict what enters the encyclopedia, that is general notability, in the meaning of having been noted by sources. If something is not reasonably covered by secondary sources, better leave it out usually. We should stick by it, because it is a very general and reasonably objective criteria. What we should not do is enter our prejudices against topics in deciding what to leave out and what not. To let our biases creep to decide what is "worth" and what is not, this is not WP purpose at all. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That people need to decide these things shows that there is more than just "objective criteria", which may or may not be appropriately defined, to examine. I don't think prejudices and biases are necessarily a factor when deciding whether that typical restaurant down the street deserves an entry in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Njsustain (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand Cyclopia's position, which I know many editors share. It's also almost automatic to react to dissension from that position with accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But again, the position is contrary to WP:GNG which says absolutely clearly that appearance in RS creates only a presumption of notability, as well as contrary to WP:CORP which places a series of qualifications on RS (not necessarily applicable in this case, but applicable generally). That coverage in RS automatically triggers a stand alone article is a respectable view, but it's not the community consensus as yet.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Delete - the article is well written and well referenced. However, wine bars including upscale wine bars are basically "local outlets" of the type where 99+% are definitely non-notable even if written about somewhere, because there are sources which specifically review everything "new" in the restaurant world, at least if it comes up to the level above a new branch of McDonald's. In comparison to restaurants, I would set the "notability bar" for wine bars considerably higher, because there is less an individual wine bar "does themselves" that gets followed by peers, while dishes &c. in high-end restaurants gets "copied" by other chefs, which means that the influence of these restaurants can go beyond the local. I have never heard of a wine bar that customers travels to from afar, which food geeks definitely do for restuarants at a certain level. Wine geeks such as myself are definitely willing to travel far to wineries and wine region, but not really to wine bars, in my experience. Tomas e (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a restaurant in metropolitan New York, the coverage is local and routine, and the awards are unremarkable. Keeping such an article would set the bar of inclusion for restaurants far far too low, and the resulting compendium would violate NOT easily, by any common sense and median concept of what is and is not an encyclopaedia, even on the Wikipedia model. Guidelines cannot and do not over-ride NOT in any situation, so if the GNG or CORP or anything else supports inclusion of this particular restaurant, then they are wrong and need redrafting. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely--by saying this restaurant is notable simply because it was reviewed by the NYT is bascially saying that restaurants that open in large metropolitan areas are notable, and restaurants (or other entities which are routinely covered by newspapers serving the respective area) which are otherwise identical but open in small metro areas are less likely to be considered "notable" by whatever arbitrary meter of newspaper beancounting is considered so. That's simply not a rational way to determine notability. Njsustain (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No evidence of the sort of notability required by WP:CORP. A few reviews certainly don't do it, otherwise every restaurant open for more than a few weeks would deserve an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why has nobody tried to edit it into a less promotional article written in a more encyclopedic style? The article as it stood was repetitive and over-expansive. So I just now did rewrite it, doing my usual: replacing the repeated use of the name with either "the restaurant" or, preferably, "it"; removing trivial business details of no possible general interest; removing over-categorization and see-alsos; simplifying the section on reviews, using shorter quotes, & giving them once only; simplifying the section on awards, and giving them once only, not three times over with a totally unwarranted table--considering all 4 were from the same publication in the same year. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as edited It's perfectly true that our standards on restaurants are very inclusive. We could perfectly well argue that it is over inclusive--I actually agree with the nominator about that. As I see it, guidelines based on the GNG will increasingly prove to be over-inclusive as we are able to see more sources. I agree with some of the criticism on sources: the NYT NJ Section does not have the same reviewing standards as the reviews in the restaurant column of the main paper--while certainly NYT+Zagat is sufficient for WP:N if its the main section, it's not quite so automatic for the suburban portions, and more than any other regional paper. The awards are regional, not national, and i do not think we usually count rewards at this level for automatic notability of anything, though it can help. But all in all the restaurant does seem of regional not just local significance, and I think that meets our present standard. (I note that whether the restaurant is good or bad is irrelevant; a bad restaurant just like a bad product or a bad movie receiving wide notice because of its lack of virtues is notable--we're an encyclopedia , not a restaurant guide. (I note also that at least in the sections quoted, the reviews show notability as a restaurant, not a wine bar, so I consequently removed some of the over-generous wine cross-references.) The infobox also is too expansive in my opinion, but if that's the style for restaurants I didn't want to change it. The solution, I think, is to keep the actual articles in proportion. I tried to do it here. I care very much about keeping the encyclopedia free from promotion, but the difference between promotion and information is not just in what is covered, it is in what is said and how it is said. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time for these edits. I agree that *if* the article is kept, this is a much more appropriate version, and agree with your specific comments about items which made it seem promotional. I still will not vote as per the promise I made previously. I also wanted to ask, since the Zagat rating is included, as it is apparently considered a RS, and that the Zagat rating is done by voting, would it not be appropriate to quote other comments from Zagat's website ( Link ) (either positive or negative)? If one looks at the listed comments, it seems there has, according to these comments, been a major change in service this calendar year. It would be supremely ironic (to the WP community after all this discussion) if the restaraunt went out of business soon. (And if that happens, would this affect the notability?) Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 2 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. Speedily deleted twice per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eryl Maunder[edit]

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

University lecturer who has had some papers published. However, having papers published is not especially notable; WP:PROF#8 affirms notability only to a subject who "is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area". There is no indication that any of the criteria at WP:PROF have been met. I42 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:PROF. --Whoosit (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If an academic/professor meets any one of WP:PROF, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable." Also, if the academic meets criteria for WP:Notability, they may still be notable. --The Fourth Dimension (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC) — The Fourth Dimension (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correct. The nomination states that none of the criteria appear to have been met. I42 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost no citability of papers, currently a PhD student. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to notable, merely a "Lecturer", doesn't even have her PhD yet. Created by an SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 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 speedily deleted (G7, author-requested) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Light Tanner[edit]

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

Non-notable person. References are all from the subject's own company's web pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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. JForget 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise and music[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTESSAY, and above all, WP:OR - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I removed the prod template because I thought deletion should be discussed, not because I thought I could make a case for the article. It has been with us for 4 years and doesn't show signs of movement away from WP:NOTESSAY. --Kvng (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTESSAY. I TOTALLY didn't realize that Lenny Kravitz has a PhD in exercise science. I'm gonna update that on his bio, right now! --Whoosit (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmh... ~~Lenny Kravitz? Where? :)~~ Lol ... Funny thing, he's actually a real person: [10] Maashatra11 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 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) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gharlane of Eddore (pen name)[edit]

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

Delete. I've reviewed the sources, and this article is heavily dependent on the likes of Usenet, Geocities, and tabloid rag The Register for sourcing. It is my observation that this subject is not notable nor is it appropriately sourced/suitable for Wikipedia purposes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Usenet and its sources are notable, and very famous people who are primarily notable on Usenet are notable. Gharlane was very well known within that community, and science fiction fandom writ large. Although it's not sourceably relevant here, I was around then and can personally attest to that. He was covered intermittently in at least borderline reliable off-net news sources prior to his death, and his death was reported widely. Usenet and Internet people and events from the 1980s and 90s are hard to source "well" by Wikipedia standards as so little was published in mainstream reliable sources until the late 90s. This is a known problem - and yet, we have not decided to categorically exclude Usenet and Internet people from those time periods. Quite the reverse - we've included quite a bit about them, where they were memorably notable and sources exist which are in context reliable. The Register - the particular source which triggered this - has tabloid aspects, but also has been widely used as a reliable source in areas and with articles where it did substantially or entirely fact-based reporting, as it did with Gharlane's passing. A challenge to the reliability of the particular Register article used here would be better taken up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard than AFD. JBsupreme's effort to delete Gharlane's entry here is well intentioned, but mistaken. Keep. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Just because "The Register" chooses to present itself in a tabloid-like fashion does not mean it cannot be used as a reliable source. A quick review of the nominator's edit history shows a recent pattern of challenges of citations to "The Register", and like this one there is no reason given other than "it's a tabloid." As for the notability of the subject here, that was pretty well established by the "keep" voters in this article's previous RfD. How many times will we have to go through this? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than resort to ad hominems, why don't you explain how this subject is actually notable? Sources would be nice, too. The last time this was discussed was three years ago back in 2007, our standards for inclusion have markedly improved since then. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an ad hom. I am disputing your claim that The Register is not a RS. You have offered no defense of that claim other than "it's a tabloid" in about a dozen edit summaries - which is basically just name-calling on your part. (What, because you said it, quoting it back at you as an ad hom now?) And I feel those dozen or so edits are quite relevant to this AfD. It seems to me that you are less interested in the notability of this article than you are in expunging refs to The Register from Wikipedia. And even if that does qualify as an ad hom, note what our very own Wikipedia says about that:

The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

So... do you have any reliable sources to show that The Register is not one? If not then there is no factual basis for your AfD. Jeh (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - in his era, this character was quite well known within the circles he influenced. This nomination is no less unreasonable than either of the prior ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 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 speedy delete per DB-A7 as an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. elektrik SHOOS 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 the kicker[edit]

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

PROD-contested article which should be deleted per WP:NOTMADEUP. WP:ORIGINAL. No evidence of notability, either. elektrik SHOOS 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally proposed for deletion by me with the following reason: No valid references (Wizard of Odds doesn't mention the game anywhere). Perhaps a variant of Three card poker offered at some casino, but no evidence of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, seems to be a game that someone just made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:50, 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. JForget 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntheway[edit]

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

Non notable and merely promotes the company. Previously deleted at AFD but some time ago. Other associated pages to be added to this AFD. noq (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because which are products from the company, the owner/developer of the products, a navbox and category for them all. The articles appear to have been created by Laiseca under either Dalax (talk · contribs), Hastings10 (talk · contribs) or Pmackenzie (talk · contribs) which look like sockpuppets.:

noq (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start a SPI case. As for all of those articles Delete. Mr. R00t ^Talk 18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement with no encyclopedic value … a walled garden to add verisimilitude and boot-strap notability. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nomination and 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs). There don't seem to be any third-party references to indicate notability for any of this software or its creator. --Deskford (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing admin should also delete:

These are redirect pages created by some of the sockpuppets. — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 11:02, 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 merge to Kundalini syndrome. The consensus seems to be merge, & I agree with it. For now, merge with "kundalini syndrome -- one article is enough; further merging should be considered subsequently. Both versions at present need considerable cutting & rewriting and the headings need to be neutral, DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physio-kundalini syndrome[edit]

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

Content fork from Kundalini syndrome. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physio-kundalini syndrome is a the term used by Bruce Greyson and is at the core of an older wiki article called "kundalini syndrome." The problem with the term "kundalini syndrome" is that it is not used by any authors in any of the source material cited in the article. I move that the physio-kundalini syndrome article replace "kundalini syndrome". I have been working on both to make them more coherent, but they are still very similar. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini syndrome is a far more common name for this syndrome, getting about 100 times more google hits. GFSK has created this additional article for reasons that are not entirely clear but thus far in his Wikicareer he has shown little understanding of or interest in our policies. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Greyson. The "kundalini syndrome" under whatever name you choose has no notability independent of its proponent. This article by Greyson is the only reliable source I can find on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. Greyson himself acknowledges that the term itself originated from Itzhak Bentov, a biomedical engineer who developed a model for identifying it; Greyson based his own study on Bentov's model.[11] "Kundalini syndrome" gets almost 60,000 hits. Google books lists about 60 authors who have written about the syndrome, and while not all of these have academic qualifications, a number of them certainly do. Stan Grof in Spiritual emergency: when personal transformation becomes a crisis states that the phenomenon was first noted in the West by psychiatrist Lee Sanella, who "singlehandedly collected more than a thousand cases". John E. Nelson M.D. writes about it in Healing the split: integrating spirit into our understanding of the mentally ill, a book endorsed by Ken Wilbur.[12] Edward C. Whitmont M. D. writes about it in The alchemy of healing: psyche and soma.[13] Stuart Sovatsky Ph. D. mentioned it in Yoga Journal[14] and in at least one of his books. Pandit Gopi Krishna discussed it in his widely cited book Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man. A couple of academic papers on the topic:[15][16]. There are plenty of sources to justify the existence of an independent article on kundalini syndrome.

