Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 10

< 9 May	11 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CarbonInsights.org[edit]

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

This website is awfully new and doesn't yet have the significant coverage in independent sources required by the general notability guideline and WP:WEB. Them From Space 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion point: We disagree and will compile additional external, independent sources. Romeo423 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Romeo423 (talk) — Romeo423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The sources currently on the page are unreliable. Google search turns up nothing reliable. Google News turns up nothing at all (not surprising for a site founded a month ago). I suspect the site is just too new to have even had a chance to be notable. It may become notable in the future, but for now it should be deleted. Also: The creator and (thus far) sole editor of the article shares the name of the site's "Sim 3 avatar and Editor-in-Chief". » scoops “5x5„ 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It looks like it is a fresh released magazine which is gaining coverage as we speak. The content of the wiki page is strictly information which I appreciated. I think it is worth giving it more time and if it gets no further coverage another AFD should be called.Gia_72, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gia 72 (talk • contribs) — Gia 72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete/Userfy It's possible that the magazine will become notable (which means: be written about by independent, reliable sources) in the future. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The magazine has no notability at this point (which means, it has not been recognized by independent reliable sources), so the article does not belong on Wikipedia. Romeo423 has gone to a lot of trouble to develop this page, so it should be userfied back to his userpage rather than deleted. That way it can be reposted, AFTER independent reliable sources report on the magazine and confirm its notability. However, please carefully read WP:RS and WP:N before reposting it, because the Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of reposting deleted articles if the problems haven't been fixed. (By the way, Gia 72, you kept trying to add the facebook page to the article, but facebook is a perfect example of something that is NOT a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. Likewise twitter.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have to judge the sources that are available right now, and there doesn't seem to be any (except for blogs and the like). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~~Cats have names (Some are really stupid). But some are more popular than others. There are sources to prove that. But for the life of me, I don't know why Fluffy is more popular than Puss Puss.~~ Keep based on previous AfD keep and the Keeps in this Afd. DGG and JohnWBarber especially make the case that this list is not OR, is notable and is sourced. Deletes have focused on maintainability and usefulness (silliness) which are not reasons for deletion. Thanks to JohnWBarber for making improvements during this Afd. The existance of this list will never harm the encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular cat names[edit]

