Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 18

< 17 March	19 March >

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 keep and move to Murder of Muhamad Husain Kadir in order to rewrite the article about the event as a whole. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Richmond Jr.[edit]

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

BLP landmine that has no specific citations and has been tagged for POV since 2007. Richmond was convicted for a single crime and does not meet the criteria for WP:PERP, so this appears to be a WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/rework to preserve the information - the incident seems notable. Here is a collection of source and there are more out there. How about rename/rework the article to something link Muhammad Hussain Kadir Killing IQinn (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I requested userification of the article on Jeffrey Waruch here. Waruch was the other GI involved in this incident. Some reports asserted that Sergeant Waruch invented or exagerrted the allegations against Richmond in order to undermine his credibility, because he expected Richmond to testify against him for shooting an Iraqi mom and two of her children. The result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_Waruch was "merge then delete". But it looks like the Jeffrey Waruch article was not merged, just deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to potential closing administrators -- I think my request for Jeffrey Waruch be userified is a reasonable one. I'd like to review the userified Jeffrey Waruch article prior to weighing in on the idea of changing this aritcle to an article on the incident(s). I'd like to request this {{afd}} be relisted after the DRV on the userification of Jeffrey Waruch is concluded. Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just supported your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 19#Jeffrey Waruch. Userfication in this situation shouldn't be overly controversial, so if an uninvolved admin is willing to restore it for you, the DRV could easily be closed before this AFD has run its course. --RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Userfication request seems reasonable to me, unless anyone can articulate a reason why it would not be a reasonable approach. I would just ask that all of us commenting here be notified when/if it is re-AfD'd.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Jeffrey Waruch was userified to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch. It is not extensive. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and fix from a biography to an article about the incident. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite per Iqinn and Bahamut. See, for example, Murder of Yang Xin, which went through a similar process. The individual does not warrant an article, but the incident might. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and change -- I wrote the first draft of this article in 2005. I too agree that, as per the standards of 2010, the incident should be covered in a single article. The relevant, policy compliant details of both Richmond and Waruch's roles covered there. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie S93^❤ 15:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay obelisks[edit]

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

Contested Prod. The article has only one source, a community newsletter. Google picks up little else, except on www.celticnz.co.nz, which is not a reliable source either. GregJackP (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are provided or available. The interpretation given to these rocks in this article is part of Martin Doutré's broader "Ancient Celtic New Zealand" theory, which has not found mainstream support. --Avenue (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Avenue (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial nonsense. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an article under a similar title was speedily deleted a week or so ago. Here is the log entry.

21:53, 10 March 2010 WereSpielChequers (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bombay standing stones" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: blatant hoax)

--Avenue (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't want to sound mean, but an article about three big rocks [1] should be deleted. And someone should remove the sentance from Bombay Hills. Buggie111 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lunatic fringe. Editor has a history of creating similar articles.-gadfium 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rocks aren't notable unless they have a claim to notability, like Uluru. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lunatic fringe material as per Avenue and Gadfium. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three rocks are not notable. Three rocks linked to fringe theories are not notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - loonytoons, like most of this editor's work. andy (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above - SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per above, clearly synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New York City Subway rolling stock#R-type listing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R55 (New York City Subway car)[edit]

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

The car is not notable and the only reference given says that it's a passenger car that was not purchased, nothing further. In Gene Sansone's New York Subways: An Illustrated History of New York City's Transit Cars, a rather authoritative book which I happen to have on loan from the library, I could not find any mention of it. I couldn't find any sources except from forums. I know people are curious about the subway cars, but this car was never manufactured and thus not publicized except within inner circles. Therefore it may be true that there can be nothing said about this rolling stock that isn't original research. (Also interesting to note that the article was originally named R83 (New York City Subway car), then was moved to this place.) Tinlinkin (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable per Tinlinkin's reasons above. No content on the page either, just a bunch of templates. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some article on New York subway cars. I don't know what articles are out there; someone can find one. Dew Kane (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New York City Subway rolling stock#R-type listing includes the R55, but the R55's evolution to the R68 is still unsupported with reliable sources. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if it wasn't manufactured (or somehow otherwise relevant), all the above apply. Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Batwoman. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batwoman: Detective Comics[edit]

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

Collecting plot summaries of 5 story arcs under the faulty premise that by changing the trade dress of the cover the publisher changed the title of the magazine. The comic was solicited and title in the indicia as Detective Comics, making this a flawed premise. It is possible that the arcs, if notable, could support individual articles, but not this way. J Greb (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against Batwoman: Detective Comics essentially constitutes a meta-story arc by a single writer. It makes moer sense to group all the sub-story arcs into one article then spread them out over several smaller articles. If anything the article should be merged into the main Detective Comics article, but in my opinion, that would make the article too cluttered. --Marcus Brute (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument seems to be more a criticism solely of the article's title (would calling it Detective Comics (Batwoman) or something similar solve the problem?) than its subject.--Marcus Brute (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a reliable source that covers the 12 issues, 4 of which have yet to be published, "A" stories as a "meta-story arc"? Let alone the "B" story as part of it?
If it is a "meta-story arc", then it should have a story title which is what an article would be titled. But notability would still need to be demonstrated.
Without that reliable source as a "meta-story arc", the 2 Batwoman stories that are completed, the one that is on going, and the Question story could be spun into their own article. Again, that is if notability can be provided.
Last, if this article exists because an editor wants to interpret what they are reading in a years worth Detective Comics in a particular way, then it is original research and belongs somewhere other than here.

- J Greb (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Detective Comics, this is just that title with Batwoman as the main character, it isn't a new title. Equally the contents are very slim and unlikely to meet WP:N in its own right. As always it would be better off to build up well sourced out-of-universe material on the main article and if it looks like there are good grounds for a split then we can discuss it. (Emperor (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Batwoman in a much reduced form until it's clear whether it is significant and warrants a larger entry. Also merge as a minor afterthought - if at all - to Detective Comics. Archiveangel (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The series hasn't been retitled; it just says "Batwoman in 'Detective Comics'" on the cover where it used to say "Batman in 'Detective Comics'". It's still Detective Comics according to the indicia. Batman wasn't in the title for its first two years either. —Chowbok ☠ 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Batwoman. Warrah (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Raciti[edit]

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

I created this article after the subject emailed me so as to avoid any COI issues with him creating it himself. That said, I'm not sure about notability, so I am bringing this to AFD for a wider audience. We have this brief write-up in the Southern Courier, a Sydney "community newspaper" (not sure what that means). There are also two write-ups in the (student-produced?) newspaper at the university where he used to lecture. There is an entry in a trade group's news archive. Finally, there is this mention from an alma mater.

Thoughts? I have no opinion yet. Chaser (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability apparent. Royal Society of Arts has 27,000 fellows who gain that designation for a fee. Creator of article should study WP notability requirements before creating more articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources appear to be reliable per WP:BIO. An encyclopaedia is only as good as its sources: without reliable sources, we have an unreliable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above observations collectively paint a pretty clear picture. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treeball[edit]

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

Not notable, very VERY brief article. It was originally tagged for CSD as vandalism, but it's not pure vandalism. Bringing to AFD instead. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe not vandalism, but I think it still deserves a non-malicious speedy delete as being totally unremarkable and unsourced. -Quartermaster (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up one day fails GNG Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is set to revolutionize outdoor field sports. When that revolution actualy happens, then an article might make sense. Until then, it's just something made up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails to meet the requirements of WP:V. — Satori Son 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a hoax. Written in March 2010 forecasting for Spring 2009? Not notable regardless. --Bejnar (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to the support of others and the withdrawl of the nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Brown[edit]

~~Article only states that they are a finalist in a competition that already has an article about it. Upon investigating it seems that they have been 'eliminated' and are now out of the compaction.~~ Wintonian (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we simply redirect to the season 9 page, which is how the other finalists with minimal press coverage are currently treated.--Milowent (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not enough information is listed as is currently mentioned, then redirect. If the article is greatly improved, then let stand. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As she once said "You gotta turn noes into yesses". She was on Idol once. Didn;t make the cut. Now she's back. She's gonna be better.--Banananana88 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passes criteria #9 and #12 of WP:MUSIC.--Banananana88 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your opinion that she wont simply be eliminated again carries no weight in this AFD. And no, it certainly does not pass #12, she was not the subject of an episode of American Idol, she was simply on an episode of American Idol. Passing criteria #9 is debatable, as simply being on American Idol does not mean one necessarily placed in the competition. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait and see until she finishes her interviews before decide whether or not she pass #12. She definitely passed #9, she has placed 12th in the finals. Her cameo in season 8, with her sing-off with Megan Joy, also counts as additional notability because it places her in 2 seasons.--Banananana88 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not include people based on what they might do, we include people based on what they have already done. We are not in the business of predicting the future. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been added to the music and television discussions?--Banananana88 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - You just don't get it. She's been on the show last year. Almost made it to the top 36, but failed. She came back. made it farther than she did. But still ended up going. Yet she is still able to achieve something no contestant have so far. She improved her ranking from last season. That may not be much it is still two events. You cant use WP:BLP1E here. Apart from that, she also has done interviews with newspapers, magazines, and tv and radio programs by herself (compared to last week's eliminees) and she's not yet done. If I were you , who is so intent on deleting these articles, I will wait two weeks afterthe elimination interviews are over before nominating anyone here to see if they are truly notable.--Banananana88 (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Banananana88 has made great efforts to turn this into a valuable article, so I am inclined to now Keep. I also base this on the fact that for the prior two seasons almost every contestant in the final 12 appears to have an article.--Milowent (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Wow that’s a huge improvement in a short time, yesterday the article only stated their name and that they took part in the Competition . Great work, I withdraw the request.--Wintonian (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't believe Ms. Brown meets either #9 or #12 of WP:MUSIC. Being the subject of a television programme is different than appearing on one; American Idol isn't a music competition in the sense that was meant by WP:MUSIC because there's not enough expertise represented in the voting structure to make it thus (similar to the editorial oversight that must be present for a reliable source). I also don't see that she meets the non-binding guidelines with respect to reality television contestants, because I don't believe it's correct to say that she was "on" the last season. She nearly was, but wasn't. "Other contestants have an article" is not considered a useful criterion; see WP:WAX for details. There will be plenty of time to recreate this if she actually does become notable for anything except this single event. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination was correct when made, but there is easily enough to make it worth keeping now - as Wintonian to his credit recognised. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I requested the deletion Alzarian16 has got it spot on and I thank him/her for their comments. I made the request due to no information or refs present at the time both of which are now present to satisfy WP:BAND #9 and poss #12 as well as WP:SBST and WP:GNG - to me speedy keep would seem to be the best option.--Wintonian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSIC. This should really be closed now that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Aspects (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but other people seem to disagree, so why not let others have their say and debate the issue? --Wintonian (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first inclination of her is that she narrowly meets both WP:Music 9 and 12. Though those who have suggested that 12 is more about just being on the show is not enough to meet this criteria, I am somewhat agreed. In my opinion though, she has placed respectively in the competition and has taken part notabaly twice. The article is referenced meeting the first criteria (of WP:music). So Im satisfied to view this as a keep Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many references in the article and it has many information of her. She passes WP:MUSIC criteria and being a contestant on the top american show is enough for her having an article. Facha93 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the others and also, some American Idols who made the Top 12 have an article too such as Amanda Overmyer. --Homezfoo (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan salek[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's a nice resume, but there is no coverage about her. I suppose the claim to be the first Iranian-Canadian woman to run for political office might be notable, but I can find no coverage about that, so it is apparently not considered notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and it also seems the writer may have a WP: COI because he refers to her as Ms. Salek, as if he knows her personally. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability as a politician. If it can be verified by reliable sources that she was the first Iranian-Canadian on any ballot, then I might change my mind. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The claim is not that she is the "first Iranian-Canadian" to run for office. The claim is that she is the first woman to do so. I'd say that being the first to run is rather a poor claim on notability, as opposed to being the first elected. I would expect to see some significant coverage highlighting her as the first Iranian-Canadian woman to run for public office before I'd accept that as a notable, and that coverage is non-existent as far as I can tell. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum - After a bit of light scouring on the web, I've found this blog entry on the Vancouver Sun which is a major Canadian daily which identifies Sherry Shaghaghi as having unsuccessfully run for North Vancouver City council in 2005 which is prior to Salek's attempt in 2006. So even the one tenuous claim on notability is not true. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good catch! — Satori Son 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:POLITICIAN holds that running for office does not by itself support notability. In my opinion, had she been the first (insert non-mainstream ethnic group here) to win an election for office in Canada, that would pass the guideline. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenther movement[edit]

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

A neologism not backed by reliable independent sources. Footnotes 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are opinion pieces. Footnote 2 is a blog posting and footnote 3 is from an advocacy center. No scholarly books or journal articles, not even reportage pieces in newspapers, appear to mention this concept. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google ~~News~~ shows over 100,000 references from sources such as CNN and others. If you don't like the references in the article, substitute better ones, but at least perform a Google search. We are voting on the concept, not the current state of the article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Google are you using? Google Web returns 338 unique results. Google News returns 3 results, all of which seem to put quotation marks around "tenther". — Rankiri (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My typo, 100K in Google, not Google News, yet, Wikipedia requires just two good references. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia requires just two good references" - hm, I must have missed that one. Anyway, Richard, I'd be curious to see some of the "over 100,000 references from sources such as CNN and others" you claim exist. And I don't need your usual spiel about deficient Google skills; WP:BURDEN requires sources to be presented on Wikipedia.

Moreover, I will note that we still do not have any reliable media using the term in anything but an op-ed context. (This includes the three mentions Rankiri found on Google News.) Per WP:RS, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". We may cite editorials to show what certain people think about this topic, but the existence of the topic needs to be verifiable through neutral publications. Those simply aren't there, in contrast to, say, Birther and Truther, the notability of which is immediately apparent through a plethora of news reporting. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [2] seems like a reasonable source. I'm not really convinced that this is anything more than a neologism that's been applied to an existing group for whatever reason rather than a novel political movement. Maybe a merge or refocussing of the article would be possible - although I don't know where. The minimum number of sources required for a topic is generally the minimum that will allow a high quality, neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article free of original research to be written. If that can't be done then it shouldn't matter if a Google search gives two results or two million. Guest9999 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's definitely an improvement over the previous sources. As you note, the question remains whether this is actually a discrete topic, or whether it might not be better to cover it here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic clearly has some level of notability. The worst case is that we'd merge into an article like Tenth amendment and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tenther found 120,000 hits on google "Results 1 - 10 of about 120,000 for tenther. (0.28 seconds)" --76.85.163.92 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.85.163.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:BIGNUMBER.— Rankiri (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award for Good Neighborhood and Understanding[edit]

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

None of the provided references even mention the award (though the PDF may mention it, cant tell without it being translated though). While the issues that this award concerns itself with may be notable, not clear how the award itself might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could you say, that none of the provided references mention the award??! Let's see the English-speaking link: The Budapest Times calls this award Slovak-Hungarian award "For Good Neighborhood and Understanding". The other English-spekaing link (on the home page of the Foreign Ministry of Hungary) writes (already in the title): Péter Balázs and Miroslav Lajcák presented the "Good Neighbourly relations and understanding" awards. The translation of the award is not so correct, literally the name is the name of the recent article. Népszabadság is one of the most-readed newspaper in Hungary, as the index.hu in the internet. This award is so notable as any two-years earlier established award. And if you don't speak Hungarian, what do you think, why I wrote into the article the Hungarian translation of the award. In both the index.hu and the Népszabadság-article you can read about it. --Eino81 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eino81 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All four sources mention the award (though the 3rd and 4th one make a common spelling error when writing "jószomszédsági" instead of "jó szomszédsági", which means 'good neighbourhood'). At first I wasn't sure if neighbourhood is a good translation as I've never used this word in this sense but apparently this is the name most English sources use. Try searching for Good Neighbourhood and Understanding, with the British spelling, it is actually mentioned in several sources. – Alensha ^talk 21:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that this theme is far away from world headlines, but this is the only award, which stands agains rising nacionalistic and facistic moods in Central European region. Some themes, which had been discussed in European Parliament, were provoked by that moods. The award has to create positive examples of cooperation between Slovakia and Hungary, where this problem is the most amplified. — 14nu5 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The award named Good Neighbourly Relations and Understanding is of historical significance in the relationship of Slovakia and Hungary. The following search on the site of the Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs would seem to confirm its notability.

google:"Good+neighbourly+relations+and+understanding"+site:www.mfa.gov.hu

Karmela (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. No rationale for deletion presented. Article has been redirected to Attack Attack!. — Gwalla | Talk 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barham[edit]

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

Band member whose only notability is from membership of a band. WP:MUSIC states "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability", but author contested this. I42 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:MUSIC as quoted by nominator. You don't need an administrator to do this. — Gwalla | Talk 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as already suggested. I've found no sources to suggest individual notability, but "Nick Barham" would be a plausible redirect. Bettia (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sofawolf Press[edit]