What there isn't a justification for is the existence of two parallel articles on the same topic, "kundalini syndrome" and "physio-kundalini syndrome". I probably should have just redirected the latter article rather than start an AfD but now I have done so I will therefore !vote to:

Merge - Physio-kundalini syndrome with Kundalini syndrome. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those two papers, but since they were published in such obscure journals (the International Journal of Culture and Mental Health and in Transpersonal Psychology Review) they are of such marginal importance as to be completely useless in establishing notability. The books are difficult to judge, but a real clinical diagnosis wouldn't just appear in new-age and yoga books, it would be discussed in the literature. What I think we can both agree on is that this isn't an idea that has any real recognition in mainstream psychology. Unfortunately I can't access Turner J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995 Jul;183(7):435-44. so I can't judge if this topic is actually discussed in this source or just mentioned in passing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting to find "a real clinical diagnosis" for problems related to a spiritual energy that itself is little understood or recognized in the West is totally unrealistic. You are setting the bar way too high here. There are more than enough reliable sources, and more than enough information, to support a standalone article on this topic. Not all of them may specifically use the term "kundalini syndrome" but per COMMONNAME that is the most appropriate term. Trying to fit all that has been written about these phenomena in the "kundalini" article would totally overwhelm it, likewise for the Greyson article - which would be quite inappropriate in any case as he is far from the only author to recognize the phenomenon. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: David Lukoff Ph. D., the psychologist responsible for co-authoring the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV, Code V62.89: Religious or Spiritual Problem, listed kundalini awakening as a prime cause of such problems. See for example his essay in Kundalini Rising: Exploring the Energy of Awakening.[17] Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-categorised the article as dealing with "Religious behaviour and experience", rather than a "Syndrome", which goes a little way towards stopping it from appearing to present a unverifiable medical diagnosis. This rewrite should go further, since somebody reading the current Kundalini syndrome article might come away with the idea that the medical community uses this yoga diagnosis. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Kundalini syndrome to Physio-kundalini syndrome or Bruce Greyson I have checked all the major sources and most of the minor ones in this article. "Kundalini syndrome" does not come up at all in any of the cited literature. Greyson is the only one who uses the term "physio-kundalini syndrome". And yes, GFSK is getting the hang of how to do things, thanks. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:22, 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. JForget 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arroyo[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. One of the actresses infected by Darren James which led the 2004 shutdown in porn valley due to HIV concerns. Either delete this, merge into an article about the event, or redirect to Darren James. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passing mention in NY Times and the book Understanding Human Sexuality, both for the same event. Lacks significant coverage or notability. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:48, 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 speedy delete. copyvio of http://www.se7ensins.com/forums/topic/108432-how-to-do-the-jtag-hackdump-nandxell/ 7 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jtag xbox[edit]

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

Goes against WP:NOTGUIDE Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is basically a "how to hack your XBOX" article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 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 incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nicki Minaj Untitled Debut Album (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj Untitled Debut Album[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable future album and is full of speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TN X Man 16:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. None of the references mention the track listing, not even for the "confirmed tracks" section. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until the title and track listing are confirmed per WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think anyone will be searching for "Nicki Minaj Untitled Debut Album" in the future, so the title can be deleted. Cliff smith ^talk 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUM applies here. Agree with above by Cliff (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a different article on this untitled forthcoming album was deleted through this process a few months ago. See this AfD. A few things have changed since then, including a supposedly firm release date and an official single. However, there is still no confirmed album title or full track listing, which would lead me to recommend a Redirect to the artist's page for the time being, rather than incubation. I'm keeping this as a "comment" because I'm undecided. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I mean, the bottom line is that this album shouldn't have an article yet. Everything that's here and verified should be at the artist's article for now (if it isn't already). Had the artist not confirmed the release date, I wouldn't have suggested incubation, regardless of the singles and involved producers. We don't have to incubate, but the article could be actively developed if it were. Cliff smith ^talk 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete - The album is referenced but there are ONLY three songs confirmed for the album (the 2 singles and "Catch Me"). Their is no name, track listing, or full list of producers only the couple that Minaj has stated. This page should be re-directed to Nicki Minaj and later deleted once the albums official name is revealed. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - It does have enough information to incubate rather than merge to album. Candy o32 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL and resons mentioned above. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - There is too much information to delete or merge it but it is also not quite ready for mainspace. Cprice1000 (Cprice1000 05:21, 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. JForget 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Vladu[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this individual is notable, and I will go point-by-point to demonstrate that.

Being "Executive Director of the Institute of Political Research-PCI" isn't necessarily a notable position. It's also unverified. Moreover, the Institute's website says its director is one Daniel Barbu, not Marius Vladu.

Being "Deputy Secretary General of the Union of Right Forces" also isn't that notable, considering this party's insignificance while it existed and the fact that he was in a mere deputy position.

Being "Secretary General of the People's Action" isn't that great a feat either, given that this party, somewhat of a joke anyway, was always Emil Constantinescu's show, and never gained enough traction to win even a single parliamentary seat.

Being "Deputy Secretary General of the National Liberal Party" sounds slightly more impressive, as that party is actually a serious one, except that the position is a purely internal party one. In other words, he was an assistant to the Secretary General, named by the latter and without any reference to political clout.

In fact, aside from a passing mention of his People's Action function, none of the content is verified. Even so, Vladu has never held elective office, has helped lead (but not actually led) two failed political parties, and has not received much in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources. That doesn't sound like a notable politician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find very little mention of him by web search. There doesn't really seem to be any evidence of real notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Elton Bunny. The subject just isn't that notable. If this article were to survive, it would need much better verifiable references from reliable sources and inline citations. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 16:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, since I know nothing about Romanian politics. I've tried searching for the name in conjunction with the party names in Romanian: it's possible that political news there tends to be in print rather than online, but we need WP:Verifiable references from WP:RS even for the modest claims made. The ELs currently in the article don't seem to mention the subject by name, so it would be good if a fluent Romanian speaker could review them for relevance. This article has had a strange edit history, with several WP:SPAs removing templates and references right and left, so it will probably need an eye kept on it for the rest of the AFD's seven days. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the sockpuppetry in this entry is pretty obvious, I started a sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arefeanustefan. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 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 , no assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSH Flight Training[edit]

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

Non notable company. One man and his two planes. A supportive article in the local paper does not notability confer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 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. Consensus is not notable, but I suggest trying an article on the brewery. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Davies (Businessman)[edit]

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

I'm unable to tell if this article is actually serious or not:

"who says he was born before a lot of you"
Tony describes himself on his Facebook page “as probably the only Welshman in the village”.
their joint love for US detective series Bones, Murdoch Mysteries and Sue Thomas
etc.

This thing reads like part-resume/part-joke, and frankly I'm not amused. I don't even care to find if this person is real. Seems like someone who is not notable, and/or an article that's written as a mockery of wikipedia. — Timneu22 · talk 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry to have offended you. Im new to wikipedia and its my 1st entry maybe some feedback would help? If you have any examples of wikipedia pages I could look at for inspiration I would like to hear your suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P067874 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You need to read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long enough to see how it develops. The subject is potentially notable as the founder of a brewery. As per P067874's talk page, the author is new to Wikipedia, editing in good faith and working with a senior editor to improve his or her first article. If this piece still fills you with rage in six weeks' time, nom it again. But until then WP:DONTBITE --Whoosit (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm almost inclined to say keep on the basis of the brewery - which definitely does exist - but I'm not sure yet. The tone is quite promotional in places, and non-encyclopaedic in others. (It can be hard to be encyclopaedia at times - I have to be very careful at times and not say what I really want to say....) Peridon (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The brewery would probably more notable at present but we don't have an article on it as yet. And as the founder it would establish some notability. But article as it stands needs a lot of work and could probably have a lot removed down to a stub. Mo ainm~Talk 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The brewery itself might merit an article if any sources have written about it, but from the content given, the CV of a minor businessman isn't going to meet WP:BIO. --McGeddon (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have tried to do a little work on this article but unfortunatly I can't find any sources that will satisfy WP:BIO so I have changed to delete. Mo ainm~Talk 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't as yet have an opinion on the subject's notability, but I must point out that the nomination seems like it's written as a mockery of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 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. JForget 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ApolloGesCom[edit]

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

Removed PROD - PROD reason was non-notable software, reason for PROD removal (as given on Talk page) was not a policy-based reason and was inadequate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I've only had time to do a cursory bit of WP:BEFORE so far, and with sources being in Spanish I can't really tell if they're any good - but I thought it best not to just accept the contest PROD and to bring it here so some more eyes can be cast on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled. Just add an image, and more sources who claimed the relevance encyclopedic article that already existed. I can not find a reason to be nominated for deletion. Of course, thank you very much. --Fedenico (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Advertisement for a comprehensive business management software. No showing that this product has historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability; it's one of many similar products. Neither Google News Archive, Books, or Scholar have ever heard of it in any language, either in the original form or as "Apollo GesCom". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA, that is WP:NOTGUIDE, lack of independent reliable secondary sources and advertising: [18] (screenshot: http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4222/apollow.jpg). If you don't understand Spanish, they had an article on their website celebrating that they were on Wikipedia. Algébrico (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was speedy deleted from Wikipedia in Spanish as advertisement and there is an Afd on Wikipedia in Portuguese. Algébrico (talk) 16:18, 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. no arguments in favor of deletion aside from the nom JForget 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Go Association[edit]

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

Declined speedy - No indication of any significance let alone that it is notable - Fails WP:GNG.