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

As per WP:NN . Random top 10 Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Delete WP:NN and ~~WP:OR~~ WP:RS. Relies overly on one source of limited geographic scope and it doesn't constitute a suitably different concept than 'names' of individual animate creatures.--Savonneux (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't constitute a suitably different concept than 'names' of individual animate creatures. It does now. The article now shows how fictional characters, changing fashions and different national cultures are factors in how people name their cats. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. as above. I've been watching it for a while, and it hasn't been improving, in the direction that the human List of most popular given names establishes. If someone writes a good, well-sourced, worldwide-scope article in a sandbox (pun intended), then it could be reactivated. I'm mainly voting 'delete' because the article is so non-neutral in its sources (only accounting for US pet owners who get pet insurance) that having nothing would be better, until something decent can be compiled. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep based on the overhaul by JohnWBarber. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the simple reason that it is adequately sourced to a reliable almanac, among other sources. That's sufficient. It seems counterproductive to delete articles because they ought to be expanded, especially when the content already in them is verifiable. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Savonneux. Joal Beal (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An almanac is an 'annual publication containing tabular information,' or in other words statistics, WP:NOT#STATS. Also not recommended sources per WP:PSTS.--Savonneux (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi: The WP:5P specifically states that we include "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Also, I've clarified my !vote above. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and actually read NOT STATS: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics..." The abbreviation should be removed ,as it gives a false impression, and contradicts one of the basic policies DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so remove it...--Savonneux (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna add my main objection isn't any of those things, it is as I said above: "doesn't constitute a suitably different concept than 'names' of individual animate creatures [and popularity thereof]". Like, "list of most popular x of y,"; "list of most popular names from the bible", "list of most popular names of zoo animals", etc. --Savonneux (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quiddity asked me to reconsider, but I remain of the same opinion. Using sources from one country merely requires the "Globalize" template, to add others. Using less than fully valid sources merely means to look for better ones. POV is an excessively strong term for the problem--I would apply it to a case like this only if the matter were actually controversial in some substantial way. . DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't an almanac, and one day in the future WP:NOT will point that out again (it was removed after this campaign; the strongest supporters should be familiar to anyone who regularly visits AfD). The argument that it should be kept because it is sourced is bogus; verifiability is not notability. There is absolutely no established real-world impact for the subject, so it's just an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thumper, Is that a delete, a keep, or a comment?--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. The closing admin should be competent enough to assess my argument for what it is without having to look for a little bit of bold text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cunningham: Wikipedia isn't an almanac WP:PILLARS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Elements of". This means that we incorporate tables of statistics where it is appropriate. It most certainly does not imply that any and all tabular data is appropriate here, and more than "incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias" implies that we host everything that a specialized encyclopedia might host. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means that we incorporate tables of statistics where it is appropriate. Going back to at least early July 2009 (link to that version [1]), WP:INDISCRIMINATE has included Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 as an example of an acceptable Wikipedia article. This article about cat names, as it stands, has a smaller proportion of tabular data in it than that one does, and in absolute terms, the cat-names article has more "explanatory text" than the other one. Your interpretation of WP:PILLARS, therefore, seems to be more restrictive than actual WP policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly per Savonneux and Quiddity. If it is to be useful, a lot more research and expansion should be done before it is posted to main space; the information is volatile - trends and fashions change, and it would need constant updating. It was created in 2008 by an editor who made about 4 initial edits on one day and who has never been back to it since, and who has never made another single edit to the encyclopedia.~~, and has attracted~~ The fact that WP does not suffer the constraints of print media is IMHO not an excuse for keeping in this instance. After checking out all the links above, and taking into account that our opinions are allowed to be subjective, I come to the conclusion that articles like these are unencyclopedic whether permissible almanac or or not, and are silly. We have to draw the line somewhere or do we want to be debating the notability of articles such as Favourite shoe heel heights of women aged 25 - 40 in southern England, ? --Kudpung (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite shoe heel heights of women aged 25 - 40 in southern England, -- are there sources for that? There are sources for this article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of sources, it's a question of suitability for an encyclopedic entry. Or has Wikipedia really become a just another blog-type repository where anyone can write anything about anything? See Cunninham below: Not everything which can be sourced is notable.--Kudpung (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections addressed in detail, below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the geographic bias can be fixed by renaming the article to List of most popular cat names in the United States the subject is below the threshold of what should be incorporated into an encyclopaedia. The fact that it was created by an editor with no other editing history may reflect that particular editors lack of realisation as to what Wikipedia is about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A related deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a small list, it sources only a couple webpages. It's not like there's a cat census recording names. Also what about countries that don't use English names? Definitely not a topic that can be covered by Wikipedia at this point in time. - Limpbizkit1848 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable list, and it can be better sourced, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything which can be sourced is notable. It is a common fallacy that arguments concerning notability can be hand-waved away so long as the subject is a list and not an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Savonneux.