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

The article is currently unsourced and I have been unable to find any coverage independent reliable sources. The general notability guideline states that a topic meets the criteria for a stand alone article if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the specific guideline for companies and organisations restates this. In this case I can find no reliable, independent coverage let alone significant coverage and per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states that "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopaedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" - without independent sourcing it will not be possible to create such an encyclopaedia article without original research. The company may publish books by notable authors or based on notable comics but per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) the notability of companies cannot be inherited and "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable.". Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked up Sofawolf on Google and found only publisher-related websites. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, mostly because the article hasn't gone beyond a stub in half a year. This interview of the owners by Anthro might be useful if someone wants to try actually building it. Don't know if Anthro would count as a reliable source for WP purposes, but they don't interview just anyone (other examples include Samuel Conway, and Bill Hollbrook of Kevin and Kell). If nothing else, it's another primary source. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 by Nyttend. NAC by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Jesus the True Vine Christian Fellowship[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. I could not find significant coverage of the church in reliable sources Jujutacular ^T · C 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:ORG, no indication of how it might be notable RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under A7. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Ears To See and Eyes To Hear[edit]

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

An unreleased debut album from a band that has a questionable notability. Under wikipedia policy only notable bands get an unreleased album page. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually almost nobody gets articles for unreleased albums anymore, notable or otherwise. See WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. As for this album, it will (apparently) be released next week so a deletion now would merely result in re-creation one week later. Also. don't declare just yet that the band is not notable. That is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeping with Sirens and that discussion is still in progress. That all makes this AfD a little more complex than it might seem. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the decision of the band's AfD - If the result of that one is to keep the band, then keep it, otherwise, don't. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clavister[edit]

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

I feel this is just not notable enough. It's an obscure Privately held company in Sweden. No independent material or coverage can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by retran (talk • contribs)

Delete agree with above, I can't find any coverage, maybe there is some in Swedish? Without souring though this article should be deleted DRosin (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The Swedish Wikipedia article, which is longer, still has no independent sources and was previously marked with a "notability" tag which didn't really lead anywhere. Tomas e (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources, no evidence of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage to pass WP:N

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping with Sirens[edit]

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

I found nothing about this band. There is no reliable sources nor can I find one. Except Last.fm which this article is just a copy paste job from it. I don't think they are notable enough to be here. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I musta been asleep @ the wheel and hit the wrong speedy-button. It's a copyvio of [3] and others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There is an AfD for the debut album as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/With Ears To See and Eyes To Hear. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantine Makharadze[edit]

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

No verifiable claims of notability. Claim of title "People's Artist of Georgia" cannot be verified in an English language Google search. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for his name in Russian or Georgian would probably be worthwhile. --Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone is able to find suitable sources. Ty 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encyclopaedic content, especially about a living person, has to be verifiable. If someone can present sufficient sources I'll happily change to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources can verify much of the content of the BLP. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 : this —SpacemanSpiff 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to deliver bad news[edit]

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

Short version: we're not a how-to guide. Moreover, however, aside from the how-to factor, breaking bad news is fairly well covered in WikiHow - and if this article belongs anywhere, it's there. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - was originally tagged for {{db-nocontent}}. I removed the tag as it clearly has content. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The entire content of this article was blatantly copied directly from the website http://badnewsconcordia.info. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Venturi14: I am sorry to have to be writing you and apologize in advance for this occasion. All editors here at Wikipedia are valued, and we appreciate all good faith contributions. However, I regret to inform you that the article you created, "How to deliver bad news" does not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. How-to materials are extremely valuable but outside the mission of our project, and we hope you can find useful places on the internet for it elsewhere. Also, as the material appears to be copied from elsewhere, management has some copyright concerns that I am sure you know we need to be careful about. Thus, although this article will be Deleted, we look forward to your future contributions. Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns, anytime. With highest regards, I sincerely remain, Yours,--Milowent (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fforde Green Hotel[edit]

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

Notability of the venue is not discussed. Article consists largely of a list of performers who have appeared there. No significant coverage of the venue is shown in the references. Frank | talk 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major local landmark. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources to show that? Frank | talk 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it to Wikiproject Yorkshire, there should be more expert input there. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. An aggregation of concert listings just doesn't cut it.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may have been a popular venue for music, but I don't see any coverage about tit that would establish it as a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Process-oriented Integrative Service Infrastructure for Networked Enterprises[edit]

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

This is yet another article on an Seventh Framework Programme, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. In this case there are only 49 regular Google hits, but there are some Google Scholar hits. These Google scholar hits are for announcements of the project, written by involved persons, and are not reliable, independent secondary sources. Article itself is written in Gobbledygook and is probably copypaste from somewhere. Prodded by me and seconded by User:Josh Parris, then deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet requirements of WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT or WP:CLUB. Josh Parris 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also patent nonsense: Nowadays the global competition is forcing companies to be more effective and agile, and also being innovative what comes to new business models. SPIKE will provide a new solution for building more flexibility to the collaboration between networked enterprises and finding new business opportunities. I defy the world to find any meaning in this string of buzzwords and glittering generalities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You appear not to have read WP:NONSENSE. This text, while vapid and poorly-written, is certainly not "patent nonsense" under the definition there. —Dominus (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claims by the nominator that the Google Scholar hits are "not reliable, independent secondary sources" appear to me to be incorrect. Some of them at least appear to have been published in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is the gold standard for Wikipedia reliable sources. For example, this item. The article also contains several references that appear to cite conference proceedings for conferences in which the authors were involved only as participants; if legitimate, these would also qualify as reliable, independent secondary sources. The claim that the article is "written in gobbledygook" is unsubstantiated; it seems plausible to me that it is written in overly technical jargon with which the nominator is unfamiliar. Either way "gobbledygook" is not a reason for deletion; see WP:RUBBISH ("the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion"). Finally, nominator's claim that the article "is probably copypaste from somewhere" is pure speculation. I suggest that the nominator should review the Google search results and the references cited in the article and, depending on the outcome, write a correct and substantive rationale for deletion, or withdraw the nomination. —Dominus (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [4], the first author on the source you provide is connected to SPIKE. This means the source is not independent. Every source will show this exact same pattern; they are all connected to the project. Abductive (reasoning) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The discussion shows a clear consensus that the article should be kept with only the nominator supporting deletion. Any discussion about appropriate content, clean up or a merge or rename can be carried out on the article's talk page. (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spastic[edit]

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

Article is simply not encyclopedic; primarily all the problems with this article stems from the point that encyclopedia articles are not about a term, they are on a concept.

The article is about the word spastic and how it is used. Because it covers the word, it covers multiple, very distinct meanings, even drinks products that use the term 'spastic' in the name, and people referred to as spastic who are not subject to spasticity, it also covers terminology in medical scenarios such as spastic colon which have nothing in common with the perfectly proper article at spasticity or the other meanings in this article either.

Fundamentally, the policy is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a poster child for what it isn't. Comparing this article with wiktionary:spastic shows that the scope is extremely similar; that's because this is not at all encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles are not simply fleshed out dictionary articles; dictionary articles are about the word/term, encyclopedia articles are about the thing or the idea.

Examination of the wiktionary article also shows that this is an adjective term; wikipedia articles do not take adjective titles either (per WP:MOS, WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:NAD guidelines/policy), so the article is improperly named; and the topic derives from an incorrect naming.

Given this, as an article (as opposed to a disamb page) this article cannot be saved, and I call for TRANSWIKI/DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Convert to disambiguation. I agree that this doesn't work as an article. The detail about Scope, cerebral palsy, etc. would be better merged to the specific articles, with this article cut down to a disambiguation page linking to the articles that could realistically be targets given 'Spastic' (or one of its derivatives, which should all redirect here) as a search term.--Michig (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedic treatment of a notable word. An historical analysis of usage, with appropriate citations. Similar to negro and gay and many others. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles on words are very rarely valid. This is not an exceptional article, and there is no evidence that it will ever be so.- Wolfkeeper 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to be an "exception article" has never been a valid criteria for AFD. As for your claim that articles on words are very rarely valid, I suggest you visit Category:Words. There are hundreds of articles on words that debunk the "otherstuff" allegation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's simply not true; Most of the articles in Category:Words are about a topic, not a word, not the actual term, but they are all associated with a common word. And they rarely if ever try to define the title in significantly different ways as this one does, and I invite you to check this by clicking on articles in that category at random; I admit that it is a very deceptive category.- Wolfkeeper 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles in the cateogry:words are a topic, not word, not the actual term---Er no. While there are some sections that are on the linguistics of words, we have entire subcategories under words which are exclusively about words themselves. Let's see, we have Category:Words and phrases by language which has 69 subprojects by different languages delving into words from those languages, we have Category:Magic words which lists words such as abracadabra, hocus pocus, and presto. We have Category:Greeting words and phrases which has words to say hello. We have Category:Nonce words, We have Category:Slang which includes Category:Reclaimed words which is where Niger, Spaz, Dyke, Faggot, Queer, Geek, etc fall. But there are 30 subcategories underslang and 169 individual WORDS. Then we have Category:Word play which includes both specific sords such gems as "Bushism" and types of word play. Not to mention the category Category:Words originating in fiction---Newspeak, doublethink, robot, thoughtcrime. What about Category:Word of the year and finally Category:Word of the Year and then Swedish Loan Words which lists swedish words used in English. So once again, your point is belied by the facts. Yes, there are categories for entemology, types of words, and parts of speaech, but if that were the only categories you looked in then you failed to do your homework.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if you weren't misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting these categories. Newspeak is about a branch of English (invented by a writer) it's not about the word newspeak, neither is doublethink, robot or thoughtcrime. These are all perfectly valid articles that are not dictionary-like, well-formed articles are about the thing however they are called, in any language via any word, not just things that are referred to as such in English. Check them yourself. I repeat, you clearly, at best, misunderstand or more likely deliberately misrepresent the use and purpose of these categories.- Wolfkeeper 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out below, nice attempt at an ad hominem attack. I did check them out... with the exception of "Robot" which has evolved into a huge subject, none of them are significantly different than Spastic. But according to you, the article in question is no different than the wiktionary article, which is clearly not true. There are scores other word categories out there, which are basically more detailed expositions on various words. But we digress from the fact, the fact is that you made the false claim that we don't have articles on words. This claim is demonstratably false. To which you make the allegation of "otherstuffexists." Again, Otherstuff is generally used in reference to other articles which probably should be deleted as well---not to an established collection of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that is not grounds for deletion and so far, everybody else seems to disagree with you. As for a good dictionary entry... er I've NEVER seen a dictionary go into the detail and history/evolution of a term that this article does. Please, provide an example of a dictionary that does so!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When have I ever said we don't have articles on words????? I said that the policy is that we should not have articles on words. And you're just continuing with WP:OTHERSTUFF, sure you can find some, and you can find some in those categories, but even there those articles aren't actually about words. The article robot isn't about the word robot; it doesn't include robot as a form of human dancing for example. The article we are discussing is only about a word, and is inherently a dictionary article on that term.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe that encyclopedia articles in this category are about words, feel free to try to add robot dancing to the robot article.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on words are very rarely valid---a notion which has been disproven. The question is, does the article extend beyond a mere defintion? If the article is merely a dictionary definition, then it needs to be deleted. This article is clearly more than a dictionary definition.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at WP:ISNOT says that words are very rarely valid. And if you actually click the random button you'd be pretty (un)lucky to find a word article. It's literally true in every way.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep completely disagree with nom. The article goes beyond a mere definition of the term to discuss from an academic perspective why the term has such different connotations in England and the US. There is no policy that says "words" should be deleted, only that words should be deleted if all they are is a mere dictionay definition. This is not. Furthermore, the nominator suggest comparing the article with wiktionary:spastic because it shows that the scope is extremely similar. Er, no, the two are extremely different. The wiktionary entry merely gives a definition, it does not discuss the term. As for other words, the user is incorrect there as well. Military brat is an article about a term and it used to be a featured article. There are tons of words that have encyclopedic entries, this is no different---and no this is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather the cognizant point that words can and do have articles here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT however, is not a valid reason to delete. The history of term as well as it's reception elsewhere does not belong in a definition, but rather in an article on the term.-. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User:Balloonman; there's a vast difference between a wiktionary article offering only definitions and an encyclopedic treatment here offering etymology scholarly analysis and , it has to be said, a context. Rodhull andemu 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not the problem; it's not a short definition or written exactly like a dictionary, the length is fine, but the WP:ISNOT policy says: however, articles rarely, if ever, contain several distinct definitions or usages of the article title. But the article defines the word spastic as somebody with nervous twitches; and somebody who is courteous to teachers; and somebody who has a lot of energy; and a type of drink. These things have absolutely nothing in common other than the word 'spastic'. At that point per the WP:ISNOT policy, the wikipedia article is no longer an encyclopedia article, it's an extended dictionary entry. We have to have standards to build a good encyclopedia, this article fails to meet them.- Wolfkeeper 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you'd care to take a look over this article to save me unnecessarily nominating it as a Good Article. You'll notice nobody is saying this article is ideal, merely that it meets the requirements for an encyclopedic treatment rather than just a list of definitions, which is the proper province of Wiktionary. However, I've said all I want to, and have other stuff to do. Rodhull andemu 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this article not any other, if you are agreeing that it is not ideal, then you seem to be admitting that it does not comply with wiki policy. I therefore find your vote disingenious, and note that WP:NAD is a valid policy for deletion.- Wolfkeeper 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not misrepresent my comments, especially to suit your own ends. We have many articles that are "not ideal" but comply fully with Wiki policies, and as long as we are being sidelined into debates such as this, effort is being diverted away from them. And the word is "disingenuous", which is listed on Wiktionary, spelled correctly, and as defined there, would seem to be a personal attack on my motives. If you're going to use words, please use them correctly. WP:NAD has exceptions, as do most policies. It's not a magic wand to be waved isotropically in the hope that it may achieve the intended result. Rodhull andemu 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're being condescending, this is an AFD review. The AFD review is a chance for people to improve the article to meet the policies of the wikipedia, lest it be deleted if it fails to meet a key policy. The WP:NAD policy is the second most important content policy, after Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and is specifically listed in the deletion policy as a deletion reason. If it fails to meet this policy at the end of the AFD then it is a dictionary article, and it is not suitable for inclusion and must be deleted. This is the policy. There are no exclusions in the policy.- Wolfkeeper 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr.... where to begin... But the article defines the word spastic as somebody with nervous twitches; and somebody who is courteous to teachers; and somebody who has a lot of energy; and a type of drink. The article does NOT define spastic as a type of drink. In other uses, it says that the word has been used as a name of an energy drink because of the connotations it carries in the US. In the history/development of the term, it shows the evolutionary progress of the term. The term originally was a medical term originating wtih somebody who has nervous twitches. By the 1950's, in the US, it was somebody who was "polite to teachers." The definition and usage of the word changed---which is exactly why this is encyclopedic article aa compared to a dictionary one.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what dictionaries do, cover the etymology of the term.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm: Compare to dictionary.com [5], meriam-webster [6], Wiktionary [7], The FreeDictionary [8], Newbury House [9], the Hasbro Scrabble Dictionary [10], Scholastic [11]---none of them go into the detail or history of the term and how it evolved and has been used. None of them talk about Peter Blue, Chaz the Spass, or usage during the 50's/60's. Not a single one talked about the differences in how the term is received in the US vs England! Again, your claiming this is nothing more than an dictionary def is clearly false as this goes so much further than that. The Entire entemology of the term per Meriam Webster, "Etymology: Latin spasticus, from Greek spastikos drawing in, from span". Much less that what is contained herein.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is, and has always been (I can refer back to at least 2002, and probably 2001) that encyclopedia articles are not extended dictionary articles. Otherwise you can take any dictionary article, extend it, and it becomes 'encyclopedic'. But it doesn't; it's just a long dictionary article (an encyclopedic dictionary article to be precise). That's the problem, none of those are encyclopedic dictionaries.- Wolfkeeper 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And show me a dictionary that delves into the social implications of a term? That talks about how it has been perceived during time? About how the term created controversy when used. This isn't just a dictionary definition, if it were, then you would be 100% correct, but you are not. This is more than just a dict def.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't give a shit about that, I'm not claiming it's a dictionary article, you're the one doing that, I'm claiming it's not an encyclopedia article because it violates the policy; it goes beyond an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it's neither (shrugs).- Wolfkeeper 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should revisit your nom, because in your nom you wrote, Fundamentally, the policy is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a poster child for what it isn't. You build your case around the fact that this article and that the one on wiktionary thescope is extremely similar. You attempted to say that it violated policy because it was nothing more than a long dictionary article or These are only and all the things that any good dictionary does. Now you are changing gears because nobody is buying your argument because it is flawed?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously incapable to understand the nom then, and this obviously explains your voting pattern. I stand by that exact statement in the nom, and that was precisely my point. Saying that it goes beyond a dictionary article is completely missing the point.- Wolfkeeper 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal attack? Wow, when logic fails you, is that your avenue of attack? As for missing the point, I think it is pretty telling when the vast majority of people who have weighed in are similarly incapable of understanding your nom and similarly disagree with your position.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call the other participants in the review incapable of understanding something, that's your call certainly not mine.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per User:Quiddity - we also could argue forever as to whether or not it's in accordance with policy, but I think its presence does improve Wikipedia and so I'm going to invoke WP:IAR Sidefall (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That at least is a position that I respect. I don't agree though.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Keep As a disabled person myself I think that this article is quite relevant to the world at large. Now and in the future, I beleive that this article will be a strong anti-force to the ranks of politically incorrect chavs that speak the term without knowing any of the backstory. Also I down right KNOW that this article is encyclopedic as it goes beyond a dictionary in defining the term. So I have presented my opposition to all you not disabled people who are deletionist hunkyjunks. Please people, vote keep!! Sheled (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see how being derogatory to 'chav's helps people not be derogatory back to you.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it goes beyond an encyclopedia article.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Doubtless the article could do with improvement but spastic is a notable term in ways which most words are not. It is entirely deserving an article in wp. The remainder of the complaints - particularly relating to the "fact" that the word is used as an adjective - are ill made and not compelling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All words in the English language and every other language can be considered notable by this flawed argument. This article defines a word, which is an adjective, defines the word in multiple ways, covers the usages, covers the etymology, covers the derived terms. These are only and all the things that any good dictionary does.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; the word is clearly also an adjectival noun-[12] and that usage is covered in the article. I think what should count here is providing information to our readers, and those readers come here to find more than they would find in their Webster's, Funk & Wagnell's, or even Oxford English Dictionary. Splitting hairs to make a point-and, as far as I can see, a very weak and lawyeristic point, does not advance the purpose of this encyclopedia. I might be persuaded to change my mind if you can find me a Professor of English who supports this (to my mind) unnecessary distinction; most of the Professors of English I've ever met, however, have been a tad more pragmatic. The volume of your posts as against those who resist your nomination speaks volumes to me, and tends to persuade that either your argument for deletion is weak ab initio or cannot withstand a proper reaching of consensus. Rodhull andemu 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a common English word, and we should not be doing a dictionary-like entry on it. As another example, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not have an entry on it; but it has an entry equivalent to our one on spasticity. We're specifically not trying to be an extended dictionary. Everything about this article is wrong.- Wolfkeeper 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy against common english words in the Wikipedia has always been there in the policies.[13]- Wolfkeeper 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "a dictionary-like entry on it". We have an encyclopedia-like entry on it. (and we're not Britannica.) Just as we have articles on phrases that have achieved notability, so do we have articles on words that have achieved notability. (Britannica doesn't have articles on phrases either. Not that it matters.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's because of the obvious difference... Britanica is constrained by the size... but we are not. We can cover things a traditional encyclopedia might leave out---not because the item isn't worth covering, but rather because the paper encyclopedia would occupy the volume of an entire library to cover what we cover!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahhhh. They don't do it because it's stupid: they ship with a dictionary, much like the Wikipedia does. Encyclopedias are supposed to complement dictionaries, not replace or simply extend them.- Wolfkeeper 09:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this is an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. Wikipedia already has articles on numerous other offensive words that are notable for their capacity to give offence, with a similar treatment that focuses on their etymology and social history, based on multiple verifiable reliable sources. This is no different. -- The Anome (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence: nominator definitely has (at least) one valid point: The "products"-section is out-of-place, and I'm guessing that's what makes the whole thing look messy. If you'd like to keep it and elaborate on the first two sections, it could work; but you'd still have to convince me of that, somehow... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue to discuss on the talkpage of the article; It is Not a reason to nominate the whole thing for deletion. See WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE and WP:BATHWATER (etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Let's see what happens, and re-visit in a few months. Weak keep Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's messy because it covers different things throughout; this is inevitable in dictionary-like articles, they move from topic to topic to topic.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also messy mainly because back in 2006, Balloonman spammed the disamb page with lots of inappropriate garbage.[14], which eventually confused somebody called WhiteCat who inadvisedly remove the disamb tag.- Wolfkeeper 16:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief get over it. The original page was nothing more than a dict def... I expanded the article into a more encyclopedic article on the subject. The article has existed for 4 years and gets about 400 hits per day... and you are the ONLY person to have whined about it... that should tell you something! The fact that you are the only person advocating the deletion of the article and have yet to provide a reason that convinces anybody else of the righteousness of your cause should tell you something. Nobody has bought into your argument because it is woefully lacking.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original page had been a disamb page, and you spammed it with a bunch of article text and turned it into that. And that's why it still reads weirdly.- Wolfkeeper 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom's interpretation of policy is decidedly out-of-step with most of the community. We do have encyclopedic articles on words, at least one is a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW there's over 3 million articles in the wikipedia, and over 1 million words in Wiktionary. My current best estimate is that there's possibly a 1000 actual word/term articles in the wikipedia and most of those are just badly written encyclopedic articles you can correct in a couple of minutes, and then there's one or two featured articles. They're very, very rare. I haven't managed to hit any so far by clicking on the random button, there's just far too few. And it's not just me, almost everyone here has deliberately avoided creating them and has fixed them or deleted them. The best way to find them is to go under a category like Category:Words, but the large majority of those aren't true word articles.- Wolfkeeper 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Blackburn[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as I don't believe Blackburn meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (particularly per WP:ONEVENT). His contribution to the Battle of Mogadishu was minor and I suspect this article only exists because Blackburn was played by Orlando Bloom in Black Hawk Down. I also note that various other characters from the movie have recently also been deleted. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there do appear to be independent, reliable sources, I do agree this falls under WP:BLP1E. I have spent some time searching for sources of significant coverage of this individual and haven't really been able to find anything of note. I don't think this qualifies as sufficient notability for inclusion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Shirik. This incident gets a one line mention in Battle of Mogadishu (1993), and that seems to be the extent of its notability. Certainly not enough for a WP:BIO article. Some content may be worth merging into the aforementioned article, but for such a minor incident in the context of the battle I believe that would be assigning it WP:UNDUE weight. EyeSerene^talk 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination and the precedent set recently with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Perino, Todd Blackburn probably doesn't pass WP:ONEVENT. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another bio article that by our standards is remarkable for being completely unremarkable. I do hate saying that, but that's the way it is. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BLP1E. Blackburn has persistent coverage in reliable sources. Googleing for "Todd Blackburn" black hawk with results restricted to those updated in the past year gives 359 results. Greenshed (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found 2,800 recent Ghits, and even excluding the usual cruft I found 802 Ghits. This guy has had continuing coverage, perhaps because of Orlando Bloom, but that makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if you remove Black Hawk from your searches... nothing, just his name on a few RPG sites. He's only notable because of the film Black Hawk Down, a bit part at best. Lots of Google hits don't make him any more notable unless they're covering lots of different aspects of his life. All the google count does is tally up more hits for Black Hawk and Orlando Bloom. It's very very onevent, even if he is notable for it. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did his fall affect the battle? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, it didn't really. He was the first casualty and was evacuated quickly (in convoy with prisoners), but aside from separating a man or two from a chalk, no real input or influence. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it caused a giant delay. My mistake. Delete Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/S_0234.HTM —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Shah Sufi Amanat Khan[edit]