The Refs listed on the talk page

one and two from the Irish Independent (the ONLY TWO Gnews hits on the Association)

three from the Ireland Japan Association and

four from The Irish - Chinese Cultural Society

all relate to "John Gibson, Secretary of the Irish Go Association" and not the Irish Go Association. Codf1977 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very first link states As secretary of the Irish Go Association, he has helped organise the European Go Championships, which begin in Dublin today. More than 400 players from 28 countries will compete. Note that although it mentions John Gibson, it states that he was involved as secretary of the Irish Go Association. This link from the Japanese Embassy in Ireland specifically mentions the IGA, its' involvement in organising a convention as well as encouraging people to contact the IGA. This link from the European Go Federation mentions the IGA (and BGA) organisation of the 45th European Go Congress. Autarch (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is about the person not the Irish Go Association and none of it comes close to significant coverage as outlined in WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked - some of the links make no mention of the person in question - namely the embassy and the European Go Federation links.Autarch (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link mentions the 2008 event on the Japanese Embassys' site and mentions that the Ambassador was present on the final day and presented a prize. That the embassy site makes several mentions of the IGA, and that the IGA co-hosted the 2001 European Go Congress (approx 400 players) would count towards significance.Autarch (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said four links all relate to "John Gibson" I was referring to the links you provided on the talk page (replicated above). The Japanese Embassys' site mentions (to use your words) as just that, mentions - how does that demonstrate notability ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Go Association is mentioned in Ranka, the publication of the International Go Federation and the British Go Assocation's quarterly Journal if those have any bearing on the matter. It is the national body for organising the 'sport' in the country, being affiliated to both the European and International Go Federations. On these grounds I would have though it would have deserved a mention. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read over the specific guidelines for organisations "Non-commercial organizations:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: [1]The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. [2]Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." The IGA is a non commerical organisation, that's quite obvious I trust. The scope of its activities is national (it is the national body and it organises nationally). It organises tournaments in Northern Ireland too. It also sends representatives too International events: e.g. World Championships [2] Third party evidence is probably a bit scant, but the articles by the Japan Embassy and about the European Go Congress are some evidence. As I say above, I can produce mentions in Ranka and the BGA Go Journal too. The current president was also interviewed for a Romanian Publication. The Us Go Website has some mentions of the IGA too in its E-Journal publication. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you feel any of these would help satisfy the criteria you are asking for. I am a little disappointed that the specific criteria we should be looking at were not asked for, instead the general requirements were demanded. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is wrong with the sources referring to John Gibson, provided that they also refer to the IGA? What does that matter? The fact remains that the sources refer to the activity of a (senior) representative of the IGA. The IGA has sent players to represent Ireland in many foreign tournaments, including the World Mind Sports Games held in the Olympic Village in Beijing in 2008, attended by 2,763 competitors. The article existed before that, & I believe the IGA's stature must have grown since the WMSG. Trafford09 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I am a go player) The Irish Go Association is a national organisation, accepted internationally as representing Irish players of one of the world's oldest and most popular board games. The article itself is of a similar nature to articles on other national go organisations (eg the British Go Association). By all means point out improvements that may be necessary, but deletion seems inappropriate. Common sense should prevail here. Oniscoid (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a national non-commercial organization described at http://www.irish-go.org/ , I can't really understand the wish to delete a small reference to it. Just because Ireland isn't big like China or USA doesn't seem a reason to de-list them. Their national organisation sends representatives to the World level tournaments, e.g. the WMSG, and has a vote on the EGF [19]. In a world where storage is measured in Terabytes, an entry measured in bytes seems harmless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.171.44 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The IGA is a National Association with International affiliations. As such it does meet WP:GNG. I am a go player and a member of the British Go Association. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:11, 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. JForget 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Marsalis[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography, rather promotional and POV in style, and previously relying on a number of primary sources.[20] Looking at the films claimed in the biography, as well as some edits in the article history, it seems this person is also known by some other names including D. Kelly Marsalis[21]. Whatever the name, I contend that the threshold of notability for a biography is not met. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or complete re-write. This is just autobio spam. This person may be notable, but hyperbole alone won't establish it. Google turns up some interesting references. Hairhorn (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no proof of notability. One of the dangers of creating your own article on Wikipedia is that you're also allowing others to write about you, and like Hairhorn, I found unflattering material [22] and [23] and [24] among others. Mandsford 13:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to prevent recreation. After one removes what cannot be sourced, all one has is a name. And in considering the phone message linked above, it is apparent that any sourcable negative information that might be included would result in major headaches for the foundation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 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. JForget 00:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yedd[edit]

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

Judging by the external link in the article, this article appears to be about a creature in a game that some kid has just made up, but I'm not totally sure as nothing is verifiable. Contested prod. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There's one hit when you google "Yedd" and "Aradian", and guess what it is [25] Mandsford 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. Fishal (talk) 02:50, 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. JForget 00:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Guglietta[edit]

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

PROD removed so here we are. Page reads like a WP:RESUME, absolutely unsourced. This person doesn't appear to be notable; may meet A7. — Timneu22 · talk 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged it for translation, but on closer inspection there appears to be little or no notability. There were references (but no reflist), but the creator has removed them. Not much in the way of ghits when you disregard Facebook and so on. There appears to be no version of this article on the Spanilh Wikipedia. (This doesn't really surprise me.) Peridon (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 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 redirect to Lupe Fiasco. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before There Were Lasers[edit]

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

Mixtapes are not notable, and there's no indication why this one is. — Timneu22 · talk 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NALBUMS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lupe Fiasco: Unreferenced, non-notable mixtape fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 03:43, 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. JForget 00:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Prine[edit]

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

Listed in a darts category but doesn't appeared to be professional, therefore in my opinion he fails WP:G Raphie (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, Prine is listed in the Guinness Book of Records for his feat.[26] No claim is made in the article of notability as a competitive darts player, so I don't think that WP:ATHLETE is a useful guideline to use to judge the subject's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Anyone could do that :) -Koppapa (talk) 06:28, 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. JForget 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joynt Scroll[edit]

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

IP Contested PROD - Un referenced since January 2008, unable to find any sources to backup the detail in the article so fails WP:V. Fails WP:GNG as it does not appear to be written about by anyone or anything other than very specialist debating blogs, this is after all a university debating club competition. Codf1977 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ I have found numerous sources like here, here, here, here and here that back up information in the article. An advanced Google search for exactly "Joynt Scroll" excluding "Wikipedia" retrieves about 1,180 hits. As far as notability, it is New Zealand's second oldest sporting competition and seems to be prestigious among NZ debaters. I'm not too convinced on the notability as Joynt Scroll doesn't have its own website though. This article does need a lot of work like you said and maybe the past results section should be excluded. It may be reduced to a stub-class but I think it is a start to something that doesn't warrant removal from Wikipedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links could be classed as independent and reliable, that is the issue with most of the University debating related articles on WP, the subject just does not get attention outside the close circle of University clubs and specialist debating blogs. As you point out results are an issue even the nzudc page does not have the 2009 results on it that the WP has so even if they are added later there would have to be a question of who is sourcing who. Codf1977 (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, I agree. The fact they don't have their own website, few (only NZ media) carry results, nor can one find all 107 years of results is disheartening for this process. I am not a debating expert, but I can at least see why the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships is notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specialist debating blogs are not reliable sources. This obviously has no notability to the world at large. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 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. JForget 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Equilibrium Theory[edit]

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

The article's nearly entirely original research. The references in the article, at least the ones that aren't dead links, don't even mention this "theory" that I'm pretty sure was made up one day. I would tag it with db-hoax but I want to be fair given that I'm not sure about it, so I'm bringing it here to allow the author a reasonable forum to respond, and also to elicit other opinions on the deletion. elektrik SHOOS 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Include:[reply]

File:JETtheory.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as being a related image which is only used in the article and was uploaded by the author, which again, I'm pretty sure is just made up. elektrik SHOOS 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, the file's on the Commons and would presumably have to go through their deletion process. elektrik SHOOS 09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your feedback and the opportunity to respond to it.

You state that "The article's nearly entirely original research." This is not refutable as the theory has not been published. It has, however, been widely discussed over the past three years over three continents under various different guises.

The plight of educated, successful women and their difficulties in finding partners has been a topic of much debate and discussion in the popular press over the last decade. A generation of women have followed their mothers' into sexual and social emancipation and found themselves sorely lacking a partner.

The Jordan Equilibrium Theory offers a unifying theory as to why women struggle to find men as they age and why men find it easier.

You write "The references in the article, at least the ones that aren't dead links, don't even mention this "theory" that I'm pretty sure was made up one day." There are six references in the article and only one was a "dead link". I have now corrected that as the article I was quoting has moved. All theories are "made up one day," discussed and refined. This one is no different. Pcpsclub (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, pcpsclub, comments related to an Afd should go on this page, not the talk page. I've moved the comment for you from there to here. elektrik SHOOS 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTMADEUP, WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:ORIGINAL. Wikipedia is not a place to publish syntheses of ideas. Yes, all theories are "made up one day," as you said, but the difference is that ones which should be on Wikipedia have already been established and widely talked about—not mentioned in passing (or not mentioned at all) which is what the sources you have listed show. Also, two of your sources are other Wikipedia articles. You cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as a verifiable source. elektrik SHOOS 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rehash of the idea that women should get married before they get "too old", with the article's author naming it after himself. Sources are included to show that this is "a widely discussed theory", but, not surprisingly, none of them happen to have the word "Jordan" in them. I recommend that we apply the widely discussed "Mandsford Theory", which is that topics have to be notable in order to be kept. It's not actually called the Mandsford Theory, except by the best and brightest on Wikipedia, but it is often cited as WP:N (atypically called WP:MANDSFORD, but the other name is more popular because it's easier to write, of course). Mandsford 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my name doesn't work as well as a theory name (except as WP:SHOO), but I may use this Mandsford Theory in future Afds. elektrik SHOOS 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Pure original research. Doubt it qualifies as a hoax; the theory itself is probably trivial rather than false, and the only hoax would be naming this after "Jordan". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, all theories start off as someone's own little pet. Some day, this one might become one of the established ones. (It has a better chance of this than I have of becoming Pope...) Until then, no article. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name as such looks to be a hoax, although some of the material is based on research. I might change my mind if the term has appeared in peer-reviewed psychology/sociology literature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fail to miss the article by A. Jordan, "Chronological and Gender Intersection in Sexual Relationship as a Proposed 20th Dimension of Compatibility: An Experience Sampling Study" in the most recent issue of Journal of Abnormal Psychology Mandsford 16:31, 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. JForget 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Sked[edit]

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

Software with no evidence of notability or needing its own article. Possibly one Google hit apart from this article. In spite of being Unreferenced original author has still removed the unref tag. PROD removed by original author with no attempt at explanation Malcolma (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An advanced Google search for exactly "Web Sked" excluding "Wikipedia" brings up a mere 207 results. A few being the company's web site and some others that don't seem to apply. I also can't find much to reference the article and the author can't seem to provide it.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising: It was created as the first all-in-one solution to contain the media schedules for multiple media channels... Designed to address the many shortcomings of existing solutions, Web Sked has important features that promote ease of use for agency and client side users. When it's this bad, notability's a side issue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to support meeting WP:Notability (software) inclusion criteria, or even WP:GNG … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{22:43, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth Lord[edit]

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

Reference 1 not about this game, just link to a license. Reference 2, not about this game, it's about D&D. Reference 3, self-published reference to their own rules. Reference 4, not RS, a sales catalog - even as free.