Keep Human relations with this menace need monitoring, and Wikipedia is just the place to do so. This is an inherently encyclopedic enterprise which this article advances. On a more Wikipedic-centric note, we are, in fact, almanacky. National and local names of the parasite, felinus malapropos, may provide insight into this dominant species that has acquired mastery over us -- or at least insight into our submission to the dominant species. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here! [2] There are plenty of sources for the names we give our masters. Whole volumes have been written on the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That people give their cats names is not in dispute (sheesh). That "volumes have been written on the subject" needs better sourcing than a Google results page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Google Books results page would appear to be perfect sourcing for the statement that "volumes have been written on the subject". I didn't say there is a dispute that people give their cats names (sheesh). Although the fact that they do -- as opposed to giving individual names to tapeworms and other parasites -- may indicate that the subject of the article (the popularity of certain names) is worth a Wikipedia article page. That we have sourcing for this strengthens the argument. Clearly there's a serious phenomenon hereabouts, as we bring members of this eerie species into our own homes and give milk and cat litter to barely domesticated creatures with claws and fangs -- and name them. Once you leave aside the idea that this is a familiar circumstance that the human species has been practicing, probably, for millennia, the sheer outrageousness of this incongruous extravagance hits any normally curious person like a brick. We need investigation of this -- not catalepsy. Clearly, many people prefer cat names that call to mind the savage or mysterious origins of the little beasts: "Tiger" and "Smokey"; others prefer to think of the things as harmless little fluff-balls, sometimes -- shockingly -- with human names: "Angel", "Chloe", "Bella", and the ever-cute "Tigger"; the name "Max" clearly expresses the dominant nature of the animal. Imagine what insights readers could glean from an expanded article! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There really should be a WP:LAME we could call on in cases like this. I see there is, but it's about something completely different. Oh well. PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've radically expanded the article, adding information from Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany as well as some explanations for changes in popular names over time. The lead section is much expanded as well. The article now illustrates the points that popular cat names change over time, that some of this is affected by popular fictional characters and that different countries fancy different names, even countries with the same language. These are all encyclopedic topics and can be fleshed out further over time. I think some of the recurring sources, such as the one in the U.S. section, would eventually make for an interesting table. These changes in the article significantly affect the comments and !votes above, making nearly all of them outdated and no longer useful for determining consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were the comments you're talking about predicated on the number of random Web sources that the article contained, which they aren't, then you'd have a point. Expanding the article from one poorly-sourced table to five poorly-sourced tables does not address the concerns raised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using blogs and other non RS is still no argument for what I still firmly regard as an essentially non notable, unencyclopedic article.--Kudpung (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs as non-RS? What nonsense. Why not review WP:RS#Blogs? The sources are reliable. The "Freakonomics" blog is on the New York Times website. No one has any reason to lie about what the more popular cat names of their customers are, and especially those companies, such as Veterinary Pet Insurance, that have been compiling the lists over the course of years have no reason to lie and every reason to try to be accurate about lists of names (there's not a lot of judgment involved in counting them anyway) -- and sources like VPI are used by other reliable sources, such as Information Please Almanac. About.com, another source, is an online publication with editorial oversight. Kudpung's and Cunningham's arguments are empty. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion vote is about the entire suitablility of the article for an encyclopedia. See also Wet paint. I could soon boost my own creation count if I were to spend my time thinking up nonsense articles en masseand make two-line stubs or brief lists out of them. All I need to do i expect people to keep them in GF.--Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to assign bad-faith reasons for disagreeing with you, like the urge to "boost my own creation count". I didn't create the page. And I don't give a damn about numbers of articles I've created or added to or expanded -- I don't have a "brag list" on my user page and never did, although there are counters for that sort of thing you could find online and a review of the articles I've started under this and my past user names would be quite a long list.redacting after explanation that the editor was referring to someone else--JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Odd that a subject so unsuitable "for an encyclopedia" is part of the content of two encyclopedias among the books listed below. These potential sources are brought up in Google Books search results pages. I've quoted passages from them (unfortunately, they're not all available for preview; when I say which item on the results pages referred to, I'm skipping the "sponsored results"):[reply]
The Gallup Report 1989 (fourth item on this page [3]): "(Based on cat owners) Other popular cat names are Casper, Sylvester, Whiskers, Fraidy and Scaredy."