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

Questionable notability. I can't find any references to this person outside of wikis and a few guides to sights in Chittagong (including one that's a copy of this, or maybe this is a copy of that). No evidence of coverage outside of Chittagong. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. If there are reliable sources that show that this individual is notable, then by all means - I'm happy to keep. But I can't find any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Procedural Note. It looks like this debate was started on 26 January, but wasn't included in the log (or the article tagged) until 18 March. So, despite the ancient debate (by AFD's standards), I'm going to pretend this debate is a regular March 18 2010 debate, and recommend that it be closed accordingly on the 25th (or whenever). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove copyvio. The subject is a well-revered religious figure in the history of Bangladesh. In fact, the 2nd largest airport in Bangladesh is named after the subject (See Shah Amanat Airport). Banglapedia states that the subject is ranked among the great saints of Chittagong [15]). So, the subject is definitely notable. However, the article is actually a copyvio from Banglapedia (see [16]). --Ragib (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article needs to be moved to the proper name of the subject, i.e, remove the "Hazrat" and "Sufi" honorifics. --Ragib (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I'm looking more closely at Ragib's notes, I see the part about the copyright problem. He's right. That page has a 2006 copyright notice on it, and there's no evidence that it's a copy of the page here rather than the reverse. Other articles that that resource have in common with Wikipedia don't share content. I've nominated the article for db-copyvio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast: it's gone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LendingTree. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lebda[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable person Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the founder's name and the extremely basic intro found here can be added to LendingTree, and this article can be redirected to there. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doomsdayer520. That seems like a reasonable option. This article can always be re-done if more obvious notability presents itself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Sansolini[edit]

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

R12056 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about this nomination. It was prodded just an hour ago, and the prod has not been removed, or contested . There's no need for AfD when prod will suffice--it just confuses things and adds to the workload. The nom., has been doing a number of these, and also adding incorrect speedy tags -- se his talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prodding of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the notability is quite there, yet. Happy to reconsider if additional sources about the subject become available. I also procedurally declined the prod - I agree that it should not have come to AFD with an active prod, but it's here now, so it gets its 7 days. I'll also check in with the nom, who may have an explanation that is not obvious here. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a few mentions (e.g. this, or this) but not quite enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I don't think. They're more about the organisations tham him, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. waggers (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth: 2025[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The only sources are a press release on a disreputable site with links to malware, a claimed award which isn't supported by the reference, a trivial review on an otherwise non-notable site (see the discussion regarding OMGN here), and the company's own site. Nothing I could find meets WikiProject Video games' list of recommended sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmm, indeed hard to find any single good sources, there are tens of thousands of fan sites, strategy guides, reviews, urban dictionary references and what not, but this kind of game didn't attract a lot of "notable media" attention unfortunately so few if any of those are independently notable. I think it does deserve an entry for being one of the first and longest running (1996 - 2009) browser based strategy games, but then again the only source I could find to back that up off-hand is is a blog entry on a site that trigger the spam filter (ezinearticles.com/?History-of-Web-Browser-Games&id=2670093). The site hosting the game (though not the game itself specifically) did indeed win a Webby in the Game category in 2002 and 2003 (in article reference is wrong for some reason, I'll fix that), listed as "Swirve" here and here. I think those Webby's alone should be enough to pass WP:WEB even if they are not explicitly attributed to this game alone. --Sherool (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the sentence per WP:TOPIC, because it's more appropriate in an article on Swirve than on a game hosted on their website. As far as notability goes, it doesn't work that way. Being created by a notable company/organization/person can point in the direction of notability, but the article must still be supported by quality references. Albums by otherwise notable bands are regularly deleted due to lack of references, for example. Hell, you won't even find an article on Blizzard's next MMO because, despite the amount of buzz and fan speculation, there are simply no reliable sources to base the article on. There will probably be reliable sources in the future (and there may be for this game as well), but the sources have to come first. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to address WP:WEB. Yes, the site itself won an award, but the specific content isn't mentioned anywhere in the award. It's like justifying us having an article on every game found on AOL Games despite that fact that they're otherwise non-notable and aren't supported by references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't rely compare the site to AOL games, it only hosted two games at the time, this an Utopia. There is nothing rely worthwhile to write about Swirve except those two games. I suppose merging Earth: 2025, Swirve.com and Utopia (online game) into one combined article could work as a compromise (better than an outright delete anyway) if others agree with you that the games are not independently notable (even though they where the only content on a site you agree is notable), though my personal preference would be to leave things as they are. --Sherool (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything in reliable sources that could establish notability. Keep in mind that just because the parent may be notable doesn't mean that its children are (in general). –MuZemike 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourced from blogs and forums, the subject does not appear to be verifiable through reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk)
Delete - no significant, reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eswar[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no refs. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article has only existed for 2 months, during which time several people have edited. Could it be given more time to see if someone will improve it more, to the point we can tell who it's about? If this person is a well-known (in India) movie publicist and artist who has received many awards, as the article says, it seems likely that he is notable enough to include. Maybe someone who speaks one of the languages mentioned in the article could check those non-english wikipedias and see if there's anything about this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.152.44.244 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign. Dunncon13 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced biography of a living person which I can find no sources for. The original content is exactly the same as when first created and there isn't even enough information to establish it's not a hoax before considering issues of reliable sourcing or notability. Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can substantiate it. Ty 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem appropriate, unless real references, and evidence of fact is presented...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a hoax. Jamie S93^❤ 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.J Eastman (Basketballer)[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I can't find anything that verifies this information. Beloved Freak 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Maybe it's a 30th birthday present to him from the article's author. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of ways to prove this is a hoax. There's no PJ Eastman listed here, and no Eastmans, period! Zagalejo^^^ 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7 or HOAX. This isn't a free web host. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax per the message on the article's talkpage.--Beloved Freak 14:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Room for Improvement[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Only sources are a directory listing and a download site. Mixtapes are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Debut mixtape from a notable artist and it includes a link to an interview given by him. Str8cash (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and a single interview is not enough to carry a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums, singles and songs. No evidence this mixtape has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about the mix tape. It's mentioned a bit on articles about Drake, but that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Sneed[edit]

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

Of local note only, WP:SPA article. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another BLP1E and of local interest only, per nom - Alison ^❤ 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in need of heavy cleanup (such as replacing out of date websites with archive versions), however going through Google News shows her being the leading figure named in news stories for more than one notable gay activism event. Consequently the BLP1E does not strictly apply here and as sources such as The Advocate are cited, the news was not only of local interest. There are reasonable grounds to expect the article can be significantly improved. Ash (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got rid of all of the dead links and replaced them with working ones, along with other new references as well. I also cleaned up the article a bit. I'm going to continue working at it. Either way, she is definitely notable because she is known for multiple events and is the leader of different, notable groups. Entirely not WP:BLP1E. Silverseren^C 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work, the article looks dramatically better. Ash (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google News link at the top of the AFD shows relevant results. The first one is "Lesbian tries to blaze trail against Arizona ballot issue" Detroit News - Jul 14, 2008. Others look relevant as well. Nominator should do a Google news search BEFORE nominating something for deletion. Dream Focus 23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Not only did I do a Google news search, I looked through many of the articles sited. Sneed is referred to in most as the organizer of the march for equality and a participant in Soulforce (organization). In my mind, that did not make her notable - one local event that is referenced briefly in other sources, sometimes with her name, did not seem enough to satisfy WP:N - thus my bringing the article here.

As it stands right now, all the references in the article are either WP:SELFPUB (Sneed is a member of Soulforce, so those count as SELFPUB), or are from Phoenix (local). The only exceptions are the Advocate article (Sneed is mentioned once in a 137 word article) and the Creators.com profile, but I don't believe that one is a WP:RS. I maintain what I stated - she seems to be of local note only. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 09:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creators is an actual newspaper syndicate, just as notable as, say, the New York Times. If you click home, you'll see that it's an actual newspaper. Silver seren^C 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? From their about page: Creators Syndicate now represents over 200 of the most talented writers and artists in the world, including Robert Novak, Mike Luckovich, Bill O'Reilly, One Big Happy, BC, Wizard of Id, and Speed Bump. Our talent has won countless awards, including Pulitzer prizes, Reuben awards, and many others. I'm not well-versed in WP:RS, but that sounds more like a talent agency than a newspaper. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources show her notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Huwail[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league (never even played above the 3rd level of Saudi Arabian football) and which fails the general notability guideline. The article was de-PRODed by its creator with no reason given. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks to me like a very clear cut case of someone trying to save a pet article from deletion. The player in question clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and as far as I can tell fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. -- Big Dom 07:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundsnap[edit]

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

Tagged as a speedy but I wasn't comfortable deleting it, so here it is. I have no vote. causa sui (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It is the largest high-quality sound library on the internet" and "The Site is VeriSign secured and users can pay using PayPal": WP:SPAM. I42 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His Holiness Ramesh Baba ji[edit]

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

Contested prod about a "renounced saint" (I'm not even sure what that means) that fails WP:BIO. All the citations lead to YouTube (or YouTube-like) sites, and the article reads like a big promotional piece. I know there is a category for internet personalities, but the subject does not seem to belong in that category because nothing comes up about him in Gnews either. Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another similar entry from the same editor. Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, does not provide {{WP:RS}reliable sources]] to satisfy notability and verifiability. Edison (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Check all links in the article, all are non-RS. Promotional. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramesh Baba Ji is a well known personality in Braj region of India - The birth place of Lord Krishna Braj is 240 sq KM area spread across 3 different states Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan visited by 80 million Krishna devotees from all over the world. About 100 years ago, this region used to maintain ecological balance among natural elements such as water, temperature, mountains, greenary etc. However in last 60 years or so the local governments have started commercial activities such as distributing the mountain area on lease for mining which alone has causeed serious damage to the area. He was only person standing alone against it. With his restless continious efforts for over 50 years, the mountain area is now handed over to the forest department. This will contribute to making the region green and healthy.

You can see glimpses of the movement in following link which contains local media coverage of the issue:

[[17]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brajdhamseva (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — Brajdhamseva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - This article is no way encyclopedic and promotes an individual. Nefirious (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete -- This article documents efforts to preserve environment in a neglected area. Links are pointing to the individual leading the effort throuh "creative" techniques, hence the personality should be considered a creative professional. There are many news items in the US and Indian News media about this effort that are inspired by Ramesh Babaji. The commentator in these video clips is not Ramesh Babaji. See these video clips at [18]. Furthermore, R.K. Pachauri, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner has now recently promised to support the efforts started by Ramesh Babaji. It is encyclopedic, not promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you just pointed out talks about a follower of Ramesh, not Ramesh himself. And R.K. Pachauri has promised to support the efforts? Where are the sources that state this? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: online video sites (like Dailymotion and Google Video) are not reliable sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Interesting point is that he does NOT ask any kind of monetory or any other type of help from anybody. He lives his life with total dedication and dependence on Shri Radha Rani. Whatever is needed to accomplish the task automatically come to him.