This game does not have the references that demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what references are for, and the tone is a little too promotional, but it's a notable topic. It just needs better sourcing and editing. I'm going to add some genuine references to start. zorblek (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll try to look for more sources over the next few days. If I can't find anything, then I'll change my vote to "delete". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the Escapist articles (which appear to have significant but not sole coverage on this topic) and the HM from ENnies is probably enough. I'm finding a LOT of reviews for this game but mostly in blogs. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ennie awards are a bunch of fandom nerds. An honorable mention there does not amount to notable anything. Miami33139 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - By that standard, it would be impossible to establish notability for any RPG-related article. The RPG industry, roleplaying media, and roleplaying-related organizations are entirely composed of "fandom nerds". There are not many RPG industry awards, and the Ennies are one of the few well-known ones. They don't give out Pulitzers for game design. zorblek (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Origins Award, not true. Gaming industry also has plenty of mass media attention, and notable industry specific magazines. You need to find those references. Miami33139 (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not exactly true Miami. There is some mass media coverage today but such coverage are from the gaming companies themselves. I hardly ever see an article in the newspapers or on TV news. Once in a while? Sure (especially if it's a negative story about some loon doing something crazy while involved in D&D or even just tangentially related to D&D). More importantly, LL came out in 1981, so the amount of information available today would naturally be limited. Therefore, I see no reason why this article can't be given a week for Zorblek to come up with something (also, I gave him two possible links he can explore). If at the end of week nothing has improved, I'll vote to delete it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        LL came out in 1981? Not according to our article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Moldvay/Cook B/X (which Labyrinth Lord emulates) came out in 1981, But Labyrinth Lord itself has only been around since 2007. zorblek (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then the assertion that the amount of information about it today is "naturally limited" makes no sense whatsoever. The "heyday" of this product is essentially the modern era with respect to the Internet. Print sources would naturally not exist from circa 1981 because the game didn't exist in 1981. This AFD is not about the game(s) LL is based on. It's about LL, and needs reliable sources about it to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that calling the Ennies "a bunch of fandom nerds" is a meaningless ad hominem that is irrelevant to notability. The Origins Award people are no less nerdy than the Ennies people. (Also, the existence of another award ceremony doesn't make the first one non-notable. See also the Oscars and the Golden Globes.) And tabletop RPGs get almost no mass media attention. Pretty much the only times non-computer RPGs get any news coverage is when D&D comes out with a new edition (because everybody's heard of it) or when a roleplayer kills himself and they want a scapegoat. The only media outlets that give significant coverage to roleplaying are pretty much all house organs like Dragon Magazine (which is a website now anyway) or White Dwarf that only cover their company's games. Claiming that recognition from one of the few well-known third-party organizations in roleplaying can't be used to establish notability is tantamount to claiming that roleplaying isn't notable. zorblek (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt that the article needs work, but it certainly is notable in the context of RPGs. Miami, the Honorable Mention for Labyrinth Lord is selected by a panel of judges. The judges are voted into "office" by the larger gaming community. These are not random nerds, but representative nerds of the general gaming populace at least as reflected in the online community. In that context the HM is even more significant because it shows that out of hundreds of submissions, Labyrinth Lord stands above them in notability. Some of those it beat out in this regard have wiki articles that are not challenged. Further, the HM was in the category of Best Game, which has even fiercer competition. You may think of this as a vote by a bunch of nerds, but those nerds are our gaming peers and they decide ultimately what is notable. chazster —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 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. JForget 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leitch[edit]

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

Has not played 1st class rugby, not played professional level, only junior grade rep football (for Japan) - does not meet criteria set out by WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG ClubOranje^T 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 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, Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a a fair few match reports, listings etc, but to date not yet anything that meets WP:GNG. Come back later. Nuttah (talk) 15:42, 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. extransit (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katsball[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP, anyone? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Madeup one day, no sources indicate sufficient notability for a game invented less than a year ago. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another "Hey, my friends and I have made up a game, and we will write it up on Wikipedia to get it attention" article. No evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article says that it's copyrighted and not yet recognised and such, not to mention that nobody has ever heard of this. "The game can be played in either a pool or in the sea." Wait 30 minutes after eating, and if you do the latter, try not to lose the damn katsball. Mandsford 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A web search turned up no evidence of notability nor any evidence that this sport/game actually exists. Likely a hoax. Safiel (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But one point for our Greek Katsballer friends for coming up with a "preliminary symbol" for their new sport. That's style! Carrite (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable sport. Someone should also tag the image for deletion after article is deleted. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:18, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond C. Gruss[edit]

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

Appears to have limited notability. Article has not improved substantially in six years. Jeffro77 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another editor attempted to raise an AfD for this article in 2008,[27] but the template parameters were incorrect and the process was not properly completed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google news citations seem to be enough to keep this author. There are a few Google scholar citations, but not many. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Google News hits. If there's already half a dozen reliable sources that mention him with his middle initial (and the hits appear to be high quality, referencing one or more of his books in the immediate context) then there's undoubtedly more out there. Note also that this individual has been a religious critic for decades, so there's almost certainly plenty of offline references. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm fine with including every single PhD in the world on Wikipedia, myself — but this article has BLP issues with regards to sourcing of the religious views of the subject. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The Gnews archive hits I found amounted to a total of 8 (you have to put quotes around the full name; otherwise the results are peppered with unrelated links), and none of them discuss the subject in any notable way. Recent Gnews hits equals zero. I am uncertain as to the meaning of the results on Google Scholar[28], but I have to discount his books as self-published and non-neutral. Stats about the books would be helpful, but there doesn't seem to be any -- unless I don't know where to look. I have no idea why Carrite would suggest that every PhD in the world should be included in Wikipedia... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.......because PhDs are all experts in some aspect of scholarly endeavor, by definition. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it a notable scholarly endeavor? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having a PhD is not an automatic benchmark for warranting an article. Additionally, individuals that might be acceptable as sources are not necessarily notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to vote delete per WP:PROF because I cannot find any verifiable evidence that he meets the criteria outlined. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Number of news hits is not necessarily indicative of influence or impact. He's commented in the press a few times about Ouija boards. And once did an interview with an online magazine about being a Jehovah's Witness. Neither of those is notable. Likewise, academically and as an author appears to fail every criteria for WP:PROF. --Whoosit (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of apparent notability. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His publications on "cults" appear to be significant. Yes, it is a poor article, but that is a reason for improving not deleting. In the UK, the status of Professor Emeritus would certainly indicate notability. I am not clear how readily this title is awarded to those who would be called "retired lecturers" in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Professor and Professor Emeritus don't carry the same weight in the US as in the UK. Emeritus in most cases means they're retired faculty with office privileges—not a distinction of any sort. I wouldn't put too much stock in the title. --Whoosit (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens's arguments. -- Europe22 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would seem likely that there would be enough coverage to confer notability in these 67 books. It's past my bedtime so I'm not going to look throught them now, but I would suggest that anyone commenting should check them out so that their opinions will be based on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been through them. They almost exclusively mention him in passing--in a footnote or bibliography. None of the books listed are from an academic publishing house, so safe to conclude none of it has been peer reviewed. Most of these books are from small independent or Christian publishing houses which means extremely limited circulation. This speaks to no appreciable influence on mainstream academia or popular debate. Likewise for Gruss's own publications--I can't find much trace of them. The evidence pretty much disqualifies him from WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps he is influential in Christian publishing or evangelical debate, but I don't see any evidence to support that right now. --Whoosit (talk) 16:01, 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. JForget 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RIM musical club[edit]

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

Student club at a university. I don't see reference that would indicate suitable notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability and salted since this article was deleted 3 times within a 1.5-hour period.E Wing (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No indication of notability and the article creator seems to be resistant to listening to other editors about it and seems likely to recreate again. noq (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt immediately as I've been dealing with this article and editor personally for the past few days. No indication of notability per WP:CLUB and the article creator continues to recreate the page with nearly identical content despite repeated warnings and a 24-hour block. elektrik SHOOS 08:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also include for salting:

I'd imagine there are a few permutations of this spelling and caps that could lead to the same article. Thank you for the above because I didn't notice the previous CSDs when I nommed. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per all above. Anna Lincoln 09:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Considering the lack of information about notability and the number of times this has been speedy deleted already (at least 5 times that I can see), there really is no reason to prolong this discussion. Peacock (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - more important college clubs than this get deleted for lack of notability..--Kudpung (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to speedy delete and salt per DB-A7, WP:SNOW. elektrik SHOOS 06:21, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the youngest mayors in the United States[edit]

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

Delete - indiscriminate list of information, original research. No boundary on what constitutes the "youngest" mayor, and every mayorship in the world has a youngest person who was elected to it. Fails WP:OR by the synthesized opinion that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "young" and "mayor". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article currently has a variety of problems. For example, Jonathan Wallace is identified as being the "Youngest township trustee in history. Possibly youngest elected official in the United States." But (1) a township trustee is not the same thing as a mayor (it's closer to being the civil township equivalent of a city council member), and (2) this article lists at least seven people who became elected officials at younger ages than Wallace did. The article also needs to established a defined upper boundary as to the maximum age a person can be to qualify for this list; currently some of the people on the list are people who became mayors in their 30s, which seems in my opinion too old to be worthy of mention on a "youngest mayors" list. It may be possible to improve this list sufficiently to get me to change my recommendation, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It you're good enough, you are old enough. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There is a legal precedence involved here called age of candidacy which generally prohibits or otherwise discourages people under the age of majority from holding office; the fact that young people still do despite these laws is notable. • Freechild'sup? 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone might want a list like this. They might also want a list of the Oldest Mayors. (They may even want a list of Old Grey Mares...) For the moment, and excepting the creator of the list, I can't see who. Difficult to define mayor - difficult to define 'youngest'. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is no difficultly in defining mayor, particularly in the U.S.. The definitions for "youngest" are provided by the citations used in the article; check the references for further distinction. • Freechild'sup? 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not indiscriminate, although the description of the list could be tightened up more. It's not WP:SYNTHESIS, as a number of the sources are about young mayors or the youngest mayors. I think if this were the youngest by state (i.e. one person per state) it might be a reasonable list. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's not "indiscriminate", although it suffers from other problems. Although the adjective indiscriminate seems to be used only with the noun list (kind of like babbling brook or abject poverty), not all lists merit that term. Simply put, an "indiscriminate list" is one that has no information to distinguish (i.e., to discriminate) between one item on the list and the next, such as a lazy list of blue-links. I tend to agree with the nominator's point that there are no boundaries on this one, and in that sense, it doesn't discriminate against anyone who doesn't have proof. Thus, if one wants to claim that he's the youngest person to have ever been the Mayor of Heehaw, California, he gets on here. There's one guy on here whose claim to immortality was that he was elected mayor of a town of 1,000 at the age of thirty, and there are others. For the most part, it's trivia, and not very interesting trivia at that. Mandsford 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that there are definite improvements that need to be made, certainly the question of who should be included and count as "youngest" is absolutely valid. Perhaps limit it to mayors under 30? Because of the relative rarity of young elected officials (and legal barriers as well) it is certainly novel and interesting material. Every time a young person is elected to a post such as mayor there is plenty of media coverage that follows. It is good to have the historical context for that, to see others who have preceeded this person. Interesting also to see which of these young elected officials continued to have a successful career in politics and who didn't. Also, with the amount of doubt people place upon the capabilities of young people, it is especially helpful to be able to point to a list of young adults who have achieved something and been placed in charge of a city through the democratic process. I think it should be fixed and cleaned up, but absolutely should be kept. KPalicz (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does setting an age limit avoid being arbitrary? "Point[ing] to a list of young people who have achieved something" is POV-pushing to make a point. Coverage of a young person's being elected might make the individual elected official notable per WP:GNG but it doesn't make a list of youngest mayors notable or encyclopedic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are You The Cow Of Pain?, I hope that you can simply hear the opportunity to resolve this disagreement rather than attacking proposals. While setting an age limit is arbitrary, I think it's important to consider the value of the proposing editor's voice, rather than the specific proposal. Please don't make personal attacks and keep this civil. • Freechild'sup? 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attack and am non-plussed that you would make the claim. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of lists on Wikipedia. List of social networking sites, list of unusual deaths (?!), list of search engines, list of linux distributions, list of ethnic slurs, List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and all sorts of other lists of no greater utility or interest than a list of youngest mayors. If you agree that individuals who are elected young are notable by themselves, why wouldn't a list of them be also useful and notable? KPalicz (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of some other list or lists doesn't mean that this list should also exist. Each list and article stands or falls on its own merits. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing is an odd claim. The article does not advocate that young people should become mayors, which would be a POV, it just records that some have, which is unusual and notable, as the sources bear out. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The justification given for this list in the above keep !vote is absolutely POV-pushing. It's saying that the list should exist to counter the POV of people who doubt the capabilities of young people. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When people overcome the prevailing wisdom about their group that makes it notable. When that 13 year old climbed Everest he wasn't notable just for climbing it, he was notable for being 13 and overcoming the perceptions about 13 year olds. If a 95 year old, or a pregnant woman climbed Everest it'd be notable as well. I wasn't pushing a POV just explaining why this page in particular is notable, interesting, and a valuable resource for Wikipedia to keep. KPalicz (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. It does not mean for purposes of an article "unusual" or "deviating from the norm" or "overcoming the prevailing wisdom". It means "coverage in reliable sources that is significantly about the subject". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: People magazine, MSNBC, San Francisco Chronicle, Texas Almanac, The New York Times, and Time magazine are all cited in this article. According to WP's definition the article is well in-line with those expectations. • Freechild'sup? 07:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of the article. Since 2007 the article's 100s of edits have reflected it's use and a variety of editors' interest. And while it does have "problems," we should edit the article rather than delete it. I intended the article to only include references to individuals where reliable sources referred to a person as the "youngest mayor," whatever the circumstance. This includes the size of town, which isn't a worthy worthy criteria; rather it's whether a citation is reliable. • Freechild'sup? 04:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I cleaned the article and removed all non-cited entries, as well as entries that weren't mayors. This article suffered poor maintenance, not bad construction. The sources cited in the article now refer to the mayors as "youngest" in any sense of the word. • Freechild'sup? 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is 100% verifiable, and is a topic of interest (indiscriminate collections of information are not of interest). No original research will be required to determine whether someone belonged on this list if we specify that this list includes mayors under 30. Just have a criterion like this and make it a specific cut-off. Wiwaxia (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why "under 30" is a non-arbitrary cutoff but "under 31" isn't. "It's interesting" is not the standard for a Wikipedia article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Of interest" is well-defined in its Wikipedia sense:

By "interesting", we don't mean "interesting to everyone", or "interesting to you". Rather, we seek information that is potentially interesting to, at least, some small but significant proportion of the world's population. For example:
The date of the Battle of Hastings is interesting to people interested in 11th century history
The time that King Harold was killed in said battle is interesting to slightly obsessed historians of the Norman Conquest
The general diet of King Harold, as opposed to his contemporaries, is interesting to historians of 11th century nutrition.
The time that King Harold had breakfast 183 days prior to said battle is interesting to no-one, even if King Harold had kept a meticulous diary which has been preserved to the present day.

o However, the diary itself would be both actionable and interesting to certain nutritionists and many historians.Wiwaxia (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. Actually, under 30 (i.e. no older than 29 at time of election) would be less arbitrary than most other numbers (31, 29, 37, etc.), since it was one of the benchmarks that was written into the U.S. Constitution in 1788. For whatever reason-- and I'm sure that there was someone back 222 years ago who made the same argument that you did-- the consensus of that convention was that there had to be a minimum age for people to become U.S. Representatives (25 years old) and to become U.S. Senators. Arbitrary as it was, the consensus from that convention was that no matter how talented a person was, no matter how accomplished, "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years" (Article I, section 3, paragraph 3). Bear in mind that the discussion here is whether the list should be kept or deleted. If it's deleted (which is what you want), then the boundaries are a moot point. If it's kept, then some restrictions need to be put on it, and no older than 29 works for me. Mandsford 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, there's no real justification for setting any age standard (the Constitution, which makes zero mention of mayors or their ages, notwithstanding) that isn't completely and utterly arbitrary. If the election is the day before one's 30th birthday it's significant but if it's the day after it's not. The same person as a 29 year 364 day-old mayor is an exemplar of "youngest" but as a 30 year 1 day-old mayor isn't. Stuff and nonsense, and the perfect illustration of why this list is reliant on original research. You have looked to one set of age limits and synthesized from them a criterion for a list to which the age limits do not pertain. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Let's note that currently the article calls for inclusion of folks under the age of majority. If there is a movement to set an age I would agree with Mandsford to follow the Constitutional language; I would also consent to lowering the threshold for inclusion to the age of 18, which as the voting age set by the Constitution creates a notable marker. • Freechild'sup? 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note that you too have looked to a document with an age limitation written into it and synthesized an artificial inclusion criterion. The arguments for various ages at which one is considered young enough inexorably leads back to the conclusion that this is an unsustainable list. Why 18 (voting age) and not 30 (Senate eligibility)? Why 30 and not 25 (House eligibility) or 35 (presidential eligibility)? On what is any age limit for the inclusion on a "youngest" list being based here, other than the impermissible personal opinions and preferences of individual editors? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources cited throughout the article each refer to the people included as the "youngest" in some sense. • Freechild'sup? 03:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one under the age of 80 had been elected mayor of Fumblebuck then a 79 year old would be properly described as "the youngest mayor or Fumblebuck". Every jurisdiction with a mayor has a youngest mayor. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a safe bet that most of the remainder of the thread is going to be a discussion between Freechild and Are You The Cow of Pain, with each side responding to what the last one had written-- both good editors making some great points, well done. Altogether, eight people (including Free and Cow) have made !votes on whether to keep or delete. I'll try my best to make this my last comment-- I'd like to hear from a ninth or tenth person before it's closed out. Mandsford 14:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is clearly something people come looking for information on -- there are 80,600 Google hits on the phrase "who is the youngest mayor". Youngest mayors is an established topic, not indiscriminate information. People would want to look this up in an encyclopedia, and with an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia, may expect to find it. Plus, with the improvements made to the list, there's no original research required to establish who's a youngest mayor. With this in mind, I can't vote any other way than keep. Subliminable (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a measure of notability. WP:INTERESTING is not a measure of notability. The original research is not in declaring that a particular mayor or another is the youngest in a particular mayorship. The original research is in declaring that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "mayor" and "youngest" and in setting any inclusion limitations. There are tens of thousands of mayorships in the United States and each of them has a "youngest" person elected to it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is original research to declare that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "young" and "mayor", but these pages suggest that young mayors are an established topic:

http://www.ymn.org.uk/
http://www.gazette.net/stories/063006/polia%20s192906_31951.shtml
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1172711
http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=4736

This is what the Google results for "who is the youngest mayor" point to: that young mayors are an established topic. You say that WP:INTERESTING does not make for notability, but as Wiwaxia noted, there is a difference between a Wikipedia reader finding an article "interesting" by his/her peculiar opinion and the kind of "interestingness" that makes an article encyclopedic. Subliminable (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four sources are for the UK and have no bearing on a US-centric list. The others might serve as resources for an article about the supposed phenomenon of younger people in American political leadership positions but the sourcing to write an article about the general topic of youth in politics doesn't mean that a list of youngest US mayors passes encyclopedic muster. Even if it did, the definitional problems and the indiscriminate nature of the list persist. No one has yet explained why a mayor who is elected at the age of 29 years 11 months is a "young mayor" for purposes of the list but that same person elected at age 30 years 1 day is not. No one has explained how they can justify defining "youngest" as being "below a particular age" without its being arbitrary and original research. No one has explained how the list is not indiscriminate for having potentially tens of thousands of entries, one for each mayorship in the United States. "Interestingness" is not under any definition a standard for Wikipedia articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with having this relevent and interesting article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once again "interesting" is not a standard for WP articles. "Relevant" is a matter of opinion and in my opinion this information is irrelevant, so there you go. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the youngest elected officials in the United States, the list from which much of the content of this list was derived or vice versa. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, closing admin, and if you even look at that all, please note that six of the nine people here didn't even participate in that discussion... Mandsford 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since AFD is not a vote. The stronger argument carries the day, not numerical superiority. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: According to this AfD, there is an editor on this page who has taken it upon themselves to delete this article. The majority of deleting authors cited needs to correct the content of this article, rather than the actual topic of the article, which only one editor has (repeatedly) mentioned. Please note from the history of the article I have addressed those concerns through extensive editing since those editors weighed in. • Freechild'sup? 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like the closing editor to note that even though AYTCOP repeatedly states that "interestingness" does not make something encyclopedic, there is an established Wikipedia definition of what "interesting" means in the encyclopedic sense, which I cited with the example with King Harold. An article should not be kept just because the odd reader comes up on it and incidentally finds it "interesting", but if people within a certain interest group come to the Internet just to look it up (like the date of the Battle of Hastings), it has a genuine encyclopedic value due to its interestingness. This article falls into the latter category. I have this Wikipedia page squirreled away on my hard drive, but I can't find it here -- a search of the Internet does not reveal what page it's from. The same page states that information should not be obvious (that Margaret Thatcher regularly breahted in and out hundreds of times per day is obvious, but that she sometimes survived on only four hours of sleep is not obvious). Something to keep in mind. Wiwaxia (talk) 02:32, 2 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) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KSBM Asset Management Limited[edit]