The Gallup Poll Monthly (1990; ninth item on this [4] page) "Other popular cat names are Casper, Sylvester, ..."

Planet Cat: A CAT-alog (first item on this [5] page): "The 60 Most Common Cat Names Veterinarians from Veterinary Pet Insurance Company (VPI), the nation's oldest and largest health insurance ... Below are the most popular names for cats in 2005, culled from over 300000 VPI policyholders. ..."

It's a Cat's World...You Just Live in It: Everything You Ever ... (tenth item on this [6] page): "Of the 450000 cats that are insured by VPI, the top ten most popular cat names (combining the sexes) are: i. Max 2. ..."

The Guinness Book of Names (eighth item on this [7] page): "Popular cat names A survey of British cat names, commissioned by Spillers Top Cat and carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, revealed the following most popular names: Some of the other names revealed by the survey were as ..."

The Encyclopedia of the Cat (fourth result on this [8] page): "An American survey in 1 994 found that the most popular cats' names in the United States were Smokey for males ..."

Cat Biz: A Compendium of Amazing Facts and Anecdotes from the Cat ... (tenth item on this [9] page): "Top ten Surveys of the most popular cat names come up with varying results, perhaps because they can assess only small samples of a huge population. However, some names are common to all three of these recent 'Top Ten' lists are shown ..."

Encyclopedia of Cats (second result on this [10] page): "COMMON NAMES THEN THERE ARE the traditional cat's names. Many of these seem, like children's names, to move in and out of fashion, but Mickey,Tiger ... An American survey in 1994 found that the most popular cats' ..."

Harrowsmith Country Life (first result on this [11] page): "What are the most popular pet names? Based on more than 30000 orders received by Tags & Etc., ... The most popular cat names are Kitty, Smokey, Tigger, Tiger, Max, Patches, Missy, Shadow, Samantha and, tied for tenth place, Baby, ..."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that people compile these lists is not evidence that this is a notable subject. Human beings find the composition of lists to be immensely fun, and you'll be able to find plenty of lists covering any subject if you look for long enough on the Web. The issue is whether or not the subject of the popularity of cat names is covered in sufficient detail by reliable secondary sources. You can pull as many examples of these lists off the Web as you want without being able to satisfy that requirement. Furthermore, that there's such a degree of disparity in the results given by each source suggests that none of them are authoritative, so the whole exercise is pointless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient detail of coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated by the footnotes now in the article and the list of sources above. There are no primary sources for the topic itself, since the primary source would be the individual pet owners themselves. The companies that gather the information (Gallup, VPI, etc.) are secondary sources that are independent (as described at Wikipedia:Independent sources) and are seen as reliable by various third-party sources (but even if you consider them primary sources and the other sources as secondary, for AfD purposes it just doesn't matter because we still have enough secondary-source coverage). Coverage in specialized encyclopedias (see Nos. 6 and 8 above) is evidence that the topic is encyclopedic. Disparity in the results isn't a deletion rationale (and it's accounted for by disparities in time and place, which is clear from the article). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, possibly merge into Pet naming. I'd prefer a keep result since topic is notable and interesting, but sources are pretty weak now for a full article. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pet naming is at AfD as well, and the arguments given there are even better for what amounts to a sub-topic of that article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it is right now, a merge would result in over-emphasizing cats, creating a WP:UNDUE problem. There seems to be enough sourcing that "Pet naming" would eventually be forked into separate pages anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Savonneux. SnottyWong talk 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shakira. kur ykh 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira notable concerts[edit]

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

This article probably fails general WP:notability guidelines. it appears to be a trivial page of duplicated information which is already mainly included at Shakira and the remaining information could easily be merged there. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is a very short article which closely matches the layout of the "notable concerts" section in the Shakira article. Could easily be merged. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Doorautomatica. SnottyWong talk 19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Bejan[edit]

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

Having never played a fully pro match, this footballer fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite a few of these articles popping up for members of this team, it seems. I appreciate the enthusiasm of the editors writing the articles, but the articles themselves just don't meet Wikipedia standards. Try another wiki??--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understant., why deleted all Steaua II's players page??????????????? 188.25.235.19 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steaua's reserve team is not fully professional. Therefore, all players who played only for Steaua II fail WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, please refrain from personal attacks. Second, the reasons to delete are quite clear in my view, generally because they do not meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia policies and guidelines--and specifically for the reasons outlined above in this discussion--specifically that the subject material does not meet our standards of notability. You can read about that at WP:N, but bear in mind that notability is merely one of the standards to meet. If you disagree, you can make comments here and point out to us why you believe the subject material does meet those standards and an impartial third party will evaluate the discussion to determine consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S.[edit]