This makes him an extra ordinary saint." Once upon a time, it mightn't have done. Nowadays, most 'holy' people seem to be quite keen on the collections.... Unfortunately, this article is very short on reliable references and high on peacock phrases. YouTube and so on are not acceptable references. What is needed is referencing from independent sources that are not editable. Also needed is a toning down of the adulation (or promotion) of the text of the article. Had I found the article, I'd probably have tagged it as spam. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article stands without any support or sources, moreover it is clearly promoting a personality who does not meet the general notability guidelines. There is no reliable source to substantiate the claims made by the creator. Thus, it needs to be deleted. Mozem121 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Mozem121 . Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Strong Strong Very Very Strong DO NOT DELETE It seems like the voices of 3 different non-profit "independent" organizations that have nothing to do with the personality and represent hundreds and thousands of volunteers in US and in India who have very limited access to even a single meal of a day what to talk about "media" is not sufficient here. And you are right Shri Ramesh baba ji is an "extra ordinary" person and to understand an extra ordinary, you need to have extra ordinary vision, mind, and brain which, I sense, is missing here...it is really unfortunate that efforts of those who are trying to become voice of thousands of ordinary people, and not "followers" are being judged by some who are spiritually empty...As some body correctly mentioned in the article, that in Radha Rani Braj Yatra (A holy journey of Braj), over 15,000 very poor and deprived people are served and fed, not just food for physical body, but food for soul as well, for 40 days without charging a single penny...not only that he never asks for money from anybody ever...and its being going on for over 20 years....this is just one event...there are scores of such events that take place every year....hundreds of thousands of poor are served with food, cloths, lodging, health care, monetary benefits etc....these are the people who do NOT have voices like us who sit in the AC room or AC luxary car and browse though their network enabled iPhone or iPad and laptops and drop a couple of videos and blog posts on the net....yes you are right....such an extra ordinary thing...for people like us whose life is full of materialism, it is more than a sin to judge him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.92.142 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 70.91.92.142 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

EXTRA Strong Strong KEEP - I don't care anymore whether Wiki keeps this article or not. Exclusion of Shri Ramesh Baba Ji from Wikipedia will it make "Weakpedia" only....Wiki will be UNFORTUNATE to miss his achievements and his personality. I would STRONGLY suggest the "Delete" supporter to do some research about his personality...by the way...he does NOT need any website to promote or support his selfless dedicated life...a selfless Karma is powerful enough make your presence felt.....I know we are short of numbers today...but the day will come when WIKI it will will ask for the information...it will be full of HIS achievements.... Radhe Radhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.92.142 (talk • contribs)
- FYI, those last two "keep" votes were from the same user. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual is not notable, and there are no RS to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment is for THE NEW ACCOUNTS AND VISITORS WHO HAVEN'T EDITED ANYTHING ELSE. Please note that this is a discussion not a voting session. Ranting will do no good. NOR WILL BOLD CAPITALS. Comments that only give your support without evidence will most probably be ignored - and can harm your side'd case. If you have some evidence - not blogs, forums etc - please give it. It's up to YOU to show notability, not us. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close and tag for db-move. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Gould[edit]

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

disamb not needed due to deletion of article CMG (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be more cause to replace it with Georgia Gould (cyclist). I would recommend withdrawing this nom and instead tagging it with {{Db-move}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Durrani[edit]

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

This unsourced BLP fails WP:BIO, especially WP:PROF. The closest claim I can see is that she is an editor of a journal (WP:PROF 8), but she fails on that prong because she is an editor but not the EIC (somebody else is) according to the journal's website. Arcahaaaeeeoo (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with nominator. No notability apparent. Why was this article not prodded before coming to AfD? Xxanthippe (talk).

Comment -- I would have prodded it, but the article's history indicates that it has already been prodded and deleted, so I didn't think it was eligible. -- Arcahaaaeeeoo (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Gnews searchers beware - there appears to be another person of the same name who has gotten some press coverage. Ray^Talk 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be a single source here. WoS shows several individuals called N Durrani, but they seem to be medical researchers. Of the 30 hits there for "Durrani N*", none seem to belong to our subject, giving an h-index of 0. No evidence of passing on any of the other criteria in WP:PROF via title, awards, editorships, etc. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Koloskov[edit]

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

Winning awards and owning a studio are not enough to establish notability. Marokwitz (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Marokwitz (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the difference between article of Alex Koloskov and one of his clients, Shirley O. Corriher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Corriher)? Why she is notable and he is not? Lepich (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lepich, How do you know she's one of his clients? While I assume good faith, are you somehow affiliated with the subject of this article? If so, see WP:COI. Regarding notability, refer to WP:BIO, the basic criteria is that a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Marokwitz (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning an award is sufficient to establish notability if the award is, say, the Hasselblad Award (although even this has gone to some overrated if undeniably fashionable photographers). By contrast, Koloskov's awards, though pleasing enough, don't amount to much. Anyone is welcome to take Shirley Corriher to AfD, but anyway should see "WP:Other stuff exists". -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moy[edit]

Keep Concur with Olaf Davis below and his reasoning in the difference in Band mates.--Dymo400 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) --Dymo400 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable member of a notable band; plenty of news sources can be found, see Daily News, AP, Chicago Tribune, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP CHANGED VOTE TO KEEP - see band mate for identical reasons for deletion Deletion Log for Other Band Mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.208.55 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike José Bordonada Collazo, whose AfD I started, Moy seems to have been the main subject of a number of articles in reliable sources - the one currently on the article and those given by Bearian above are enough to establish notability via the GNG to my mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMF balancing technique[edit]

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

The method almost certainly exists, but independent coverage with even a modicum of depth and detail seems to be lacking. There are pages from a few proponents and practitioners and these have been copied or parroted around the web to the usual degree, but I do not think that any I have found pass the bar of reliable sourcing. The obvious merge targets, founder Peggy Phoenix Dubro and related business Energy Extension Inc. likewise do not appear viable under WP:Notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about some kind of therapy involving chakras and auras, apparently similar to Reiki. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or similar to Therapeutic Touch, but I have not found any source claiming that it explicitly derives from either or otherwise should be covered there. Energy medicine would be another potential merge target, but that is a high-level article for the concept as a whole, and I have a hard time seeing this meriting weight. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be mostly promotional material out there. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)2010 March 18[reply]

Delete, appears to be basically a form of Vanispamcruftisement, spam, promotional material, advertising, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google book search shows a number of books about this magic healing technique (besides the ones which use the term to refer to actual electrical technology) as does Google News archive [19]. Some news items are just press releases or class announcements, but a few appear to have substantial coverage. Some are non_English and their reliability must be determined. It might qualify as "notable pseudoscience." Undecided. Edison (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that first one would have to rule out the non-reliable sources, spam and promotional sources, and press releases, and other sources directly affiliated with the subject put out as a form of promotion or advertising. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nausherwan K. Burki[edit]

Nominated by User:ArgentumOfOz; no deletion rationale^[20]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Please justify why you are removing this for the second time. Do you have information to the contrary? You can check the facts by going to Uni and Hospital web sites directly and verify yourself. thx 22khan (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently quite unclear why this person needs his own Wikipedia article. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a recreation of the previously deleted Nausherwan Khan Burki. Being related to notable people does not make one notable. Article's only claim of notability is him founding a charity hospital, but the article on the hospital merely shows Dr. Burki is one of a large number of men on the board of directors. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina School for the Deaf Bears[edit]

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

no WP:GNG assertion of notability; there's also the problem that it's an alumni organisation for a school we don't have an article for. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to North Carolina School for the Deaf, which is also about the school in Morganton, NC. I agree that the alumni organization itself isn't notable, although NCSD certainly would be. No redirect-- the title implies that this is about "deaf bears", and it's an unlikely search term. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article starts out "The purpose of this booklet..." and is obviously copied from somewhere. Therefore it should be deleted as copyvio. It should also be deleted as unencyclopedic garbage text ({{db-nocontext}}). There are no bears or a team named "bears" referenced in the article. It could even be deleted as a {{db-test}} edit. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry makes very little sense, the first half is about "this booklet" and how and why it was written. Huh? Very little mergeable content. Hairhorn (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G12, WP:COPYVIO-- Plagiarism sucks. Mandsford (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable group, presented in an incoherent article. Warrah (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO. Appears like a copy-paste job. Dew Kane (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge which I should have done bvefore it got here, but I hoped the author would havedoine it a suggested. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would leave a bizarre redirect. Should every high school in the world not only have an article but also have a redirect of the form Foo High School Mascotname? No. This article should not have been deprodded by you, you should have speedied it. Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep (non-admin closure). Rankiri (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series of tubes[edit]

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

The material is already covered in Ted Stevens. The article was nominated for deletion twice in 2007 and was kept both times based on the argument that this is a catch phrase that will go big time. So far it hasn't and seems to be only mentioned in the context of Senator Stevens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the phrase/speech achieved a life all its own outside of Senator Stevens. To merge it back into Stevens' article would make it overlong and a tad unweildy. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was a strong consensus as to its notability at the previous AfD two years ago, and notability is not temporary. While some of the material is indeed covered in Ted Stevens, the separate article does provide substantial additional information which is sourced. Given the length of the Ted Stevens article (and clear "undue weight" issues) it's not appropriate to merge further information to the main article - hence, the continued existence of this article seems to be the best solution. ~ mazca ^talk 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I did not have sexual relations with that woman was redirected to Lewinsky scandal. How about writing an article on Stevens' views and actions concerning the Internet and merge this there? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our article is cited in the book Wiki Government, which seems an adequate testimonial as to its value. We should not delete articles which are cited as this is disruptive for our readers and users. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mazca. Undue weight precludes a merge, notability has been established. Interwebs (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the arguments above, note that this topic might seem trivial to the layperson but is a very big deal for policy-makers and people in the telecom industry. Hence the many sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's already become part of Internet lore. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Everything counts (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the phrase is notable enough to merit its own article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most notable in its own right. The subject eminently satisfies WP:NOTE, it has received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. See for example discussion in 51 books. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - I can't say anything without just parroting. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: much more notable than it might seem at first glance, both politically and for the entertainment/internet meme/pop culture aspect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Man[edit]

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

Apparently defunct magazine, no third-party references Just plain Bill (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears the final issue of this short-lived twice-a-year magazine was published in February 2009 [21]. Could be merged to Dazed and Confused (magazine). --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Raymond v. Raymond. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There Goes My Baby (Usher song)[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Fails WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Aiken ♫ 12:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:MUSIC: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." I this case, it's probably notable because it ranked in at least two different charts. It was originally a redirect to Raymond v. Raymond, and was converted to a full article because a user felt he could make a better article, and said author wasn't yet informed. It would also create redlinks on 50+ pages. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark about red links is not relevant, as the vast majority of those links occur within the Usher template. Aiken ♫ 13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the album article. The phrase "probably notable" means that it's not automatic notability for a song to be ranked on a Billboard chart-- if there were automatic notability, it would be a "the rich get richer" policy, since nearly any single release by an established band (such as Usher) is going to get charted somewhere, even if it's no higher than #26 or #71. The next sentence in WP:MUSIC is a good rule of thumb -- "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song charted. If no more sourced information is available to be added, merge to Raymond v. Raymond may be appropriate, but can be determined via a merge discussion. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There's no real material to build a separate article specifically about this song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Wilhelm Klüver[edit]

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

A search for sources in several places have not succeeded, so It is not possible to verify the contents of this article. If anyone find sources I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Rettetast (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's related to Billy Kluver. I picked that up in the Google News link and it gives a interesting information, but it's still leaving the rest of the article uncited. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that does not seem to be the same guy. Correct name, but wrong birthyear, country and occupation. Rettetast (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Interesting mystery. He has received a medal for heroism which only 27 other people (presumably all Norwegians) have received, and the circumstances of his deed appear to be classified. I dislike seeing the AfD instrument applied to articles basically on the grounds of poor references, of course unless a substantial work has been done to dig up references, which I cannot see in this case. I'd say this person is clearly notable unless the article is a hoax. __meco (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched A-tekst, bokhylla.no, the usuual google-searches, DIS-norges find a grave database and kongehuset.no. Do you have any other ideas? Rettetast (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any specific suggestions, but I still think giving the issue time is more appropriate and beneficial than attempting to remove the article. As I wrote, unless it's a hoax, this man is notable. __meco (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the present status of findings related to this article I will retract my keep vote. I will not however support deletion. This article is somewhat of a conundrum, and I don't really see the big harm in keeping it for further investigations into the issues presented here. __meco (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Sharing the feeling that it would be sad to lose this one in view of its claims, I've just done a big search and found only one mention of him, which I added to the article. That source has him as second mate on the Lysefjord, not first, and the ship sank and is not mentioned as recovered, so how could he have returned to service on it? I was not able to connect him to the General Fleischer, and the discrepancies regarding the Lysefjord make me less confident of the accuracy of the article. It's also suspicious that he's utterly absent from Norwegian Wikipedia. However, there are 2 medals simultaneously created for WW2 service that the original editor may have meant by "H7 medal": it could be the Haakon VII Frihetsmedalje as someone inferred and that is depicted in the article, or the Haakon VII Frihetskors. Sadly there is no full list of recipients for these on no.wikipedia as there is for the preceding and overlapping awards, but I find no mention anywhere of there being only 27 recipients of either, and it's also suspicious that the article states he also received the Norwegian War medal, but the articles on the Haakon VII awards say that they are the third grade of the Norwegian War Medal. There may well be sources that show that the original contributor merely misinterpreted details and that this guy does indeed merit an article - albeit I think more logically on the 2 Norwegian wikipedias - but if so I think those sources are either newspapers that aren't indexed by Google, or sources like those given for the 2 Haakon VII awards, of which the first 2 look especially interesting. If someone can get access to such confirmatory material, great, and I tidied up the English in case, but in its absence and given the discrepancies, I can't support keeping the article.Yngvadottir (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just interject that it is not suspicious that he isn't mentioned on the Norwegian Wikipedia. It is not completed, and lacking an article like this would be not particularly spectacular. __meco (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is en.wikipedia complete! It would be pretty simple to translate the en. article; it indicates no one over there thinks he's notable enough to justify an article. But actually, I think you mistake my point. He doesn't come up at all, with or without an umlaut. Given the claims in the article I'd expected to find a fleeting mention, maybe with a variant spelling, maybe only on nn.wikipedia, maybe not even by name but somewhere in articles on the medals or on the ships.Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain the same position. I don't find it particularly telling that he is not mentioned on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I don't think that is a strong indicator of his non-notability. There are many orphaned pages, so it's not even necessary for someone who has a page to be mentioned in several other articles. Similarly, the fact that someone isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as evidence (strong or weak) that they are non-notable. In this case, with the circumstances of his merited act being withheld, it would be easy to imagine how he would not be mentioned. __meco (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original article - which is basically all we have to go on - we find the statement "In 1943 Mr. Klüver and his crew at the d / S Lysefjord was bombed by japaneese submarines outside the coast of Cuba." I don't think we need to dwell on how remarkably implausible this is... The "H7" medal - it's hard to find any specific evidence of the number of recipients of King Haakon VII's Cross of Liberty, which is the higher of the two plausible awards, but here we see 23 British recipients alone - and easily as many again listed in other issues of the Gazette. Unless "the highest accomondation a civillian can recieve in Norway" was mostly awarded to foreigners, this again seems spurious.
Basically, we've taken a terrible article making silly claims and polished it a bit until it looks superficially plausible, but the underlying claims are still completely and comprehensively unsupported - and they don't appear to accord with what we know about Norwegian decorations, which is where the claim of notability comes from. Shimgray | talk | 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well found! But I did find confirmation the ship was sunk by a sub, and he served on it . . . but as second mate, and he could not have returned to serving on it - it gone. So as I say, assuming good faith, maybe the original editor misinterpreted some stuff, but the contradictions and absence of mentions of any such extraordinary person make me less confident we can find the evidence to show that that's what happened.Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't a Japanese submarine, though! I'm a bit torn here - there's just enough connection to reality I can't write it off as a silly hoax, but the rest of it is sufficiently wrong and/or vague that I'd want to.