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

Probably could be speedied, but I gave it the benefit of a doubt. Only "independent" source provided/found is an indication that yes, they are registered with the T&T SEC. The only other source suggested was a phone book listing. No claim of notability & I have no objection to a speedy on that basis, though I won't make that call myself. SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no attempt here to comply with WP:COMPANY. patsw (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Business spam plus pointless trivia. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of long term historical notability or cultural, technical, or historical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle Inc.[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unreferenced for six months. Notability is doubtful, and reliable third-party sources (on the internet at least) few and far between. Taiwantaffy (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ There's no sign that this article is going to be improved to meet WP:COMPANY. patsw (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was never any doubt this was a real company with non-trivial products. The only question was whether I and the other reviewers could determine if there was a hope that motivated editors would do some homework and add references after 4 years of neglect in doing so. While I don't think this article is ever going to improve to be on a par with ASUS, I no longer support deletion. patsw (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not understand the relevance of the fact that the article in question has been left unreferenced for six months to notability. The reason for it being unreferenced for six months can be attributed to a number of possibilities, not just the lack of notability. Addressing that, I am interested in the nominator's methodology. Which search engine and what search terms were used? If "Shuttle Inc." was the search term, as is suggested by the find sources template, I would suggest that "Shuttle" in conjuction with the terms relating to Shuttle's products be used instead. The reason for this is because "Shuttle Inc." is one of those delightful invented-for-Wikipedia disambiguations that no one uses. The PC magazines appear to exclusively use "Shuttle", as evidenced by the numerous product reviews that can be found through Google Books, by using the term "Shuttle" and various combinations of terms including but not limited to: case, PC, review, SFF, etc. Also of interest are snippets from: * Popular Mechanics, Jun. 2005, p. 165, answer by a staff writer to a reader submitted question: "...SFF PCs made a splash when Shuttle showed its first one several years ago. They are more widely known among do-it-yourself enthusiasts..."; * p. 311 of Building the Perfect PC, Rober B. Thompson, O'Reilly Media, 2006; * p. 229 of Mike Meyers' A+ Guide to PC Hardware, Michael Meyers, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. From these limited examples, I am not convinced that Shuttle is an obscure one-person shop that has a faboi or two pushing an article on Wikipedia. But I am not a PC enthusiast, I only know of the company by chance glancing through some PC magazine a while ago. Maybe those who are can make a better case for this company. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, third-party references establish notability. The fact that these have been missing for some time despite the article having been tagged is suggestive of (though not proof of) non-notability. You make a good point on the company/article name, and if someone can use a more thorough web search to establish notability, then I'll be happy to see the article remain. Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The remedy to a complaint that an article's content is unreferenced is to find those references, add them to the article, and answer in this AfD that WP:N criteria is satisfied. Noting its potential for becoming a good article after several years of indifference is not an answer to an AfD nomination. patsw (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Patsw, if your comment was directed at me, I am offended. My intention was point out to AfD participants who may not have any familiarity with the subject that using "Shuttle Inc." as a search term may skew results. I did so in good faith because I believe that deletion is a serious matter that should be handled in a manner that reduces false positives. I believe that my comments are appropriate for an AfD debate, and I have yet to see any indication that it is not from other participants, including the nominiator. If I have in whatever way made inappropriate remarks, then I would like to be notified about them at my talk page. Rilak (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "How have you looked for sources?" is a valid question to ask. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is unambiguous about the requirement for looking, as indeed are the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Editing policy, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. We don't delete because no-one out of our volunteer editor corps has seen fit to work on an article, and many articles grow from incomplete stubs through an organic and incremental growth process. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote delete on everything. I demand everything have sources demonstrate notability. This is one case where I know something is wrong. Shuttle has been almost synonymous with SFF PC in last decade. So I say keep, somebody do homework. Miami33139 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What supports your expectation that homework will be done? As it stands, this anonymously created article in 2006 hasn't been improved in any way to meet WP:N by any of its editors in years. What is incorrect in the above nomination? patsw (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your apprehension as the current state of this article meets my own deletion criteria and there is nothing wrong with your nomination. I normally insist that even proven notable subject matters incorporate proof into their article before I change AfD opinion to keep. This is 1% opportunity where I ignore my own and wikipedia criteria.
    Sources, and awards, can be easily gained from these two resources, which link to their third-party coverage. http://us.shuttle.com/In_News.aspx http://us.shuttle.com/Awards.aspx There are plenty here and this is US only and this is last year only. Miami33139 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our editing and deletion policies support this. The major deficiency with what Miami33139 said is the invocation of "somebody". Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. It's written by everyone, and that includes the people who spend time wondering aloud "why hasn't somebody improved this article?", rather than realizing that Wikipedia is written by you, and {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Miami33139, this business would appear to me to have sufficient technical and cultural importance to qualify. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can you quote something from the article that supports your statement? In my reading the article lacks such statements and, additionally, such statements would need independent sourcing. patsw (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shuttle + SFF yields more than 1000 Google News Archive hits, and just leafing through them I can see that this business has been recognized for technical innovation for boards for small format PCs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:GOOGLETEST for an explanation of why 1000 Google hits does not mean that a topic is included merely by that fact alone. The potential for recognition is insufficient. The actual recognition, as you put it, has to be in the article itself, not merely asserted in the AfD, for the article to be included in Wikipedia, and that means added in now during this AfD. patsw (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend towards the opinion that there is no deadline, and specifically that AfD is not for the purpose of forcing immediate improvements for inadequate articles on otherwise worthy subjects under pain of deletion. It strikes me that this business is a worthy subject, and the article is relatively free from promotional POV, sales blather, or promotional nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Patsw, I agree with you. That is my own criteria that references must be in the article itself and not simply asserted during the AfD. I am hypocrite because I am doing exactly that right here. Wikipedia sucks. Miami33139 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you should be doing here is learning why your approach is and has been wrong, from this experience of the shoe being on the other foot. If you do learn, you'll find that Wikipedia doesn't suck, but that, rather, people who don't put the effort in of looking for sources are being zero help to AFD and to the encyclopaedia in general; and that what both AFD and Wikipedia in general always need are people who are prepared to actually do that "homework" themselves, rather than treating it as Somebody Else's Problem and treating every article as if it had Featured Article status. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My approach is not wrong. Nobody asked for your big mouth to show up and comment about my criteria. Don't tell me what I should be doing. What is your comment about this article, instead of comment about me? What you should be doing is stating your opinion that this article should be kept or deleted and then back that up with why. This is not the place subjecting other editors to your paternalism. Comment on content, not the contributor. Miami33139 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. What has to be shown at AFD is that multiple independent reliable sources exist, covering the subect in depth, demonstrating that an article can be written. Please familiarize yourself with our editing and deletion policies. Your understanding of them, as well as your practice of them, is incorrect. You are meant to do more than solely "read the article" in order to put deletion policy into practice. For starters you are meant to look for sources yourself, which includes performing such Google searches (amongst other things). So you can start by doing the searches that other editors have mentioned here. Stop and pay particular attention when you reach the aforementioned books by Mike Meyers and by Robert and Barbara Thompson. Stop again when you reach the book by Hardwidge. If you don't do the searches yourself, then your opinion that there's "no sign that this article is going to be improved" will be read as being basically without foundation, because you've not put in the effort to determine whether that is in actual fact the case. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong yourself. The burden to source material is on the author, not the deleter. This can only make sense. The author has the knowledge to find references. The deleter cannot be presumed to have knowledge and a lay reader should be able to trust our material - and both delete what is not referenced. That include whole article when article unsourced! Do not be so presumptuous that everyone agree with your opinion about responsibility. Miami33139 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pat, I have added two references from the URL I previously gave you. Two (multiple) reviews or awards from independent reliable sources seems to be the minimum to keep articles. I generally prefer more, but I have added these two in order to get past the criteria that refernecs should be in the article by the close of AfD, which is something we agree on. Miami33139 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 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 no consensus. no consensus on whether he is notable after three weeks JForget 00:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP with no sources, and minor notability. Already went through AfD in 2007 which resulted in a delete, and now returns with much the same problems. Delete as fails WP:BIO. Muhandes (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has some mentions in news articles, mostly quotes from him rather than articles about him, which are not enough to satisfy notability concerns. But he did win the Sprague Award which is a prestigious national award and would seem to qualify him under WP:BIO. The article claims he won it for his precedent-setting achievement in getting cameras into the Florida courts; however, I searched hard and I can find no confirmation that he had a role in that decision - not even at the Wikipedia article for the attorney who supposedly helped him do it. (In fact the attorney's article didn't mention that precedent at all; I just now added the information to that article.) It is true that "Florida led the way in 1976" in allowing TV coverage of trials [29], and information in the article suggests that he was a 26-year-old news operations manager in Florida at the time, but his role in the precedent is not documented anywhere that I can find. If documented that would make him clearly notable. So I am kind of torn on this one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 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, JForget 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just do not see how Mr. Tello is notable. He may be well known within industry circles but how has he innovated? What is the significance of his achievements and appointments? Also, I am concerned that User:Wgoldstein is a WP:SPA to big-up the subject of this article. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient awards to constitute notability. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 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, T. Canens (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been recognized in his profession. patsw (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability within your own profession is not enough to satisfy GNG. In fact, industry specific awards are far from despositive about these sorts of cases. Being notable within one's field is not an outside indication of widespread notability, and fails general criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Actually, recognition in ones profession is explicitly one of the threshold criteria for inclusion of a biographical article. See WP:BIO. This notion of outside indication is not supported by WP:GNG. patsw (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment - Here's your notability hook: "While working for Post-Newsweek station WPLG-TV , Tello , with lawyer Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte (former American Bar President and Florida State University President ) was successful in the precedent setting movement to place cameras in the courtrooms in the State of Florida. His efforts in Florida grew to many states across the country allowing camera coverage in their courts over subsequent years." Carrite (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would certainly buy that claim as notable, as I said above, if it were verified. I looked but was unable to find any verification; if you can find some, please cite it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 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 no consensus. no consensus on notability after three weeks JForget 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futsal Club[edit]