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

No indication that this passes WP:BK. Only sources appear to be unreliable reviews and even the article describes it as "a somewhat obscure book". VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to delete books based on obscurity then perhaps we should delete everything written before 1960, or maybe even everything but the Twilight Saga. Satan is an obscure book in the literal sense, not many people have read it. If this qualifies a book for deletion from wikipedia then I wonder if something like Lolita should also be removed, considering most people have not read that either. Secondly, Amazon book reviews are as legitimate as any other review when taken with a grain of salt. I apologize if there isn't a NY Times book review of the novel, but again, simply because the novel is not well known does not mean it isn't of literary relevance. Thank you for your time and I urge that this page be left up as the book is in fact of literary merit and the article is sound. DacodaNelson (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is, actually, a NYT review.[12] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [13] and [14]. There is even a notable film based on it! Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in other books and online. Written by a more than notable author and has been made into a movie Crazy as Hell. --Savonneux (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources linked above by Joe and me. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Abuzătoaie[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has never played a fully professional match Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "under contract" means "hasn't played yet" right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has played but only for Steaua's reserve team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Abuzătoaie played in Romanian first divison for 3 times in 2007. Why deleted and this page??????????????????????????????????????????????? 188.25.235.19 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source for this I will gladly withdraw this AfD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, please refrain from personal attacks. Second, the reasons to delete are quite clear in my view, generally because they do not meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia policies and guidelines--and specifically for the reasons outlined above in this discussion--specifically that the subject material does not meet our standards of notability. You can read about that at WP:N, but bear in mind that notability is merely one of the standards to meet. If you disagree, you can make comments here and point out to us why you believe the subject material does meet those standards and an impartial third party will evaluate the discussion to determine consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARU Phantoms[edit]

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

Not notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable. This isn't one doesnt appear to be one of the exceptions that is. Even mainstream British sports have a minuscule following within their own institution. American Football is extremely niche interest in the UK. A search on Google appears to return nothing beyond the team and university's own sites and those of rival teams.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than the Boat Race and the occasional cricket match, university sport in the UK is completely non-notable, receiving no coverage whatsoever outside the insitutions involved, and barely any within. At the university I work at, if any of our sports teams' matches are watched by anything other than a small handful of players' friends and girlfriends, it's a rare event indeed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources are the organization's website--that's important on a page, but it's not a source--which wikipedia requires. No source, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other AFDs on British university American football teams. There are a few notable university sports teams in the UK - but almost all in relatively major sports (rowing, football, tennis, cricket) and even in those sports they are the exception rather than the rule. Pfainuk talk 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a few Uni teams in Britain that are notable. But this one - in what is a niche sport in Britain - isn't amongst them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Lungu[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails both WP:ATHLETE, having never played a fully pro match, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nothing has been done to address the concerns raised in the last deletion discussion. Jogurney (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for speedy deletion before taking it to AfD, but had it declined by someone claiming that Lungu passed WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't see that. An unfortunate decision, but in that case my vote is delete on the grounds that the article is about a non-notable footballer for all the same reasons listed in the past deletion discussion. Jogurney (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, no independent sources...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleted Cezar Lungu page? Cezar is professional football player. He played for Romania national under-21 football team, for FC Steaua Bucureşti in Romanian Cup and FC Steaua II Bucureşti in Liga II. Again, why deleted Cezar Lungu page 188.25.235.19 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, please refrain from personal attacks. Second, the reasons to delete are quite clear in my view, generally because they do not meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia policies and guidelines--and specifically for the reasons outlined above in this discussion--specifically that the subject material does not meet our standards of notability. You can read about that at WP:N, but bear in mind that notability is merely one of the standards to meet. If you disagree, you can make comments here and point out to us why you believe the subject material does meet those standards and an impartial third party will evaluate the discussion to determine consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Nova (Norway)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable Airway station, unable to find sources.~~ SKATER ^Speak. 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the few local radio stations that have been around since the Norwegian broadcasting monopoly was lifted in ~~1983~~ 1982. __meco (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All licensed radio stations are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a massive amount of news hits with Kvasir [15]. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, try http://universitas.no/?q=radio+nova for sources, they printed an article about it on this very day. Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wp:Snow and the sources found, It appears I was wrong and retract my nomination.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not fully convinced by any of the arguments here, but many of the votes favoring deletion are very short and superficial such as "no evidence of notability", or "per nom" where the nomination simply says that the subject has not played any professional matches, and whose biography thus fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. On the keep side, there have been provided some sources, and evidence that Filip in fact has played in the Romanian league, and I note that the language of the source does not invalidate it as a possible reference (WP:NONENG). Being unable to read Romanian, I am giving ChrisTheDude and the other keepers the benefit of the doubt here that this sourcing is sufficient, and thus closing with a "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Filip[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has never played a fully pro match. He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Jogurney (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ articles should have more than just an infobox. There's no information, no reliable independent sources, ... maybe userfy and try again later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik and Vanruvan deleted information that confirm him played for first team. please ban him. see this:

15:59, 3 May 2010 Sir Sputnik (talk | contribs) (3,129 bytes) (League caps only) (undo). he changed from 1 to 0.

15:28, 10 May 2010 Vanruvan (talk | contribs) (1,418 bytes) (rm dated prod, this is the 2nd prod so not allowed) (undo) he deleted information that confirm that him played in romanian cup for steaua.

see this. match in romanian first divison on round 10 this championship. http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/stiri/14281/etapa-10-poli-iasi--steaua-0-2.htm

and macth in romanian cup this season. http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/stiri/4751/saisprezecimile-de-finala-ale-cupei-romaniei.htm

what want more? 188.25.235.19 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment respectfully, yes we'll need a lot more because what you have provided does not meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The only source you seem to provide is not an independent source--it's the same organization for which he works/plays for/whatever. Secondly, the source requires translation. This is an English encyclopedia and generally it requires independent, reliable sources in the language of the encyclopedia. Further, I've looked at Sputnik's edits and the major thing he did was restore the header notification for this discussion--it's not supposed to be removed until the discussion is resolved. The other edits appear to be okay to me, not necessarily saying that I would do them that way--but that's the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia. --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this confirms he has played in the Romanian league, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where do i get information in english if in romania are only in romanian? cnn, eurosport or other known sites don't write about steaua or not romanian championship.

http://www.labtof.ro/liga1/echipa-steauabucuresti-78.html all steaua players who played in this championship.

http://sport.hotnews.ro/stiri-fotbal-6306206-poli-iasi-steaua-0-2-regasit-drumul-catre-victorie.htm

http://www.realitatea.net/liga-i--etapa-a-10-a--poli-iasi---steaua-0-2_643762.html

http://www.mediafax.ro/sport/politehnica-iasi-steaua-scor-0-2-in-liga-i-5009512/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.33.128.101 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@edit

if you want in information in english go to this link. http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/ -> click on Liga 1 -> click on Season 2009-2010 -> click on round 10 -> i down page will found the report in english. 89.33.128.101 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

The "information in English" appears to me to be in another language. Is there a Romanian version of Wikipedia?
If the current active Romanian league was notable, there would be independent reliable sources in the news covering the events. Where are they? It has even been stated that the traditional English-speaking news sources do not deem the issue notable enough to cover.
"Romaniansoccer.ro" -- isn't this the same organization? You can't be your own source--the source needs to be independent.
The page link above "confirming" that he had played professionally links to a page that does not mention the subject.

This just seems to me to be even more reason to remove the article from WIkipedia. Again, is there a Romanian version of Wikipedia? It might well be served to go there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page I linked to does mention him - if you scroll down to the Steau Bucharest match, he is clearly shown in their line-up. Therefore he has played in a fully professional league, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....or at least it does now I've fixed the link ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed stance to Keep If Chris is that enthusiastic about the article, and that convinced, then I say we keep it. I guess I'm "caving in" but hey that's part of the process, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1.the report of match don't have direct link and is in english... i think that you are.... http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/divizia_a/2009_10/round_10.shtml i down page will found the report in english.

2.in romania doesn't exist sites in english, if not exist, what do you want to do? then let's remove all romanian footballers. http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/ the matches and other statistics is in english, only news is in romanian. this is the most important website about football statistics in romania.

3. romanian professional football league doesn't have a site with report of matches, only the results and standings.