I think, though, we still ought to delete. None of the significant material is actually cited in any way - the award of the medal, etc - and all we can actually confirm is that someone by this name existed and went to sea. Shimgray | talk | 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of convincing arguments otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 15 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch White[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - article on a photographic technique is written by the creator of the technique. The references listed are Spanish-language radio or TV with no specific shows listed, merely dates, and thus are not reasonably verifiable, and given the WP:COI of the person adding them, should not be assumed to be accurate reflections of substantive coverage. Google searches using title combined with various relevant terms turned up only a couple of references beyond the creator's own website, not more than three sentences relevant at a time - an announcement of a photography exhibition and a mention in a book of photos, which appears to be likely a self-published source. As such, the page appears to be WP:PROMO. Page is an orphan. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV / radio show names are available and will be added to the article. Original source material can be sent, including historical web-pages.Gcorpart (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article to be written in a neutral voice explaining the technique and outcome. The mention of the creator is as a reference point to the existance of the photo technique, rather than self promotion. While there exists the potential for a conflict of interest, I do not believe there is one. This is a similar description to other photography techniques currently found on Wikipedia, such as panography. In this specific case, I would say that Pitch White is better sourced and documented, maintaining a neutral voice.Gcorpart (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: panography is not suffering form a notability problem, as a Google search would show; even if it were, that would not support having another article with notability problems. (And given that the preponderance of your own earlier edits were to insert your name and links to your work into article - [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] - it is difficult not to see promotion of yourself and your technique as a goal.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading your comments and looking into the guidelines, I understand why the links to "images of..." have been removed. Won't do that again. That said, I tend to think otherwise of the technique which has media presence, just little of it being web based, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcorpart (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hoping that the problem of being able to display a suitable illustration can be solved. Until then, this would probably be better as a redirect to another article. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Opportunities in Vietnam[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. in 5 years of existence hardly generates much coverage. [29]. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:ORG. The coverage by San Jose Mercury News appears to be incidental. English Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - just another WP:NOBLECAUSE that hasn't caught on. There's a whole raft of these Vietnamese articles, aren't there? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. Speedily deleted as copyright infringement. Wily D 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Fuel Cells - a different view.[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic; no references. Written like an essay representing author's opinions Peter Chastain (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place to store essays. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK (Fuel cell, History of the electric vehicle), WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY. Unsalvageable. — Rankiri (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a first contribution from a new editor, and although Wikipedia's rules don't permit essays, some of this information, if sourced to a reliable publication, would be appropriate in other articles. The article addresses the subject of innovations in automotive technology that have been kept off the market, about which much has been written. A lot of it is urban legend (many of us have heard the story of the guy who thought the gas gauge on his new car was broken, and found out after he took the car back that car dealership had accidentally let him have the vehicle that got hundreds of miles to a gallon), but there are other examples of assertions that are notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly, that's what makes it a POV fork. None of it is sourced, and the innumerable WP:UNDUE ("The oil companies are like drug dealers...) and WP:OR ("A friend of mine used to go up to Winnepeg...") statements make it practically impossible to distinguish between potentially valuable and utterly worthless claims. Of course, if some of these claims can be supported by reliable secondary references, the author is more than welcome to restate them in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Starting from the second paragraph, the page is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO of [30]. Without this content, the article has no meaningful (verifiable and neutral) material and will undoubtedly get deleted as a WP:POVFORK. Tagging for speedy deletion, WP:G12. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP Fork. Wizzy…☎ 14:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal essay which - as Rankiri mentioned above - might include a possible copyright violation Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get back at your parents[edit]

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

Looks like an original essay, which breaches WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:NOTHOWTO -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Article has had Speedy and Prod already challenged. Also, there's a slightly more encyclopedic treatment of the topic at Teenage rebellion -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Admin Closing Note - Acts of teen rebellion and experiementation has an AFD tag that is directed to here. As the article has been moved, a redirect is in place at the original title. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't think of anything to say that the nom hasn't already. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same here. — Rankiri (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLOG, also unreferenced (it just says titles of works but doesn't go in depth, and such references aren't substatuated any more than claims that Everyone Is Jesus In Purgatory) --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a well-planned essay, an instructive how-to guide, a well written, if evil, original work. I'm afraid that Wikipedia's administrators have to be uptight parents when it comes to policy. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's reason. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and under the circumstances, I'd say {{db-same}} for Teenage Rebellion. I'm the one who put the speedy and prod on the article in the first place, and if teenage rebellion is there to begin with, we should kill this with fire and reroute (nothing is substantially different here when you think of it). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Snow delete. (I'm a little on the fence about Teenage rebellion though.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the PROD because it was clear that the author was protesting its deletion. But this article has no place on Wikipedia. It's not a bad piece of original writing, but we don't host original thoughts or essays. I was planning on bringing this to AfD myself after declining the PROD. -- Atama頭 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and this article is original research. Edward321 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid moves are as much a part of being a teen as acne. We see it in literature and in psychology. So why isn't there a list of these acts on Wikipedia?

This was never meant to be a how-to article. The title is meant as an attention-getter for teenagers. That may have been bad judgement on my part-- yhis saracastic title framed the way it is seen. A better title might allow the point and the purpose to come through.

It isn't meant to be original research-- what act of rebellion did I mention that hasn't been done and documented?

Each time an author uses one of these acts as if it were an original plot idea, and every time a teenager decides to color their hair purple, don't you think we show them a list somewhere that shows how they are not being original at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdichter (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The preceding comment was added by the page's creator. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Renaming the article to Acts of teen rebellion and experiementation (spelling error, btw - it's "experimentation" not "experiementation") doesn't change the fact that "will scare most parents", "may only work on conservative parents", "may only work on liberal parents", "Why this is important for parents" etc are all unsourced personal judgments which violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there are any specific notable examples of behavior that can be supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS) and can be presented in an encyclopedia style (rather than a "teen magazine" style), then I think they should go in the existing Teenage rebellion article (which itself needs some rework). -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some of those comments have now been removed. However, splitting the article up into "The Classics", "The Wild Life", "The Counter-Counter-Culture", without any sourcing to support those categories being notable, is still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Purpose section is pure personal opinion, and if you need the For writers and researchers section to explain yourself, that really just reinforces the "personal essay" nature of the article - a properly-sourced article on a notable topic would have no need of such a justification section -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not some plaything, besides, your article looks like a how-to-do and a list of things like this would be bad for Wikipedia. Enough said, the article's going to most likely get deleted. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#ESSAY . — Satori Son 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion under A7 - Vianello (Talk) 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP HIV[edit]

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

Despite their goals are quite good, I doubt this group is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding:

Speedy delete (A7, group) the main article. Neutral on Tshepang Trust. Tagged the first one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Michalski[edit]

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

The described person clearly fails to meet notability criteria for scholars and the professor test. He is an assistant professor at a good Polish university and one day may very well be notable on en-wiki. However, for now and within the current guidelines and by established consensus, he is not notable by a wide margin. Apart from typical criteria, he is a non-tenured scholar, and has not published any international books.

Previously, after an AfD on this entry, it was speedy deleted because of the copyvio (after a discussion also clearly indicating that the person is not notable). Now this is not the case, so a consensus should be reached on the notability of this bio. Comments are appreciated. Pundit|utter 08:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Pundit|utter 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There are other Grzegorz Michalski (George Michaels) in Poland showing up in the searches. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough to satisfy WP:PROF. CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a !vote at the first nomination page. CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it here, just below. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have diffrent 4 Grzegorz Michalski persons in Poland:

economist (Wrocław, Wroclaw University of Economics)
musicologist (Warszawa, Chopinist)
2 others from medicine and work with childs

Here is disscossion about the first: Grzegorz Michalski (economist from Wroclaw), he is known in any places and holds positions in editorial boards

Journal of Corporate Treasury Management (JCTM) ^[1],
Business and Economics Journal (BEJ) ^[2],
Journal of Problems and Perspectives in Management (PPM) ^[3],
International Review of Applied Financial Issues and Economics (IRAFIE) ^[4],
International Journal of Economics and Business Research (IJEBR) ^[5].

if you take the ISBN links, you find his books

if you take his name in JCR you can find his works in Journal Citation Reports publications

locally in Eastern Europe his work in financial liquidity management has its own impact - I am against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.42.40.207 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are editing from Poland, from the similar address range as the editor of the Polish entry, so it seems you know the topic well. Still, all the things that you wrote above are in no way connected to notability criteria for scholars on en-wiki. I actually believe that these criteria are a bit too tight. I also voted in favor of keeping Michalski on Polish Wikipedia in the current AfD debate there (as according to Polish rules he rather qualifies, even though the votes are not unanimous). Nevertheless, on en-wiki this person clearly fails to fulfill the current requirements. If at least he was at something corresponding to tenured professor post, or had at least a couple of quotations (people citing his works) in decent journals it could be a different story. Pundit|utter 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as meeting several of the criteria for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were is copper found[edit]

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

Created by vandal editor, contains gibberish SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G1 Speedy Deletion applied This is a pretty clear cut case where the speedy deletion process should be used, Scarecrow. It was fine to take it here, but in very obvious cases of vandalism like this, next time just apply a speedy deletion tag and give a warning to the user. Nate • (chatter) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G1 and since tagged by user above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Roberts, Jr.[edit]

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

Biography of a living person with no significant secondary sources. It's been tagged for lack of notability and sources since April 2009, and is an orphan article. Will Beback talk 08:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. In addition, when I Googled for "james roberts jr" and "sensei", all the hits led to different martial arts experts that happen to have the same name -- and they're still all trivial mentions. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per author's own request. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jean black sequin jacket[edit]

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

I feel that this article should be deleted because, in my opinion as an experienced editor on Wikipedia, the article has zero notability. Aside from this article not being notable, it barely has any sources (most of which are unreliable), a non-free video that has no reason for non-free use in the article, a photo that has no purpose of use on that page, and a majority of the article consist of nothing but long block quotes. I've checked who created this page as well as other editors who frequently edit this article, unsurprising, 2/3 of them are Michael Jackson fans; this article, from what I can see, is clear fan cruft. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 07:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect much of the article to Michael Jackson#Fashion and delete the rest. While I disagree that the article has zero notability, the article as a whole seems to violate WP:UNDUE. And although it appears to be well-sourced, if you follow all the sources, you'll find that they lead to either blogs or just plain unreliable sources (especially this). The external links even lead to ABC News and Newsweek's front pages. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The jacket seems to have been mentioned enough to be notable in the WP sense. I would have guessed that 3/3 of the contributors to this article would have been MJ fans, not just 2/3. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I understand what you mean, I apologize very much, but I am not a fan writing the article. I am merely familiar on the subject. I went through and made more accurate sources, but none of my sources go to a main page, except to show the newspaper and story.

I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean by zero notability. We are talking about a superstar whose career began with the song Billie Jean, his black sequin jacket and white single decorated glove. Those are iconic, significant and culturally important, says our government. The album Thriller is considered culturally revolutionizing, and that is mainly because of Billie Jean and his attire during his Motown 25 appearance. Michael has always been a fashion icon, and now for the This is it, he was making a fashion comeback. Since Motown 25 he has always worn his black sequin jacket, white glove and moonwalked for the song Billie Jean. Those are all significant. There is a Billie Jean page, a Motown 25 page, and a moonwalk page. How can there not be a Billie Jean black sequin jacket page?

The video I use in the article is in the wiki commons, and used on the Moonwalk wiki page. I use it, because it is currently the only FREE picture/video showing Michael Jackson in his black sequin jacket. As for the other picture, it looks better than no picture, and I do mention it is not the Billie Jean jacket, so I really do not understand what you are referring to there as well.

The article is not bias by any means, and is absolutely significant, as it is the jacket he wore for every performance of his biggest song Billie Jean. I feel that I have done a very good job establishing the facts of the jackets significance.

I have filled the article with nothing but absolute truth, backed up by news articles, actual quotes, and newspaper sources. I have altered some sources to make it much more accurate and blog free, I do apologize very much for the use of the blogs and have removed them entirely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading WP:INHERITED. Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate your response.

I referred to the link ^^ you provided:

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

I have made many alterations, and feel that I have gathered a good deal of significant sources showing that Michael's Billie Jean black sequin jacket was adored by him. It was the look and feel along with his Billie Jean song that are significant items that made him famous.

The jacket would be considered a member of the notable persons group, which is indeed significant. He wore the jacket for over 25 years. It was a significant part of Motown 25, creating his super-stardom.

The Billie Jean jacket is more significant than any other jacket and is iconic to Michael Jackson and his song Billie Jean.

Thank You, DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't mean to come off rude or anything with the "zero notability" comment (I'm a fan of Jackson myself) but, while I completely understand that the jacket is significant to Jackson (he wore it during the Billie Jean performance, which was a highlight in his career), the jacket itself does not need it's own article. I can see that you (as well as another editor) put a lot of work in it, but, the article is clear fan cruft that is mainly quotes. The sourcing, is quite frankly, very bad; ref. 4 and ref. 8 is an unreliable source, refs 6, 9, 10, 11 are Michael Jackson fan sites. I stand by my comment that this jacket does not need its article. Although I do agree with Pyrrhus 16's comment (below) that mention of this jacket should be included in the page he has in his user sandbox. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billie Jean for now. I'm writing an article on Jackson's fashion style as a whole, and this can be redirected there once it is completed. There is no need for an individual page on this. Individual articles could be made for his glove, white socks, finger tape, surgical mask, etc, but it would not be appropriate. Pyrrhus16 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

Hello, No worries, I appreciate your courtesy and your response very much, as well as Pyrrhus. It must be crazy not only checking and verifying, but also organizing so many wiki’s. I can only imagine how many you probably go through.

I must respectfully disagree, as I strongly feel my sources fully prove each noted fact about the jacket. Ref. 4 is merely a link to the video of the Motown performance, the full version, and not a few seconds of just Michael moonwalking. That is just to show him in his jacket, and it being from the quotes and the jacket he gave to Sammy Davis Jr.

Ref. 8 is the EMP website, who hosted an exhibit showcasing the Billie Jean black sequin jacket and a single decorated glove. There was no song or Mr. Jackson; tickets were only purchased to see the jacket and glove. Two very iconic pieces of memorabilia, and as expected it was a spectacular event.

Ref. 6 is proof of the other fan being given a jacket; the newspaper is there to back up the story. Only 2 recorded instances of Michael ever giving so beloved of his away. Ref. 9 is the actual newspaper to collaborate the story, clearly showing the date, publication and editor.

Ref. 10 is probably a fan site, but proves nothing more than tour dates, and I will gladly find a more credible source. Ref. 11 is from NEWSWEEK, one of the largest magazine publications available.

I very much feel that the work is indeed credible. The 2 quotes are there to show Michael’s love for the jacket. One quote is by his sister Janet Jackson and the other is by Michael Jackson. Each source is used accurately and appropriately.

I am the only one working on the article, besides help from wiki help members. I would appreciate very much the opportunity to show how notable the jacket was. Wait a little while and watch how credible and referenced the wiki will be. The internet is full of fake duplicated Billie jean attire. Allow people to read, remember and understand the real story. If it were not significant Michael and Janet would not be answering questions about it and clearing up misconceptions of any kind. Perhaps the jacket is much more notable than you may think…I definitely believe it is.

Beside the Billie Jean jacket, the glove could very easily be made into its own wiki page, but everything else was indeed not nearly as notable as the jacket and glove. So I apologize, but respectfully disagree with the idea that the gloves along with others are not appropriate for their own wiki page. The history of the gloves and Billie jean jacket are absolutely iconic and notable from the most recognized person on the planet.

I strongly believe that if people were not even familiar with Michael, they could distinguish who he is by the jacket, glove, moonwalk and Billie jean song. Those three definitely deserve their own wiki page. Everything else I agree should be part of his fashion.

I respectfully ask you please, reconsider deletion of my article. Thank You So Much, DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, even though you created the article, it isn't yours. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And a further friendly suggestion for User:DinhoGauch10 - there is no need to respond to every single comment by other users in this Afd. Make your arguments for keeping the article once, succinctly and leave it be. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:DinhoGauch10, all of your sources are original research. Your "sources" show pictures and/or videos of Jackson wearing a jacket, which you presume to be the jacket in question, no where in the links does it say that the jacket Jackson is wearing is the Billie Jean jacket. Regarding the quote about the fan being given the jacket, the source does not confirm the story, they only report what that person claimed. Also, "I strongly believe" is not a reliable source either. This jacket does not need its own article, it can easily be mentioned with Pyhruss16's article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the above fashion piece, include the pictures. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but I am still confused on several things. How a newspaper does not count towards being a credible source. I feel as if I am not supposed to respond again, but my response is needed. The jacket seen on Michael for Thriller and Beat it, are they not referred to as the Thriller and Beat it jackets? The only difference is that Michael did not express his feelings for those jackets as he did the black sequin jacket. Michael never named his jackets, so we, when referring to them, call them what they were. The song name's jacket. I sourced and proved Michael's love for that particular jacket, also referring exactly to the Motown jacket. Obviously, he had more made, because he wore it for his entire career. That is not my opinion, that is witnessed by every spectator. Billie Jean is the only song Michael played at every performance. For every performance of Billie Jean, since Motown, Michael wore the black sequin jacket. Are what people witness for 25 years not a credible source? Especially when we can say everyone can witness Michael's performances to see him wearing the jacket. What am I or anyone else supposed to presume it is? I do not understand.

Are you saying that you can sit and watch every performance of Michael since Motown and say the jacket he wears for Billie Jean is anything but the jacket Michael expressed feelings about, or another he had specially made, that I have shown in the wiki page.

"I strongly believe" was never meant to be a source, it is my knowledgeable opinion on the subject matter. I in no way want to sound rude, but I am truly confused, I almost feel as if I and the article are being bashed, instead of thoroughly explained.

The black sequin jacket, signature glove and Fedora, where the only items Michael used his entire career, for again every performance, along with the moonwalk. Could you please explain why these very special items will not receive their own wiki pages? There is a Fedora wiki page, so that only leaves two remaining significant items from Michael's career, because they are clearly more significant than Michael's other fashions, and that is not my opinion, even though I am stating it, it is witnessed by analyzing Michael's career. However, I am pretty sure we will not find an account of Michael saying the name of the jacket or that it is the highest fashionable jacket he has and uses. But do not action speak louder than words?