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

I've just declined the speedy on this, but I'm not convinced there's really enough there to pass through AfD. Don't seem to be a professional team, but I'm not very familiar with Futsal Ged UK 05:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is certainly not a professional team, as futsal is not played professionally in England, but this team does play at the highest level of English futsal, and professionalism is usually used as a standard of notability for individual players, with the bar for clubs being rather lower. However futsal has a much lower profile in England than in, say, Brazil or Spain, and I can find very little independent coverage of this club. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a top-level team of an increasingly professional sport is notable in my eyes. Giant Snowman 06:39, 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, T. Canens (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: may well play in the top division of English futsal, but the team has not received much coverage in the media so fails the WP:GNG. Big Dom 08:19, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graboid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous nomination closed no consensus and in the interim no new potential sources appear to have emerged. There is no indication that this fictional creature is independently notable. Those few sources which mention it do so either completely in an in-universe capacity (describing the plots of one or more of the films or the TV series) or mention the creature in passing. It fails both the general notability guideline and the guideline for writing about fiction. There is no question that the Tremors films are notable. However, the notability of a work of fiction does not mean that every aspect or element within that work of fiction is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Graboid is sufficiently notable within the scope of WP:WAF. There is sufficient viable content to warrant its own article: incorporation into a "Tremors" article would be problematic given the weight of the article and the fact that there are multiple "Tremors" articles (movies, TV series, etc.) Taroaldo (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the plot summaries or general descriptions of the film or TV show can include an explanatory sentence or two on the in-universe role that these creatures played within the particular iteration of the franchise, if they don't already. This article is almost entirely primary information drawn from the films. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is pretty well nothing but in-universe fancruft. Reyk _YO! 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Fancruft 'is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies'. Half of Wikipedia could indiscriminately be labeled fancruft or some other version of "cruft". Taroaldo (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with Otto4711, the articles about the various films are not so long as to exclude detail of how the various creatures are different in each of them. Apart from fans of the films, which are indeed fun films, I don't think they have any notability beyond the franchise unlike say H.R. Giger's Alien or the kind of sources that can be found for it (Alien (Alien franchise), though it is also flawed). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central element/monster from a series spanning 5 films and a TV show is notable enough for me. Google Books shows some coverage, including the fact that one of these things is exhibited at a film history museum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Pine, California Film History Museum does indeed have several props from the movies, I see.[30] Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the films or TV series is not inherited by every fictional component of the films or series. "Some coverage" is not the standard for notability. Coverage that is significantly about the subject is. A scattered sentence or two or an isolated paragraph do not constitute significant coverage. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article clearly meets the notability requirements in this editor's opinion, and has a good variety of valid references from independent and reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the "valid references". Chick Flicks includes 4 paragraphs of plot description in a 259 page book. Click or Treat includes one paragraph in a 175 page book. "Home Video's Latest Outlet: Computers" includes one sentence in a 30+ paragraph article. "TREMORS Graboid Marquette" is a press release. This does not constitute "significant coverage", the standard for notability. "It was mentioned in a book or a magazine article" is not the standard for notability. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [31][32] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 is a typical TV Guide-style plot summary/meet the show article that mentions this fictional creature only in in-universe terms. 2 appears to be promotional material produced by or in conjunction with the channel which aired the series. Both are hosted on a site that is of dubious reliability as a source. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a nasty encounter with a graboid at some point? :) Taroaldo (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, UGO Networks is owned by Hearst, and is an RS. It may be in conjunction wit h the TV show or something, in which case it wouldn't be independant. I didn't see anything that said that was so, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer is owned by a media conglomerate too, which doesn't make it a reliable source. Hearst publications have a pretty long and checkered career of yellow journalism (and are credited with starting a war or two through propaganda) so merely being owned by a name brand conglomerate doesn't confer notability. Otto4711 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about 50-100 years ago? Anyways, I think UGO is considered reliable. Would you retract the AfD if it was shown to be reliable? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources is the standard that I have always hewn to in AFD discussions. Otto4711 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sources do meet significant and reliable (and maybe even independant). They're largely in universe, but I don't think that's discussed in NOTE, or is given as a reason to delete in WAF (which I haven't looked at in about 2-3 years). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do I think that the sources exist? Yes. But I do not think that there will be any effort to find and implement them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - linking element within movie/tv franchise, appears to be significant coverage here, for example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as THE central plot device in an entire film series, and per precedent set by other plot device articles that have such sourcability in Books, News, and Scholar. WP:NOEFFORT is a reason to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy section only deals in whether or not people have expanded the article, not established notability. There is a series article for Tremors; being a plot device for an entire film series warrants mention in the series article, not a separate article. Notability has not been established, and that's excellent reason to propose deletion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not wanting to WP:WAX, but as sources toward notability are available and have been spoken toward up above, your opinion bumps up against such articles as Romulan, United Federation of Planets, Federation Council (Star Trek), Millenium Falcon and Starship Enterprise et al. Plot devices of film series can indeed merit individual articles, and then simply be mentioned in the main series article with a link to the specific article, just as has been done for these. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Sarek --Webwizard (talk) 12:26, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest (time tracking software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. ttonyb (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The "references" are only very brief mentions. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This product is a web application for time tracking, invoicing, expenses, and project budgeting built for freelancers, agencies, small businesses and large corporations, one of many such applications, with no case made for historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability. Only reference given is to a blog. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 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 no consensus. no consensus after three weeks JForget 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Albert - Architect[edit]

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

JustinRSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod (See Talk:Don Albert - Architect). Subject is a South African architect that appears to be non-notable. Although there are claims of notability, I can find few reliable sources that document this or discuss the subject in detail. Few Google hits in search or books [33]. It may be because subject is non-western but listing here to get consensus. (Two SPAs, see history.) Christopher Connor (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly not enough notability. Seems to be a young emerging architect with a considerable list of publications mentioning him, yet none fully dedicated to him or his buildings. Some independent online sources I found: [34], [35], [36]. The content certainly has multiple issues. Considering the CV like text, quality of images and user contribution history is possible to be self promotion. --Elekhh (talk) 03:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy needs clean-up and citations (marked up as such) and looks to be a clear case of COI and advertising. However there are some indications of notability such as mention in this article [37] and assertion of nomination for major award. There is also a copyvio issue from here [38]. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "assertion of nomination for major award" you mean the unreferenced "AGA KHAN Award Nomination for Proud Heritage Clothing Campus, 2010", I believe that is not notable given that simple nominations do not appear to be published and it was not shortlisted. Is rather another unreferenced info which is likely to originate from the architect's office. --Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these sources are reliable or independent, but they might be useful [39] and [40]. A young architect and firm that have gotten some notice. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:49, 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. JForget 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ladydust[edit]

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

I removed the {{db-person}} because notability is asserted; furthermore, a Google News Archive search returns some results which may be enough to establish notability. The sources, such as this one and this one are in Greek, though, so I do not know if they provide significant coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 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) 00:09, 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) 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage as far as I can see. The source Cunard found seem based on google translate to be passing mention. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:55, 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) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The International Student Senate[edit]

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

Previously Speedy deleted article, Fail WP:NOTABLE and WP:V for organizations. No sources other than the groups website.

Speedy close: Not a real rationale, imho. —mono 03:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanx Repraphased Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that still won't do. Could you please write a sentence or two in plain English to explain why this article should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take three... Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 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) 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, 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 merge to Female Transformers. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Discussion of merge details can continue on appropriate talk pages. Jujutacular ^talk 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rage (Transformers)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable Transformers character that never appeared in any media except a re-color version of Tracks. Rm994 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Female Transformers, a list page that already has Road Rage on it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 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) 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above or to Tracks (Transformers), else delete. Character too minor to have ever appeared in any of the myriad Transformers shows or movies, possibly non-canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Wright (music producer)[edit]

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

This BLP lacks any citations whatsoever. Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having been in existence since 2009, and tagged as being a BLP without any citations since January. Editors may recall, we did a sweep in April 2010 in which all BLPs that lacked citations were deleted (after notice). The reason that I came across this article, is that I was curious--given positions taken by the article creator at an AfD--what his criteria for article creation were. I came immediately upon this one. Just the sort of article we've been busily deleting on a project-wide basis--a wholly unreferenced BLP. I don't seen the RS-support for this article that would reflect notability, though I've looked.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do see that someone purporting to be his wife just posted a picture purportedly of him that she says she took for his Wikipedia page to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Deleting a page because it is unsourced is not that intelligent. It would be better to try and find sources which should be possible for someone like this who has been around for a long time and has notable productions including "All for You" by Janet Jackson. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added AfD#Step1 - nominating author forgot to do this and added CSD instead.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see so because I nominated an article you wish to keep you've searched for an article that I've edited to nom. it for deletion. How very ironic. Just to clarify I don't actually edit this article and although I am listed as the creator I only actually moved the article (check article history). It would really help if you quit making references to other articles all the time. At times yes it can be useful but each AfD has to address the subject at hand as each article will have different levels of notability. That's all I'm going to say right now because I don't want to be seen as refactoring others' comments.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was understanding that unsourced pages were deleted because they were unnotable. But this producer is very notable. Candy o32 05:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm struggling to find any significant coverage here. Allmusic confirms that he (or at least a James Wright) has worked on some of the albums listed, but he appears to be a session musician/studio hand and in most cases is one of dozens of people to contribute to these albums. Much of the article fails WP:Verifiability. This needs evidence of significant coverage if it's going to stay.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 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) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to satisfy WP:V and to at least confirm some aspect of WP:N.--Michig (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced WP:BLP. A thorough search is only finding trivial mentions, such as this one. Similar results with Google news archive. He has worked with many notable folks but I'm finding no coverage of him. It says that he has won three Grammys but I cant even find coverage when combing his name with 'Grammy'. J04n(talk page) 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n (talk · contribs). Because this biography of a living person has not received the nontrivial coverage required to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 3 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 keep. JForget 00:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Student Youth Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable school activity, fails WP:CORP, sources are self-published so fail RS, deleted once before, if anything, should only be a minor paragraph in hosting university Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School activity? Did you read the article? It's a widely-listened to university radio and (in conjunction with others) TV station. Rebecca (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, else I would not have nominated it.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of SYN FM as a 'non-notable school activity' strongly suggests otherwise. - AmishThrasher (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Not familiar with the subject but am tempted to think a bit of hard work could save this, especially if 80,000 listeners claim is legit. The number alone, though, does not make it notable and there's no source to back it up - the source cited is about radio listeners generally (it would seem; it doesn't link properly). Stalwart111 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the State Government of Victoria's Department of Employment and Department of Youth Affairs, 124,000 people over 15 listen to the Station each week across the Melbourne metropolitan area, "a core audience of 41,000 young people who mentioned unprompted that they “regularly listen to” SYN, and a further 84,000 (3%) who mentioned after prompting that they have listened to the station in the last seven days" according to a ratings survey. - AmishThrasher (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote change / Keep. There you go; exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Nice work. Happy to change my vote. Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Notable article: SYN is one of Australia's largest youth media organisations. It may be a subsidiary of the RMIT Student Union, but its range is not limited to just "school activity" - it broadcasts across metropolitan Melbourne, not just RMIT, and its membership is also open to those outside of RMIT as well. Also, a number of Australian media personalities started their careers (or have contributed) to SYN, including Hamish & Andy - who both began their careers on the SYN show Radio Karate.^[1] NouvelleAuteur (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep with an added 'You obviously don't live in Melbourne I take it?!' SYN-FM, the radio station of the Student Youth Network, has been discussed in a number of article's in The Age such as this one and this one and one about how former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello's son Seb is a broadcaster at the Station and around 175 other articles according to Google. It has also been discussed on a number of ABC shows such as this one and in the Herald Sun as well. Similarly, they also get recognition from the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia amongst other Community Broadcasting sector bodies, and the station has also been referenced in the respected news-magazine Arena here and the news site Crikey when discussing community broadcasting in Melbourne. The station is further referenced in Australia's national broadsheet The Australian in this article. Of course, being a popular ABA licensed community radio station aimed at (and presented by) people under 26 years old, and broadcasts across the Melbourne Metropolitan area (i.e. it's clearly not just a campus station as you imply!) it should come as little surprise that there is no shortage of news articles discussing the station. Given a key criteria of WP:CORP is that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Your assertion that this coverage has been "self published" is utterly laughable! (Rupert Murdoch who owns The Australian and the Herald Sun via News Limited and News Corp is certainly not an under 26 year old volunteer at SYN, and I would suggest that Fairfax Media owners of The Age somehow being SYN volunteers is almost as absurd!) Given notability can easily be established, please stop wasting our time! - AmishThrasher (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 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) 00:04, 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) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Veitch[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability; no relevant GNews hits; others with same name appear more notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at the article history. No edits in years, no substantial edits since creation, and the creator (Palmprint, the name of her publisher) had only one edit ever. It could likely've been prodded. There is one hit in the book The Headpress Guide to the Counter Culture but in preview I can see little more than "should be known to most Nexus readers" and "a regular in magazines like Kane, Forum and Desire." Also a hit in The Mammoth Book of Best New Erotica which calls her the "queen of corporal punishment writing." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A clear case of CPBS — Corporal Punishment Book Selling. Carrite (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a over a thousand sources, but not a single one of them is reliable and independent. WP:BLP requires good sourcing. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 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. — ξ ^xplicit 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bullet Project[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation which doesn't appear to be covered by reliable sources. Google search hasn't turned up anything useful and even if the one source to an article in The Times could be verified, it is insufficient on its own to meet the notability criteria at WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which both required multiple independent reliable sources. JD554 (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been tagged for notability since September 2009, since when no evidence of notability has been added. --JD554 (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is about an Australian attempt to build a vehicle that seeks to break the land speed record. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct, but the article doesn't establish notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did not say that it did; only commented so that AfD browsers would know what the article was about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Catalyst, a well respected science program on the national public TV broadcaster (ABC), devoted a sizable segment to this endeavour whose transcript can be found here[41]. While the article has (multiple and long-standing) issues I don't think it deserves deletion. Oosh (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That transcript doesn't mention The Bullet Project or the car The Silver Bullet. Also the The Bullet Project's official website[42] doesn't seem to mention Rosco McGlashan. Are they definitely the same project? Because if they are, it isn't verified by that transcript. --JD554 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I've got my wires quite seriously crossed, and confused this with 'Aussie Invader 5R'. -Oosh (talk) 23:43, 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) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the nom, fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There are clearly cars looking to brake the current record such as Bloodhound SSC by the current holder Andy Green but this lacks the reliable independent sources that show firstly the project is viable and secondly it is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 09:59, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson Aliens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This remains a regurgitation of plot summary from the two source works. Article makes no no claim of the subject receiving significant third-party coverage independent of source work. Fails WP:WAF, and nothing in a Google Book search (for "morninglightmountain", "'Dyson Aliens' Hamilton") offers no evidence that the material needed to meet GNG, WAF, RS is out there. In-universe plot summary sufficiently covered at novels' entry; no need to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete took a look around and there are no sources for this topic to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 25 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, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the importance of finding sources was stressed in the last AFD in 2007. Three years have passed and the article remains unsourced, which suggests to me that reliable sourcing on this subject simply doesn't exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 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) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest companies in the United States by total revenue that are not listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average[edit]

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

Subject matter is pointless. We know there are large companies that are not part of the Dow. Its self explanatory. There are other large indexes such as the S&P 500, Russell 2000 and Wilshire 5000 that are more diverse and include more companies. The Dow Jones Industrial Average includes some of the 30 largest companies in America. Not every single one. This page is not needed. Endtewq (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that already S51438 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So whats the point of having the page then, if the subject matter is self explanatory? Thats almost like creating a page called the "List of largest foreign companies by revenue that are not part of the Dow" . No point to make that page either right? Because the Dow is composed of U.S. companies only. I fail to see the reason to create a page that has content which is understood already from info on other pages. We are aware that there are companies that are fairly large in scope that are not part of the Dow. Endtewq (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But which companies? this article answers that question, is complete, and... well... let's keep it. btw, what's with the over-emphasis in the article of the DJ only including some companies, only some!!!!1, and this AfD being about 'already knowing that'? --Arkelweis (talk) 18:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's quite pointless to have this article. And generally, "The Largest/Smallest/Most/Fewest X which are not Y" is almost certainly going to be a poor topic. patsw (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is a compounded form of set complement lists. "Companies not part of the DJIA" is a set complement. As such, it has the standard problems of set complement lists, articulated at AFD many times. This article intersects that with "30 largest companies in the U.S.". But there's no explanation of why that latter set has any meaning. Why 30? Why not 90? Or 1000? Or 15000? This is a set complement intersected with an arbitrary set whose membership criteria are apparently plucked from thin air. The question "What's the point?" is a valid one and has yet to be answered. So: What's the encyclopaedic relevance of intersecting these two sets? Uncle G (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I was about to vote keep, as I like it, but Uncle G has a better argument. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Models of Teaching[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, arguably a how-to guide in places. Orphaned. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be attempting to be an article about a book, and is categorised as such, but without explicitly saying so, other than a reference to a book of the same name at the end. It was also assembled over 3 days in May through a number of edits by a variety of account names, some which look rather single-purpose. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pedagogy, as this appears to be a POV fork of that article, as well as an article about a non-notable textbook. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow the hypothesis that this is intended to be an article on Bruce Joyce's book of the same name, then there may be a case for keeping it: see Google Scholar citations. However this would require a radical salvage, as the current article text looks to be at best a set of notes around the book, at worst chunks pasted from other sources (note the leftover I-voice). And Wikipedia definitely does not need another nth hand guide to "What is Web 2.0?" So Delete unless anyone has the energy/drive to do a salvage rewrite. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 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, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as revised, and consider merging into an article on Joyce, per citations noted above. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:56, 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) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Asura[edit]

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

Only one independent reference is provided and it's reliability is highly questionable (it's not in my opinion but I may be judging too harshly). A Google News search & Google News Archive search provide no hits. A regular Google search provides many links but they all seem to be self published, unreliable, or only a small mention of the group (not "significant coverage") from what I sifted through. OlYeller^Talktome 19:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - that source was the only one I could find for the chart position. Since it doesn't seem so reliable to me either, maybe the best action here is deleting, unles someone is able to save the article with better sources. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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) 00:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are claims where which might just scrape by the letter of WP:BAND, but as noted above actually sourcing these, not to mention the rest of the article, appears to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 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) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savage fold[edit]

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

Non-notable bondage position. Bringing to AfD due to age of article. External link in the article is the only "reliable" source I could find. Falls under WP:MADEUP? Redirect as a variation of the shrimp tie? Millbrooky (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I'd suggest this just be closed and the redirect implemented, no need for AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
improve needs more sources. other than that, looking up obscurities is one of the main points of an encyclopaedia, 'notability' be damned (in abscence of any sources, delete). also, 'merge' would be better than 'redirect' anyway --Arkelweis (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a reference other than his website? Anything, even in passing, in an independent RS? Hobit (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 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) 00:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are sources, Arkelweis, now would be a great time to reveal what they are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No redirect, which would be original research. Savage himself might be notable, but there don't seem to be any sources (other than the linked webpage), much less RS to suggest the position is. Article could possibly have been prodded. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:15, 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 merge to Sustainable packaging. Bioplastic may be considered as a merge target as well. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cell Foam[edit]

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

Speedy deleted, queried in messages sent to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unambiguous advertising of a specific brand. Has already been deleted at least once. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (See below) There are external references [43], including one from the San Francisco Chronicle which I added to the article. It remains a stub but I think it makes the grade as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 25 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, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything worthwhile into the articles on Bioplastic and Sustainable packaging. There's nothing especially notable about this particular trademarked product that can't be included in the broader subject. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing my opinion from "Weak keep" to "Merge as suggested by Freakshownerd". I was unaware of the existence of those articles, but they are clearly a better place for this information. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with sustainable packaging. However, it would not be appropriate to merge with bioplastics since Green Cell Foam is not a plastic and should not be confused with other PLA products. More verifiable content could also be added to further develop the Green Cell Foam page. Nusika (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it isn't a bioplastic? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:27, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Haig (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is a contested speedy and prod. Guidelines are clear, if we only have two articles of this name and one of them is the primary meaning we do not need a disambiguation page. We do not know if an article will ever be written about the actor, and if it is whether it will pass the test of notability. This page is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middle names don't count, so that eliminates a recently-added entry. The redlinked actor will never ever merit an article. That leaves one very famous field marshal and a not-so-well-known football club, which deserves a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primary topic plus two other topics. I've added the blue link to the red link entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redlink meets MOS:DABRL, so three valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I have had a look at MOS:DABRL and it's not clear to me that this red link does meet it. Could you clarify? PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." If you disagree, you are welcome to remove the red link from the blue-linked article That's My Boy (1932 film). Then we would still disambiguate the actor, however, but without the red link, leaving only the blue link in the description. If you disagree with that, you are welcome to remove the mention of Haig from that blue-linked article. If there is consensus to do so, then the entry should be removed from the disambiguation page, at which point disambiguation could be accomplished without the page, through just a hatnote instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the IMDB entry for the actor [44], only 14 entries, looks like mostly minor parts in obscure films, I don't think this person is notable. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to write an article and defend its notability. PatGallacher (talk) 19:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being an appropriate disambig page. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid dab page. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now, a hatnote has been created to circumvent the disambiguation page. "Douglas Haig" is directed at the person and there is a hatnote directing one to the football club. There is no other notable target that would need to be disambiguated at this time. Tavix | Talk 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is, per MOS:DABMENTION. I mentioned that above, but it was still incorrectly deleted from the dab on 10:03, 29 July 2010[45] (before your !vote) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That guy is not notable. Tavix | Talk 04:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not notable, then he shouldn't be noted on the linked article. "If there is consensus to do so, then the entry should be removed from the disambiguation page, at which point disambiguation could be accomplished without the page, through just a hatnote instead." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references to the actor Douglas Haig I could find were in cast listings of films, so, by a lack of sources, an article on this person is unlikely ever to be written, or, if it is, likely to be removed as insufficiently notable. --Lambiam 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard practice where there are only two topics for an article title and one is a primary topic is to use hatnotes. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But until there are only two topics, the standard practice is to use a disambiguation page, as in this case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are (apparently) three possible entities that a person searching on "Douglas Haig" could be looking for, it appears. Obviously over 99% (I would guess) of people searching on "Douglas Haig" are looking for Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. The hatnote in that article is for the other <1%. But what are those <1% looking for? Who knows? They may be looking for the Argentine football team, the actor, or another person. I don't want to make the judgment that no one of these <1% are looking for the actor. The only harm in keeping the disambig page is that it will add an extra click for people looking for the football club. I think the trade-off is worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 3 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 speedy delete. A9, since the band was just deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Girls (2nd nomination)). Olaf Davis (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debut (City Girls album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album by non-notable band; see below. Rodhull andemu 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with it, it shouldn't be deleted!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylove04 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; band fails WP:MUSIC and is not going to survive its afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City Girls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND; all sources are self-published or passing/promotional references. Charting on specialist charts doesn't qualify. Rodhull andemu 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I'd forgotten about the previous AfD but in respect of that, my opinion hasn't changed. That discussion hinged on general notability as evidenced by newspapers reports (arguably promotional in nature and probably based on press releases rather than actual journalistic research an analysis). That isn't good enough; WP:BAND is the touchstone for musical acts, and this band just don't cut it on any of the criteria listed there. Rodhull andemu 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless someone else can find any greater evidence of notability than what the page offers. (Google doesn't help much.) — e. ripley\^talk 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no real evidence coverage supplied is not good enough for general notability. If you're notable by wp:n, you're notable, no need to look at secondary guides. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 21 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, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears not to pass WP:BAND. One and only release is a non-charting MP3-only album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG is a catchall for satisfying WP:N, which is the criteria that matters. All of that aside, which reliable sources indicates the GNG criteria? Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 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 keep -- no delete votes standing, deletion rationale based on a misunderstanding of WP:N. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US F1 Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/US F1 Team

US F1 Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

this team never surfaced and therefore isnt notable enough to have an articleUSERPAGE HERE (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Article is heavily referenced and relevant as it's rise and demise was heavily publicized, nominee may be abusing AFD system. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per The359. Nothing wrong with this article. Mauler90 _talk 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again there is nothing wrong with it --92.0.235.86 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Significant episode in the history of F1, article is well referenced and fully complies. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:14, 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.

^ Asha, Rebecca. Radio Karate. Your Industry Magazine. Retrieved on 2010-07-20.

[1] Asha, Rebecca. Radio Karate. Your Industry Magazine. Retrieved on 2010-07-20.

[1]