Surely this will not make anyone change their minds, but it is important that it is read. Thank You so much again...How do I go about redirecting the article?DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck, see below) I have been following this debate with interest, and have researched it on the net. I believe that the subject is independently notable, due to the 'significant coverage in reliable sources'. The current article certainly needs work; the FUR video needs sorting out/removing, the pic is inappropriate,etc. But, AfC is a discussion to decide if an article can be fixed up. I ask the closing admin to remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. Re. draft of MJ fashion -that's great; perhaps one day, when that is live, this can be merged into it - but, that does not exist yet. I helped this new user to create their first article via WP:AFC, and their willingness to discuss here is commendable - yes, they don't know all about our conventions yet, but their willingness to discuss and listen is what AfD is designed to achieve. In all discussions, the primary editor has been extremely cooperative and willing to make any changes to satisfy Wikipedia requirements. Note, I am not, and never have been, a fan of Jackson - I strive to deal with all topics with equanimity. Chzz ► 06:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"due to the 'significant coverage in reliable sources" There are no reliable sources that discuss the jacket. A good portion of the article is filled with sources that are from Michael Jackson fan sites. How are they reliable?! The other sources used in the article merely show pictures of Jackson wearing a jacket that never stated was the "Billie Jean black sequin jacket". The article will not be able to meet Wikipedia requirements because there is simply not enough information. On another note, @Chzz, I checked the articles history, prior to the AfD you significantly contributed to the article, so while you are not a fan of Jackson (that eliminated the bias factor) you've played a prominent role in this article, which, IMO, does kinda give you a decrease in creditably since you are not an outside-editor to this article, just sayin'. I think the article should be deleted for now and then once Pyrrhus16 article is made, be redirected. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect with/to Pyrrhus16's Michael Jackson fashion article once it's ready for mainspace. One article on MJ fashion should be enough. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; per above, but after extensive discussions with the user and others, we agree the best option is to userfy for now, with a view to improvement and possible merger into an article on MJ fashion, and perhaps a redirect to the applicable section Chzz ► 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Get Paper[edit]

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

Message to me querying old AfD and later speedy delete, on grounds that this song is now charting in Canada on the Canadian Hot 100. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that it charted in Canada and is by a major hip-hop artist would suggest that we should keep this. However I'm not seeing discussion in any sources, so it seems hard to imagine saying anything about this song other than "it charted in Canada and is by a major hip-hop artist." I don't have a real problem with keeping, but WP:NSONG suggests it might be better to redirect this to Drake discography (where the substantive info is already mentioned) in the absence of an article on The Drizzy Effect (it seems pretty unlikely we'll ever have that given that it's not only a mixtape but an "unofficial" one). At the very least this article should be redirected though, clearly it's a plausible search term and Drake discography (actually even Drake_discography#Other_charted_songs) can give an interested reader the basics about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to prevent undoing of the redirect; simply being a chart single isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake_discography#Other_charted_songs has now charted on a national chart. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Probably unhelpful as a redirect but feel free to create one. Sandstein 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine[edit]

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

This article is about a protein name that is claimed to be one of the longest words in the English language. Information about the protein itself is already contained here. As explained here, chemical names are regarded as verbal formula, not English words. Furthermore, even if this chemical name were considered a word, this protein contains only 159 amino acids, and many proteins are orders of magnitude larger (e.g., titin which contains 34,350 amino acids) and consequently have orders of magnitude larger chemical names. The only notability that this name has is that it apparently is the largest chemical name included in the Chemical Abstracts in 1972. Boghog (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Boghog (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to Tobacco mosaic virus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I even doubt that this "word" was really published in Chemical Abstracts (CA). The exact reference to CA in 1972 is still missing. People refer to Schott's Miscellany, but he doesn't give any original sources. If it was really published in Chemical Abstracts in 1972, it should be possible to give the complete reference (volume, number, page). Maybe the whole thing is an internet myth?--Biologos (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is a useful redirect, unless this particular abbreviation (!) is a common one. I don't have access to the source, though, and so can't really speak to its verifiability. I'll take a closer look later on today, if I get time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notability the article claims is that "It does hold the record for the longest word published in an English language publication in a serious context". Most proteins may be longer, but have never been written out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link (while it cannot be considered a reliable source) may at least provide some insight:

Two chemical terms [one of which is the TMV coat protein] have appeared in the Guinness Book of World Records.^{[citation needed]} They were withdrawn^{[citation needed]} because they have never been used by chemists, and there is no theoretical limit to the length of possible legitimate chemical terms. ... This word [TMV coat protein] has appeared in the American Chemical Society's Chemical Abstracts^{[citation needed]} and is thus considered by some^[who?] to be the longest real word.
— Eric Shackle, What is the Longest Word?, Fun-with-words.com

If this is true, then perhaps at the time when it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records, the word could be considered notable, but considering that the word has apparently been withdrawn, the word can no longer be considered notable. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is an ellipsis in the title of the "name", meaning this isn't the name, and the name as shown actually could refer to trillions and trillions of different chemicals. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hurwitz[edit]

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

Delete there is nothing in the article to indicate notability. Working for IBM does not make him at all notable. Discovering two prime numbers is pretty marginal by the standards of research mathematicians. The only reference is to a blogspot page. No evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines. (Prod was removed with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Titanic prime, where he's mentioned. There doesn't seem to be anything else to say about him, and Blogspot is as always a terrible "source". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mersenne primes are very significant in the history of number theory, and, as their main article points out, were seen as mathematically significant as far back as Euclid. Fewer than 50 have been identified; they're not "just" prime numbers, which are a dime a dozen dozen dozen. . . . Hurwitz's results would have receive significant professional coverage at the time, as Google Scholar results evidence even though much of that coverage will prove difficult to track down. I've added a clearly reliable source on the main points, since the blog isn't an acceptable BLP source. Be interested in comments from somebody who knows what's purple and commutes (arcana warning). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that Mersenne primes are more significant than just any primes. Nevertheless, discovering two of them is not, on its own, a very major claim to notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF. Mersenne primes are notable but that does not imply that everyone connected with them is notables. The discovery of large Mersenne primes is a matter of having a big computer and being able to program it; the algorithm and the theory behind it being the Lucas primality test. The subject deserves a mention in Mersenne prime for doing this, but I don't think this alone is enough to satisfy the criteria. The second paragraph is full of personal information with no sources given which raises a red flag for me at least.--RDBury (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being mentioned in numerous blogs about fifty years after one's discoveries is a clear sign of notability. All blogs are not created equal. The MAA is reliable. Besides, I've added two books. Giftlite (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments of JamesBWatson and RDBury. This is essentially a case of WP:BLP1E (the event being discovery of 2 Mersenne primes), and sources given do not cover the person enough to establish notability beyond said event. Could certainly be mentioned in the Mersenne prime article, again, per one-event policy.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titanic prime. Article currently provides little evidence for his notability. Discovering a large prime is an nice accomplishment, but not enough to meet the necessary criteria. Perhaps, the Titanic prime article could expand a little on Hurwitz' related work. Jwesley₇₈ 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:Notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resort (talker)[edit]

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

DELETE. Subject fails general notability guidelines, there is a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Resort, as I amended the article with additional links and details to illustrate more clearly, holds an important place in the history of early internet culture. Resort, and its own popularity, predates the popularity of the web. Resort is a direct predecessor of modern social networks, instant messaging, and MMORPGs. It's been in operation for over fifteen years, has been used by tens of thousands of people, and is widely considered the most popular talker of its kind of all time. Fox (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) — Afoxson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I get the impression this is part of a larger WP:WALLEDGARDEN. While I thank you for any amendments you may have made to the article, there still are no reliable sources covering this subject to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very minimum, I'd like to suggest that the BBC and the referenced book are reliable sources. Also, we're dealing with an internet-based topic whose heyday predated the popularity of the web. Therefore, while a number of reliable sources are certainly referenced, it's unlikely that a plethora of coverage exists. There may be additional coverage to be found, which in my mind means only that more research should occur, and not that the article should be deleted. Finally, I don't see this as a walled garden. While Foothills, Surfers, and Resort all started with roughly the same code base, they all had different user bases, different staff, different cultures, different focuses and features, and all evolved in their own separate ways. Google, Yahoo, and DMOZ all have categories for Talkers, in which Resort is at the very top of every list. Fox (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a publisher of original research or thought, and the BBC reference only mentions the subject in passing (one sentence) thus does not meet the bar of non-trivial coverage. I will leave this up to the closing administrator to decide but ideally we need more. Lots more. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The primary purpose of the BBC article is to cover Talkers, which the article identifies the Resort as the most popular of. The Resort is not a passing reference, it, along with its contemporaries, are the entire point of the article. That article was created by an independent third party and was peer reviewed as per their editorial standards. Fox (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a reasonable claim to notability, however the article currently doesn't have reliable sourcing. In regards to the BBC article - this is part of the h2g2 project (described here), which is not a reliable source. From what I can see of the Internet Games Directory it is only a simple listing, which cannot be called significant coverage. If there is better sourcing than this then I would be more than happy for the article to be kept, but at the moment I just don't see it. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the BBC a reliable source as it's a well-known news organization whose h2g2 project has well established and accepted editorial guidelines (at the link referenced above, see 'Contributing'), including peer review of contributions. The Internet Games Directory book definitely has more detail on this topic, it's just that that Google book search is only exposing the link. Fox (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- h2g2 is not 'the BBC'. it is user submitted content hosted by the BBC. Peer review is done by other anonymous editors. They don't get an expert in each article to vet it. In the same way that wikipedia is not a reliable source, neither is h2g2. They might be slightly more picky over what appears in their edited guide, but that is only like limiting wikipedia visibility to good or featured articles - they are still not reliable sources. As can be seen from this link the guy who wrote this particular article got most of his info from ewtoo.org, another source which cannot be considered reliable. If the IGD 'definately' has more detail than can you tell us what that is? I am rather unconvinced by all these arguments at the moment. If this was such a fundamental part of the history of online communication and the internet, then it would have been covered by reliable sources. There are thousands of books and scholarly articles written about the rise of the internet and so on. If this is truly notable I would expect there to be some coverage out there, and it shouldn't be hard to find. As such I am saying Delete. Quantpole (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see me comment below on the BBC, in which I address the reliability of the BBC's h2g2 project. Also, the researcher from BBC/h2g2, a reliable secondary source, got info from ewtoo.org because it's a reliable primary source. ewtoo.org is owned by Michael Simms (Grim) [31] who was one of the core developers [32] [33] [34] [35]. His contributions are referenced in the 'LICENSE' file within the source code's tarball [36]. Wikipedia's policy states: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources," which "rely for their material on primary sources". More to the point, I think it's apparent that they (BBC/h2g2) care about the facts because two other people that the researcher is working with there, in the thread that you reference, are primary sources as well. "Jonathan" ran Foothills for years, and "Ath" is short for "Athanasius", i.e., Neil Charley, both also core developers. Wikipedia policy also states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies," "should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources," "the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". We're talking about a Talker here, not some religious figure. :-) Nothing in the article is contentious, disputed, nor exceptional. Plus, a lot of the coverage out there is spread amongst Resort and its contemporaries, for example, I recently discovered many more significant references for the talker Foothills, one of Resort's predecessors (which was just deleted [37]), that I added to the deleting administrator's talk page [38]. It's troubling that Talkers, despite their long history, despite their thousands of users, despite many still being in operation, despite thousands of references to them, are systematically being eradicated from Wikipedia. I'm not understanding how it's in Wikipedia's best interest for the general public to be deprived of this information. Fox (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lack of coverage in reliable sources means it is not notable. Really quite simple. Quantpole (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe that this subject does have coverage in reliable sources. Specifically, an amount of coverage commensurate to the subject matter. Please see my comment posted on '17:44, 22 March 2010' for further detail. Fox (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need to take a step back here. Wikipedia cautions against applying guidelines too strictly. After all, guidelines are not laws, and were intended to be interpreted within the context of the subject matter. This particular subject is nearly two decades old and predates the popularity of the web. How much historic reporting can one reasonably expect on a topic whose popularity preceeded most news organization's existence on the web? Of that, how much of it can one reasonably expect not to be a sea of 404s? How much current reporting can one reasonably expect on a dated, yet important, technology of yester-yester-decade, from news organizations that have a proclivity for focusing on the topics of today? Resort has existed for nearly two decades, is still in operation, and has touched the lives of literally tens of thousands of people from across the world. Countless friendships have been made, marriages have been formed, as a result of people meeting on Resort. Let's look past the letter and more toward the spirit of the notability guidelines. Wikipedia's "golden rule" is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". How can Wikipedia's best interest be served and how is Wikipedia being improved by deleting an article that not only represents a considerable piece of early internet culture, that is neither fleeting nor insignificant, but also has touched so many people, globally? Fox (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are firm policies, not guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt the claims being made, and there are no valid sources to back them up. Dream Focus 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resort is widely regarded as one of the most, if not the most, popular talker of all time [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and has been visited by tens of thousands of people from across the world since its inception.

How can it be the most popular of all time, if its visiters are numbered in the tens of thousands? There are older programs that have millions of users. And shouldn't Cnet or some other such site have mentioned it at some time in their long history? Dream Focus 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only claimed that it's the most popular Talker, amongst other Talkers, which is supported by the multiple references in the article. Remember that Talkers are an older text-only technology, popular in the mid 90s, well before the internet had tens of millions of users. Tens of thousands of users at that time was a lot of people :) And it has been referenced by other sites, for example, the BBC. Fox (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is misleading/untrue. It has not been "referenced" by the BBC, it has been referenced by the BBC h2g2 project, which is a UK-based Wiki, much like Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not misleading/untrue. The h2g2 project is an official project of the BCC [39]. The h2g2 project is administered by BBC employees [40]. The h2g2 project is not like Wikipedia; Its contributors need to be registered [41] and its contributions require multiple levels of peer review [42] [43]. Wikipedia's own article, the one that you referenced, on h2g2, states that h2g2 "has been run by the BBC since 2001," "It is often compared to Wikipedia but there are differences between the sites," "Following at least seven days' reviewing, Entries in Peer Review may be recommended by a volunteer Scout and accepted by the in-house team. When this happens, a copy of the Entry is passed to a volunteer Sub-editor for fact checking and general tidying, followed by a brief check by the in-house team" and "Articles written by Researchers form the 'Guide' as a whole, with an 'Edited Guide' being steadily created out of factual articles that have been peer reviewed via the aptly-named 'Peer Review'". The h2g2 article in question appears [44] within the peer-reviewed Edited Guide. Fox (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - [[45]] -- It pretty much is Wikipedia with a few cosmetic differences. In the case of the "article" being used as a source for this subject, it is user-submitted content, not an actual BBC article or anything. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        User-submitted content, submitted by a registered user who agreed to be bound by h2g2 editorial rules and the general BBC terms and conditions, peer reviewed and fact checked by multiple vetted reviewers, recommended [46] for inclusion by a senior reviewer who does additional fact checking, approved after even more fact checking by the in-House Editorial Team, who are BBC employees, and yet additionally fact-checking by editors. This entire process can take anywhere "from three weeks to two months" [47]. Once approved, the article may not be edited by the author; It must go through another review process. At this time, a linksearch for h2g2 results in one-thousand, seven hundred and ninety one Wikipedia articles. It would seem that h2g2 is a well-used and well-accepted source [48] amongst Wikipedia articles. Also, as per Wikipedia's policy: "the more people engaged in checking facts...scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". Since h2g2 is extensively peer-reviewed, over a lengthy duration, by multiple people, in multiple phases, by both BBC employees and independent researchers, I would suggest that it meets this criteria, and would therefore be reliable. Also: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The BBC/h2g2 is a third-party and its fact-checking process has been exaustively detailed in this thread, on Wikipedia, and its own site. Additionally: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process". Remember that we're talking about a Talker here :) Finally, conversely, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." h2g2 has a vast amount of editoral oversight and checking of the facts [49]. Combined, in total, I'd think that this amounts to BBC/h2g2 as being reliable. Fox (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Afoxson/Fox above. The type of sources used here are not published books by academics or articles in the NYT, but the subject matter is fairly arcane and isolated to the online world - one has to weigh that in, the sources are appropriate for the topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker) (essentially the same issues and type of article and sources and should be looked at as a whole). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Non-commercial organizations" criteria of the "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" section of WP:ORG, specificially WB:CLUB, states "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards": "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale," and "2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources." Resort's activities are international in scale, having serviced, and being accessible to users from all over the world. Information about Resort and its activities are easily verifiable by third-party, independent, reliable sources, because the service is still in operation, and the Resort's administration would be delighted to participate in any verification activity undertaken by a third-party, independent, reliable source, should it be found desirable. Fox (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - about.com, a New York Times property, has a paragraph [50] on Resort. Fox (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just as an interesting side-point, Warren Hutchinson, Experience Design Director at Universal Music Group [51], is reminded of Resort [52] while listening to a lecture by Sir Tim Berners Lee, the man credited with inventing the world wide web. Fox (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete h2g2 is light years away from being a reliable source, per comments made above; the Hutchinson quote above is a one-word mention in the blog of a wholly non-notable person; the existing sources in the article don't pass RS. This leaves us with about.com or, more specifically, results.about.com, which is a human-maintained search engine that spits out suggested links to typed in queries with a short 2-3 sentence description of what one might find at the link. Anyway, that this is the best anyone appears to be able to muster (and I certainly can't find anything else) is very telling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - BBC/h2g2 is not a Wiki [53]. BBC/h2g2 guides may not be submitted anonymously. BBC/h2g2 guides may not even be edited, outside of a formal update system. BBC/h2g2 guides are peer-reviewed and fact-checked. BBC/h2g2 guides are edited by editors. BBC/h2g2 guides come under the scrutiny of the BBC in-house editorial team, who are BBC employees. Indeed, Wikipedia's own article on h2g2 states "most are correct and well-written treatment of their subject matter by virtue of the Peer Review process". The author of the guide in question is not only a BBC/h2g2 researcher, he's also a BBC/h2g2 Guru and Sub-Editor, since 2002. The identify of the author of the guide [54], an IBM Manager and Lead Engineer, is well-known. Wikipedia WP:V states "peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources," "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts," and "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed". All three of these statements describe BBC/h2g2. Fox (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have missed the part where other people discussed your new "sources." ...oh, wait, I didn't, because nobody else had. Not sure what you're talking about with the WP:PERNOM stuff, and not sure I like your tone, particularly given that it's a completely inaccurate depiction of my post from above.
Re h2g2, you are repeating yourself, too. That I don't have anything new to say regarding h2g2 doesn't make my comment more or less valid. It has nothing to do with being a reliable source. The phrase "peer-reviewed" you use above doesn't cover h2g2. If it did, it would cover Wikipedia as well, insofar as my postings on Wikipedia are "reviewed" by "peers." The phrase "peer-reviewed" generally refers to, I dunno, the Journal of Science, or what have you. Assuming you have no new, actual, reliable sources to add, and are simply going to continue arguing that h2g2 is a reliable source (which is a non-starter of an argument -- if you want to save this article, my good faith counsel to you is to find other sourcing, not argue that h2g2 is a source capable of conferring notability), my vote remains and will remain Delete. I'm sorry. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you very much for your comments. I'm now seeing where the confusion lies. You're under the impression that the h2g2 peer review process is somehow comparable to the the way Wikipedia operates. This is not the case. Whereas in Wikipedia, anyone, even an anonymous individual, can create and edit (most) articles at any time, in real-time, with h2g2 peer review means that before an article can merely even be just considered for inclusion, it must pass a lengthy waiting period wherein it's commented on and fact-checked by researchers. And even then, it still may not even be selected for inclusion, but if it is, it undergoes even more fact-checking by actual employees of the BBC editorial staff, not h2g2 staff, BBC staff. Once posted, a guide may not be edited, except by again going through the same process. Fox (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but none of the above is either new information to this conversation or anything that's going to change my mind. I disagree with your assessment of h2g2's process, with comparing it to a "peer-reviewed" publication, etc. Continuing to defend h2g2 as a source capable of conferring notability is not going to change my mind on this. I'm sorry. It's not a case of my failing to understand what h2g2 is or how it works. I'm familiar with it and, as a result of this AfD, have spent some time digging around the site trying to learn more so I might contribute meaningfully here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A component of peer review is subjecting the work to the scrutiny of experts in the field. The BBC/h2g2 guide has been scrutinized by at least three experts, myself (a Resort founder), Jonathan Slomans (a Foothills Administrator), and Neil Charley (a Surfers Administrator). Also, it's reasonable to expect that other researchers were or became experts as well, considering the subject matter. After all, a chat service is not a particularly complex subject matter for one to grasp. Besides, the article is only about two pages long and a general treatment of the subject; It's not hundreds of pages of some deeply scientific doctoral thesis. So, with this in mind, what I'm wondering is, how specifically, in your mind, does the BBC/h2g2 editorial process not meet the standards by which you are judging them? In other words, hypothetically, what would BBC/h2g2 need to do differently in order for you to consider it as a source capable of conferring notability? Thank you very much! Fox (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Insofar as I fail to see how answering this question is going to push the conversation forward, I'm not going to respond. The objections to h2g2 have been made several times by myself and other editors. Furthermore, given that it's clear to me that your argument now rests on h2g2, a source which no amount of argument is going to convince me is capable of conferring reliability, I'm going to "fade into the background" on this AfD until such time as it is either resolved or a new point of contention is raised. To be plain, such a point would not have to do with debating whether or not h2g2 is a reliable source. I am absolutely, without hesitation, certain it isn't. And, again, I am sorry to be in disagreement (I am not instinctively a fan of deletion), and I sincerely mean neither you nor Resort any offense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A NYTimes article [55] referencing an h2g2 guide for more information. Fox (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in over two hundred books [56]. Fox (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in a Register article [57]. Fox (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in Guardian articles [58] [59] [60]. Fox (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect to the MUD Connector source [61], it's been recognized by the New York Times [62], has been referenced in over 50 print publications [63], and has received over 50 research citations [64]. Fox (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Afoxson for pointing out where h2g2 is being used as a citation. Unfortunately, and you may already be aware of this, an even greater number of books make the unwise decision to actually cite Wikipedia as a source in their texts. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because some books make an unwise decision of citing Wikipedia doesn't mean that these books make an unwise decision citing MUD Connector. Fox (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our own "Reliable sources noticeboard" the response there was not to use H2G2 as a source for Wikipedia entries, see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#H2G2 I would tend to agree. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no verdict, nor debate. Two people were involved in the discussion, each with a single comment. The first commenter, when stating "some of it is not [peer reviewed]" was referring to the non-edited guide of h2g2. Resort is listed in the peer-reviewed edited guide [65]. The second commenter likens it to a wiki, which I have shown that it is not. Fox (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that all you do is edit or debate other articles about talkers (many of which are now deleted) I don't know how you can justify such a claim. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Fox - If you don't mind me asking, what is your personal involvement or connection to this and other talkers? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack — with the search term: "Resort" "Foxson" (Adam J. Foxson is one of Resort's creators) — of reliable sources in Google Books. The links in the article are mostly unreliable sources, none of which establish notability. h2g2, which produces user-generated content, is not a reliable source. Resort (talker) fails Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi Cunard, thank you so much for your input. Unfortunately, due to the nature of what we're dealing with here, the problem is that a single search term only isn't going to be sufficient to find sources. I may not be referenced under my full name, it may be my Resort name, or my email address (or an old email address), for example. I may not even be referenced at all, a source may have referenced one of the other founders, or members of the administration, or even superusers. Resort may not even be referenced directly as Resort, Resort may have been referenced by one of the hostnames it was hosted on over the years, or one of the IP addresses it's been hosted on over the years, or even its website (or an old website address). Resort, unfortunately, is a common word, and Resort has been in operation since 1994, in which over that time, various identifying terms have changed (as above). These factors, taken together, unfortunately, and much to my chagrin, result in searches for Resort not being as straight-forward as they may be in other situations. Finally, I would be interested in knowing the precise reasons why you feel h2g2 is not a reliable source. Would you be willing to detail your reasons individually please so we can discuss them all point by point? Just to address the one point you've already brought up: While h2g2 content is indeed user-generated, it is subject to a formal editorial peer-review and fact-checking process, in addition to ultimately needing to be approved after additional fact-checking by actual BBC editorial staff. Fox (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect to the Alt.Talkers FAQ source, Wikipedia policy [66] states: "Usenet is typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs". The Alt.Talkers FAQ source is a specific FAQ. Fox (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect to the BBC/h2g2 and MUD Connector sources, and given their usage by other sources, WP:RS states: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." As the sources in question are widely used by both print publications and mainstream media, as shown in the above comments, I'd put forth that these sources have a claim to reliability. Fox (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The opposite of a reliable source, of course, is a questionable source. Wikipedia defines [67] a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." BBC/h2g2 does not have a poor reputation for fact-checking and has editorial oversight (citations above) by actual BBC editoral staffers (citations above). BBC/h2g2 are not expressing views that are extremist or promotional in nature, nor that are relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Nor are any contentious claims being made about third parties. Fox (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The NetLingo source has a significant amount of coverage in the media [68] [69], print [70], and has been the recipient of quite a number of awards [71]. Fox (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Living Internet source has been recommended by the BBC [72], Scientific American [73], SearchEngineWatch [74], USA Today [75], the Washington Post [76], and many of the pioneers of the Internet itself, including but not limited to Vent Cerf, Dennis Ritchie, and Ken Thompson [77]. Fox (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Reclosing to fix formatting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CLARK the band[edit]

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

~~Does not provide any evidence of notability, and Google searches provide nothing of value. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I hereby withdraw this nomination. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anonymous P2P. Hmm. The nominator and Delete !voter are quite correct in that the article as it stands fails WP:GNG ... one of the Keep !votes has no rationale at all, and the other quotes sources which aren't in the article. Therefore, either Delete or a redirect to a parent article (thus preserving the edit history in the event that someone could expand the article with sources) seems prudent. Black Kite 18:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitblinder[edit]

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

DELETE. This software product fails general notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - saying it "fails general notability" doesn't make it true. I think it is notable. Notability is almost always a judgment call, an opinion, if it was objective we wouldn't need the AfD process. You need to make a case for why it fails notability. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that he meant the general notability guidelines, not notability in general? That is, it looks like the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you believe that it has, producing a couple of WP:RS sources would make it a far more convincing rebuttal. — Rankiri (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In case I was not clear, I meant that this subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in diverse sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a single source is provided. The general notability guideline requires multiple sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Reclosing to fix formatting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Tielli[edit]

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

~~Does not provide evidence of notability. Google searches return only links to myspace, facebook and last.fm. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. This is a ligitimate musician who has done notable work and worked with notable people, despite what a quick Google search says.

Per Notibility guidelines for musicians at Wikipedia:Notability (music):

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by - tSR - Nth Man (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination due to my misunderstanding of WP:Notability for music. My apologies. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lierre Keith[edit]

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

Delete. She was attacked with pies. Not really notable as an author or otherwise. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, how do you define "notability"? As someone said below, "the book currently ranked about #500 on Amazon, making it the bestselling book there in the categories of activism and sustainable agriculture." I'm not even involved in this movement, yet I heard of this book before coming here. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was notable enough to be selected as the target of a public attack. And her book is currently selling at a rank of #600 on Amazon, which is indicative of notability. Obviously sales were spiked by recent news coverage of her attack, but that only indicates that her situation received a fair deal of press coverage. Owen (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's notable enough with the vegetarian/vegan movement to make her a target for attack. She's notable enough to make it into the news. The article should be expanded to at least summarise her views, but certainly not deleted. Azurefox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The book is not yet notable--I cannot find any reviews. The event is classic BLP1E, and shoul;d probably not be included even if she were to become a notable author. . suggest rewriting when there are significant reviews in important RSs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident received significant coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, and she was also interviewed on a local CBS affiliate. The only other print review I can find for The Vegetarian Myth is here. But as said before sales have clearly been significant, with the book currently ranked about #500 on Amazon, making it the bestselling book there in the categories of activism and sustainable agriculture. Owen (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find for the book is one RS review, and getting pied once doesn't really establish notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep search strings for "lierre keith" and "the vegetarian myth" get 55k responses, not bad as a raw count (i know its not ipso facto proof of notability). no google scholar to speak of (it is scanned by google). I added a review by michael r eades, a doctor with some notability (protein power, from a major trade publisher). This is a serious author of a serious, well researched book. the pie throwing incident has increased her notability, but obviously would be a blp1e by itself. She is absolutely notable within the food sustainability/organic agriculture movements, which are highly notable movements. article probably needs better sourcing, which will come with time, i believe.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's some more coverage in reliable sources predating the pie incident here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is about more than just "attacked with pies". Well sourced published author involved in a public controversy of note. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once you remove the WP:BLP1E material, what about this subject is, as you put it, "well sourced"? I do appreciate your input on this. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For AfD purposes, all of it is "well sourced". Green Cardamom (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree so strongly that here we are with this nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pulitzer Prize winning author Alice Walker endorsed Lierre Keith's book saying "[The Vegetarian Myth] is one of the most important books people, masses of them, can read, as we try with all our might, intelligence, skill, hope, dream, and memory, to turn the disastrous course the planet is on." (Amazon.com) Alice Walker is a RS, with a major endorsement ("one of the most important books"). We could remove the pie incident entirely and the article would still be notable. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds like an argument for the notability of her book more than for her as the subject of the article. You're welcome to create an article on the book if you think it is notable itself. All that I'm seeing for significant coverage of her is the Globe article, the others just seem to just be quoting her as a source. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nobody has presented any argument explaining why the sources that I presented above are inadequate to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a most controversial individual and likely to be so in the future. I think that she is important enough to have her own page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.248.2 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Lauren Fisher[edit]

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

Fluffy peacocky autobiography with no sources provided. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may need a ton of work to clean up the peacock-ness, but she still seems pretty notable. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Awards need to be sourced to show meeting WP:ANYBIO. The rest of article needs major cleanup to address unsourced peacock. Either such gets cleaned and sourced, or it should be removed per WP:BLP. I found 6 articles that might be used to source some of the content, but as for the rest... yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no viable reason for deletion put forward. Fluff, peacock, COI and sources requirements are all reasons to improve an article, not to delete it. AfD is not a forum for article improvement. TJRC (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Seems notable" is not a standard to apply; and "sources requirements" are an inherent part of this encyclopaedia. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources: certainly not in the article and arguably not in the sources presented by User:MichaelQSchmidt either. We can't allow totally unsourced BLPs to just sail through AfDs in the hope that one day someone will be bothered to do the sourcing. Here there are insufficient sources out there to suggest that this article can ever be improved to verify the subject's notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the awards are sourced, she can be shown to meet WP:ANYBIO and the fluff can be removed then from the article with regular editing. My keep was "provisional", after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, as long as the awards are "notable", as WP:ANYBIO requires. I have no views on that right now. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - Article written like a promotional piece --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under Speedy Criteria G10 as an attack page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn E. Thomas Dodge[edit]

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

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

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

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

Despite the controversy being notable, I doubt if the actual dealership is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article - if I have interpreted your reason for nomination for deletion correctly, the article needs to be about the controversy, rather than the dealership. Based on this, I have edited the article, and am wondering if it is possible to change its title to 'Auto Enthusiasts of the World Unite: The Glenn. E. Thomas Dodge Controversy' Thank you. Letthemknowthetruth (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well should the aritcle be kept, then it would be moved to "Glenn E. Thomas Dodge dealership controversy", but fist, let this AFD run its course. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with that. Thank you.Letthemknowthetruth (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete this posting? Because it's factual, so I see no reason it should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.226.116 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — 99.232.226.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP IT!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.21.11 (talk • contribs) — 76.255.21.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unquestionable Delete - neither the "scandal" nor the dealership are notable. WP is not the venue to publicize complaints about a dealership or lobby for support for a cause. Stealthy OPED pretending to be an article. 7 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! This article is about the tremendous power of the Internet and how different web-clubs have joined in on this controversy. Different Car Clubs and other non-automitive type web-clubs have joined the Challengertalk.com website just to voice their opinion; then linked the thread on their own webpages. The response is overwhelming and justifies a spot in Internet history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.72.26 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC) — 71.171.72.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is obviously a blatant attack page, being used by an anonymous disgruntled Ebay bidder with a grudge against a Dodge dealership. Ebay disputes are probably inherently not notable, and Wikipedia is not for lobbying about them. The article creator's handle, Letthemknowthetruth, would seem to be significant as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added the attack page speedy delete template to the article, and blanked the text of the page as requested by the template. The contents remain in history, and probably need to be scrubbed by oversight after deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, self-promotion, see author's name and other deleted contributions. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Darren Dickson[edit]

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

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown footbridge[edit]

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

Although I generally think places are notable, I can't see how this bridge is. Woogee (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and the list goes on... As such, WP:DELETE. (Sorry for getting carried away with policy links) Ham tech person 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. In addition to sounding inherently nonnotable, there are no reliable sources to verify notability. The one source that is linked suggests that the author may be trying to use Wikipedia to get support for the proposal to build the bridge. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is only one news article in Google News describing its proposal. Dew Kane (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it's proposed can't save it from the wrath of WP:Deletion policy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a single line about a bridge that may not even be made. Fails Notability, partly Crystal and possibly more guidelines. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Planned or proposed infrastructure only has notability if it has received significant coverage. One article does not make significant coverage unless it is something on the order of a NY Times cover story. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I wondered about redirect to Rideau Canal, but that article does not list bridges, let alone WP:CRYSTAL-ball bridges. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Almawi[edit]

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

Associate professor, no claim of notability in the article. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that subject passes WP:PROF--137.122.49.102 (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the same reasons put forth in the previous AFD. Almawi meets criteria 1 of WP:PROF, based on the large amount of publications listed (100+) on google scholar; the first article listed has been cited 106 times and the second 76 times. Academic Wikipedia articles can be very difficult to source, which is why this one has been stubbified substantially. This issue is compounded when the academic is involved at a foreign language university. Is the New York Times going to publish an article on Almawi's work on "Trends in the use of glucocorticoids in renal transplantation"? Not likely. But it is an important work in his field and his associates agree in that they've cited it over 100 times in their own studies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 106 cites? Not bad but not particularly impressive. My various supervisors (none of which have wiki articles) have papers with 260+ (that paper was mentioned in non-academic media) to 4500+ cites. So, if this person research is important, evidence of it beyond google scholar should be not too hard to find. Who cited his research and why? I understand stubbifying vanity but some word could be said about this person's research and sourced, if the subject does pass WP:PROF.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article doesn't contain any encyclopedic information on what this scholar is known for discovering. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites are 104, 76, 54, 39, 38 .... with h index = 16. May pass WP:Prof #1. A large amount of sourceable information was removed from the article before it was nominated for AfD. Restoration of this in part may allay the justified concerns of Abductive. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- H-index in biological fields is inflated simply because there are so many researchers in that field. It's like relying on Google hits for something related to open source. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For an active field with a fast publication cycle like biochemistry the citability data is not that impressive. In the absence of additional factors to indicate academic notability, I don't think there is quite enough here for passing WP:PPOF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying here may not be relevant to this person. The same is true for computer science, biology and other applied fields. Wikipedia needs to update their WP:PROF to reflect such differences to favour depending upon situations. There must be some level of commonsense involved. thx.--kaeiou (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The earlier version of the article needs more sources but if that version is correct he is probably notable. I agree with Xxanthippe. MiRroar (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This person meets criteria #1 of WP:PROF, based on the large amount of publications listed and article #1. --kaeiou (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nsk92 points out that the citation level is not that impressive for the field in question, and associate prof rank, as well as lack of any press coverage to be found in Gnews, suggests a relative lack of prominence in his field. Ray^Talk 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.50-140 Sharps[edit]

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

Cartridge has not been used in any notable application and since obsolete is not likely to become notable in the future, majority of article is semantically copied from .50-90 Sharps (prior to my edit), almost all data is unsourced, some statements seem contradictory. Nutarama (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I favor a low bar for cartridges. Since we do have sources that have written about this cartridge, I think we could salvage this. I'd say pretty much any non-wildcat cartridge type will probably be notable. Gigs (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am all for keeping any widely used cartridges, but this one sounds like a non-notable niche round. Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage demonstrated in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I wish that WP would restrict itself to articles written for the general reader, that's not the reality here. If people want to know about this cartridge then why not have an article? Clearly it has been covered in relable sources. Also the article includes some history, not just the statisics on it. And I hate it when others use this argument but here goes: We are not paper. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Ashe[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not a city council member of a major city. Woogee (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN right out, no significant coverage to be found on a Gnews search - it's all incidental mentions in local press. Ray^Talk 23:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 23:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moulshree Sachdeva[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER; the available sources in searches for her are so thin on the ground I can't even find an IMDB profile. Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Not there yet. She has had one significant role in a TV Show [78]. But i can't find any evidence of her acting in Telugu films in significant roles as the article claims. Unless RS can be found for her acting in lead roles in multiple Telugu films, she is not notable enough.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenzizenzizenzic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a dictionary article about a word in the encyclopedia. But WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Word is not notable, as it only appeared in one (1) publication over 450 years ago, and is (allegedly) mentioned in one (1) reliable source dictionary which points to the publication. No other reliable source for this information is known. I don't think that a dictionary counts as a reliable source for a word for the wikipedia, otherwise every word in the OED becomes a valid encyclopedia article, but we don't accept dicdefs.

There's no evidence that this is an important mathematical concept. It's main claim to fame seems to be that the word has a lot of z's in it; but even that is unreferenced.

The word therefore lacks notability as an encyclopedic topic, encyclopedic articles are not about words. The wiktionary article covers the same ground, and the topic is covered well and a dictionary article is not off-topic in a dictionary. Since there is a reasonable wiktionary article already, and the nearest mathematical concept seems to be squaring, I call for MERGE to square (algebra). - Wolfkeeper 02:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary - as Wiktionary entry is missing the term's history, and the OED is a dictionary that contains such information, so Wiktionary could do with expansion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly nonnotable word or concept: used only ONCE in a publication,hundreds of years ago, and with a different spelling. Fails WP:N and not a dictionary. So deldideldilete Edison (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that it is "utterly nonnotable" is at odds with the General notability guideline, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So while there may be arguments in favor of deletion, this isn't one. —Dominus (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what are the "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage?" One publication and a dictionary? That does not justify an encyclopedia article per our policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "One publication and a dictionary"? The article lists the following references:

Hebra, Alexius J. (2003), Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units, The Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0801870720.
Knight, Charles (1868), The English Cyclopaedia, Bradbury, Evans, p. 1045.
Reilly, Edwin D. (2003), Milestones in Computer Science and Information Technology, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 3, ISBN 1573565210.
Todd, Richard Watson (2006), Much Ado About English, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, ISBN 1857883721.
Uldrich, Jack (2008), "Chapter 2. The Power of Zenzizenzizenzic", Jump the Curve: 50 Essential Strategies to Help Your Company Stay Ahead of Emerging Technologies, Adams Media, ISBN 1598694200.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The way numbers were recorded through history is of interest in an encyclopedia. The representation of large numbers was a problem and this entry demonstrates one attempt at its solution. The article has merit within the history of mathematics and should be kept. Lumos3 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a number, it's an English word. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be translatable into other languages. Whereas, if translated, this article would still inevitably still be about an English word; the word itself (the topic of the article) is untranslatable. That proves it's a word article, not a concept, and hence is not encyclopedic in its own right.- Wolfkeeper 10:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its about the way exponants were represented before an exponential notation had been developed. Lumos3 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Unsure~~ Keep. It's an obsolete word that meant "raised to the eighth power". But the article is not about the mathematical concept of raising to the eighth power, which is more than adequately covered by Exponentiation, it is specifically about the word itself. As such, it seems like a clear WP:NOTDIC to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archaic way of representing exponents. It is not covered in a modern article on mathematics, its part of the history of mathematics. Lumos3 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in the nom if you want to copy the information into a maths article, feel free. In the meantime the article doesn't square well with wiki-policy. Plenty of maths articles cover the history of maths.- Wolfkeeper 03:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure now, having read other arguments. Is it just about the word, or about an archaic method of denoting exponentiation? -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally convinced by other arguments here that it's a notable idea in the history of exponentiation notation -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a perfectly valid and well-sourced topic in the history of mathematical notation. The fact that it's a word seems to me completely irrelevant: most Wikipedia articles have words as their titles, but that doesn't make them subject to deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Exponentiation#History of the notation to form an article. It's an interesting article about a seemingly unlikely term coined for a mathematical concept. Unlike the article for (the made-up term) googol, this article more about the word than its meaning. But that's no reason for deletion. I'm sure there are many similar articles about archaic words, e.g., Apotome, Hostler. The content might need some cleanup, but since it provides several references this shouldn't be too difficult. If not merged, then Keep. Jwesley₇₈ 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now has plenty of references that establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability is necessary, but not sufficient. We don't allow lots of things that are notable if they violate any one of the ISNOT's, as this one does.- Wolfkeeper 15:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not particularly interested in this article, but as a general note, there is no reason why words should be the only category of things that doesn't become notable when reliable sources write about them in a non-trivial way. We traditionally do have such articles. This word seems to have reached just about a sufficient level of notability. It's probably a borderline case. Hans Adler 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Encyclopedias were invented to work alongside dictionaries and not to duplicate them. The problem is that articles on words inevitably emphasise the word and inevitably end up like discursively written dictionary articles (they cover exactly the same ground). And we have to have rules, and it's desirable that they be clear because it cuts down discussions in AFDs. Determining that an article is really about a word is pretty easy, because the topic has to be defined in the first sentence or two, and there's no doubt at all that all dictionary entries, for example, in Wiktionary are about the word, not any underlying concept. And it's always possible to rearrange article scopes to make individual articles about things, not words.- Wolfkeeper 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The word certainly has no mathematical significance and with a few exceptions seems to never have entered the language. It rates a mention in English words with uncommon properties but the article basically consists of an etymology with little potential for anything else. It seems some authors have picked up on the word for its unusual spelling, but I don't think that implies notability of the subject. In other words, if the word had a more conventional spelling it would have been forgotten long ago, and an article is supposed to be about a subject, not about how the subject is spelled.--RDBury (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an interesting article. The best that would happen otherwise is it would be merged into a long article and make both worse. I believe this historical bit of mathematical notation deserves its place in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good history of mathematics should record the failed attempts as well as the successes. This article serves as a side note in the development of our modern notation illustrating problem with trying to express higher powers in words. --Salix (talk): 12:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly enough references to make it notable, and it is a good illustration of how the absence of symbols to write out mathematical ideas influenced the words and phrases that were used to describe them. More broadly, I agree with Hans that there seems no reason words should be an exception. WP:NOTDIC should be interpreted with common sense, not as law. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Hindu Temple[edit]

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

Non-notable temple, no more notable than any other religious structure that doesn't make any claims of notability (unless having appeared in a small scene in a movie is notability) Woogee (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While requiring some rewriting, the article clearly addresses the notability in the introduction, including being used in multiple movies, being the location of an event with worldwide media coverage. Additionally, a search of Google News shows significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent source. No need to delete when some small rewrites will do. —siro χ o 02:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very notable Hindu temple with multiple non-trivial news pieces (unrelated to a movie) in the LA Times, at least one news piece that seems to have found its way to many national newspapers among others (and apparently some sort of celebrity coverage too that seems incidental). —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had created this article in 2006. It is clearly notable, a search on it's registered name "Hindu Temple Society of Southern California" [79] turns up many results from credible sources (including New York Times and LA Times). The article does need fixing. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable place. Article needs cleaning up, not deletion. Dew Kane (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cosby[edit]

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

The is a career minor league player, who never cracked the roster of a major league club and has no real claim to notability. Long standing precedent has been that career minor leaguers are not sufficiently notable for inclusion. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 10th round pick, doesn't seem to have ever been notable in any way. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Party (United States)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A minor, defunct American political party that fielded no candidates of its own, only supported others. Minor kerfuffle over a Obama endorsement only got it into right-wing blogs, not WP:RS Tarc (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursosry search of Google news shows several possible reliable sources as diverse as the New York Post and Village Voice. —siro χ o 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still remember the coverage of this in news media. A political party or movement does not need to be successful to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, lack of electoral success is not directly relevant to notability. I'm seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Party was the object of an important First Amendment/electoral law Supreme Court case (Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party). And its successor party, the Working Families Party in New York is an important player in that state's politics today. --BenA (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.18.83 (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - notable party in New York, and was succeeded by the Working Families Party. Daniel Cantor (or Dan Cantor), a co-founder of the party, is also notable and should have his own article. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Even if minor, this does not mean a lack of sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the subject meets the notability guideline, with sufficient sources available (just barely). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romiette and Julio[edit]

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

Non-notable book, I can't find a single reliable source. Woogee (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are reliable sources, including NYT, and others —siro χ o 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us what the Times article says? Just a synopsis. Woogee (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the article via the Google News links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.87 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic review; some opinions and a plot summary. I'd call it a "mixed" review. Studerby (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm conflicted on this one; the primary applicable standard is "multiple non-trivial published works". It looks as if the author's previous work was notable enough that this got a few reviews on the author's name, including the NYT one; the couple I dredged up for free were mixed and pretty minimal. However, the book seems to have developed a small fanbase and got used in at least some classroom instruction (see here. ATM, I'd call it a marginal delete, but I keep changing my mind. Folks more active with books in WP than I should make the call. Studerby (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - this was a difficult one. Apart from the coverage generated during its first release in 2005, the book seems to have developed a small cult fan base and from Gnews seems to be chosen for school reading lists.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El chapo grande[edit]

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

This article is about a family's private dominoes game. Most of it is blatant hoax material. CSD was declined, PROD was removed, taking it to AFD. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up by one's family one day. Fails verifiability and notability and should be eligible for speedy deletion as A7, for lack of a credible claim of notability. I liked the statement of it being "alcahole associated." Edison (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources conferring notability. It was I who declined the CSD - an A7 - and added the PROD; while I agree that there's no credible claim of importance, I don't interpret the article's subject as being an organisation and so I don't believe A7 is applicable. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy delete due to the total lack of sources. This article seems to fall under the CsD for Blatant hoax. It states that it is sponsored by "dominoes(sic) pizza" and it also notes "(buy one for the price of two Tuesday)". I would drop dead if someone can find a valid link saying "dominoes" has ever even heard about this. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has become rather more nonsensical since I declined the speedy. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I raise my offer to $100 if someone can prove that "dominoes" supports this game. Also, I agree with the later comments, and have changed my vote to a speedy delete. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps not obvious in its earlier versions, but the current version is a clear A7 or G3. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR, though I suspect HOAX due to the lack of references and rather original writing style. Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. Black Kite 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stand (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to provide any independent references and fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. A search for reliable sources covering this topic have returned with nothing, including this search. So by WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR this fails. Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to the seven articles on the respective sub-series. Some stands could be considered key characters in their own right, and should be on the character list in the appropriate article. Most are probably minor characters appearing in less than one volume of the series as a whole. (Note: Given the immensely length of the series, the project eventually decided that splitting content into seven articles was the most logical way to manage it; very little cleanup has been done on any of the articles related to the series, and all of them could stand some pruning.) Doceirias (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or, if there is too much information to merge, keep as a "Main article:". This is pretty clearly "extra" information about a notable series that is not part of the main article. —siro χ o 02:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing merge or keep? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy the relevant information as needed to the various sub-series articles and character lists -- is a relevant attribute of the characters who have them -- and then delete. As a concept on its own, aside from the lead, it is not stand-alone-article material and isn[t relevant grouping. Ideally, this should then be redirected somewhere, but Wikipedia is not, to put it mildly, set up to handle merging information into multiple targets -- making this a good example of how mechanics can trump policies-and-procedures. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If any information is copied from this article to others, it cannot be deleted without violating the GFDL/Creative Commons licenses. This goes beyond policies and guidelines and has real potential legal ramifications. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, redirect this article to the main Jojo's Bizarre Adventure page, which should have at least some mention of the Stand concept anyway. Doceirias (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Making the redirect to the main article makes sense, for just that reason. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Pretty much what Doceirias and Quasirandom said. Erigu (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search has some promising results. Cnet's review says:

"The linchpin of the storyline is the relationship between the main characters and their "stands." Stands are psychic partners that enhance the characters' own physical powers and are something akin to guardian angels."

It is quite an important part of the story, the series not existing without them. Plenty of coverage is given to them in the 58 Google news results [80] Dream Focus 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to the story, but the topic itself has not been the subject of significant coverage. It isn't necessary to have a list of every aspect of stand in order to understand the subject, this could be sufficiently explained in the main article without going into so much detail. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and already is.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily reduce content to concise and relevant details and Merge other related articles.Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For a change WP:ATH isn't really the main issue here (though the subject appears to fail it). As pointed out, there isn't really enough substantial coverage to pass WP:BIO either. Black Kite 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ard[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE GregJackP (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm never sure what is meant in WP:ATHLETE by "fully professional level" but I don't personally consider the minor leagues "fully professional." Why not? Because most of the players have to make money outside of baseball in order to live. Though some high draft picks don't need to, the level itself isn't something I'd call "fully" professional. Maybe, "kinda" professional. Anyway, this person is totally unremarkable: a very short and undistinguished minor league baseball career without a single call-up to the bigs. I'm uncomfortable weighing in on Division D Bosnian soccer players (though often tempted), but I do know my baseball. -Quartermaster (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - based on the link in the article to the baseballcube web site, he spent two years in single A, two years in AA, and pretty much washed out in less than a year at the AAA level (where he had a 3-5 record and a 5.78 ERA). -Quartermaster (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well...
I think that he had a standout Minor League Career. He was a #1 Draft Pick, and could've made the bigs if he didn't have the injury.
But that's a "what if", so I don't know.
You can delete it, but it might make sense to keep it.

Keep - The question of whether minor leagues are "fully professional" has always been contentious, and I am in the "fully professional" camp. But there has always been a consensus that not all minor leaguers are notable, especially those that don't play a full season in AAA. Ard id not play a full season in AAA, but apparently played most of a season in AAA. But there are other indicators of his notability, and of the likelihood of there being additional reliable sources that covered Ard in the pre-Google era. He was a 1st round draft pick, #20 overall. Baseball America listed him as their #46 best prospect in baseball in 1990. And they listed him in their top 100 prospects again in 1991, this time at #77.[81]. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any improvement of the article vis a vis adding third party sources to bolster notability could easily sway me to recommend Keep. The minor league record, for me, just isn't enough. This isn't a "go to the mat" kind of thing for me, just chiming in. -Quartermaster (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of searching Lexis-Nexis Academic database: Searching all news sources for the last 40 years, I turned up a number of mentions of Johnny Ard. The only context was that he played at Manatee Jr. College, and was drafted as described. Lots of mentions in passing as part of larger minor league transactions (and lots of duplicates - e.g., AP articles all identical). Not a single one talks about Ard in any other context other than noting he was drafted, and he was in the minors (no specific games, no unusual feats, no championships, no no-hitters, nothing). My search went back to the late 1980's. -Quartermaster (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in keeping with the results of Quartermaster's search, he's not notable. In WP:BASEBALL, we consider the majors to be the most "fully" professional level. Career minor leaguers shouldn't meet notability unless there's something specifically notable about them. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Rlendog. Of course (IMHO) the baseball minor leagues are fully professional. The test of "let's see if they have to make money elsewhere to live" is a novel one, that I don't buy into.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but he had a decent Minor League career!!!1!1! (Emphasis mine.) Per precedent, career minor leaguers are not inherently notable. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is any doubt about the application or interpretation of a subguideline, like WP:ATH, we ought to defer to the overriding WP:BIO. The searches conducted above demonstrate that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite 18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Babicz[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as I can't find any significant coverage about him and he hasn't impacted his field or won a major award. Borderline speedy (A7) but the article claims that he produced presets for Native Instruments. Them From Space 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The German page de:Rob Acid (his pseudonym) makes a claim that clearly meets the music standards, namely that he charted on the English dance charts. (Obviously this needs to be added to the article.) Rigadoun (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. plenty of coverage worldwide —siro χ o 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [82]
^ [83]
^ [84]
^ [85]
^ [86]

[1] [82]

[2] [83]

[3] [84]

[4] [85]

[5] [86]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]