4.i don't understand. sorry for my bad english 188.25.211.129 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CozyCot[edit]

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

The website doesn't seem to be notable as there's nothing about it on Google or Google News. Three of the sources on the article are press releases by the company, another one is apparently an ad which appeared in The Strait Times. I couldn't check the two other ones but all in all, the website doesn't appear to have received significant coverage. Laurent (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I contemplated speedy deletion for this, but it wasn't clear-cut. Agree with deletion. — Timneu22 · talk 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most notable websites from Singapore (aside of its specific focus on women). I'm not sure about what was searched on Google, but my search on CozyCot returns 324,000 results, on Google News, 3 news specific on CozyCot only from April 16, 2010 onwards. Also an Alexa ranking of 42,000, which ranks well among the social networking websites currently having Wikipedia articles. The nominator should point out which sources are press releases, since I can't find them. Three of the sources are not available on the websites of the respective media, being currently archived. I can point out only the most recent one (April 27, 2010), with a scan of the actual page from the newspaper. This one was among my additions, compared to the Chinese version of the article, which was not updated recently. ZhuLan (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt lacks notability and is likely a target of paid editing. This has been created multiple times in the past and speedied or prodded away each time until now, and it was also discovered that the original incarnation was a result of paid-editing by a sockpuppet of the now-banned user Desiphral. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. Them From Space 03:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesham[edit]

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

Non notable programming language. Appears to have been created by someone with a WP:COI. Disputed prod. Direct references are to articles created by the language creator and apparent article creator. Talk page argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS noq (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thanks for this oportunity to explain why I think this language is worthy of an article. You are right, I do have something of a COI, although in this case I do not believe it makes the article any less worthy of inclusion. I have referenced academic papers which have been peer reviewed on the page and, although I was an author in some of them, they are still reputable sources.

There are a number of reasons for the notability of the language. Firstly, and most importantly from a parallel language point of view, the majority (all?) of parallel languages allow for either implicit or explicit parallelism - the former supports simplicity of use, whereas the later efficiency. In the new paradigm and language described at Mesham this allows for a mixture of these parallel choices to be selected by the programmer, which is completely innovative and in this case is the first language of its kind. There is currently a huge amount of effort and money being spent to develop/find a parallel language which is simple yet efficient and Mesham is a good solution to this problem (the new innovative type oriented approach was worthy of a PhD.)

Additionally, as the article explains, Mesham has been used in a number of different applications - one is the porting of the Gadget cosmological simulation package into Mesham, which has been used to simulate galaxy formations and collisions. This is key as it allows for a much simpler app (up to 16x reduction in code size) yet which is still very efficient - meaning physicists can for the first time write their cosmological simualtions in a higher level, abstract form and not have to worry about the performance hit traditionally associated with such.

I also think that in this case consideration of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relavent. I mentioned in the talk page other languages such as NESL and ZPL - these are worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because, although nowadays they are no longer developed, they do illustrate a path which was followed at one point (and ultimately resulted in a deadend.) Mesham is just as important as these, it illustrates a path which is currently being actively followed, for the first time by this language, at the cutting edge of research into the field - a number of different apps and users have started to use the language and it is growing. I think that the Mesham article certainly fits in and complements these other parallel language articles which all illustrate very different, yet valid, languages which are used to write parallel code (some, for instance Mesham, more than others, for instance NESL.)

I do appreciate it is difficult job you guys do, especially for articles like Mesham in such a specialist field. I am happy to answer any questions you may have to ascertain whether or not Mesham should be included. Nick mesham (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rankiri, thanks for your contribution. Out of the Papers referenced "Type Oriented Programming Meets Gadget-2" is a secondary sources with only a reference to Mesham - this paper details and concentrates on the issues relating to the cosmological simulation package, Gadget-2, and how the Type Oriented programming paradigm can greatly simplify physicists work in this field. A port of Gadget-2 was written in Mesham, and the paper briefly mentions this, but concentrates on the results of the port (and how it relates to the type oriented paradigm) rather than introducing and discussing the language Mesham itself. Nick mesham (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paper was written by the designer of the language and two of his mentors. [16] specifically thanks Dr. Chen and Prof. Munro for their involvement in the project. — Rankiri (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rankiri, you are refering to a completely different reference - that is the 4th article reference you are refering to. The title I mentioned in my discussion above was the third reference of the article, an academic technical report, which discusses Gadget and how type oriented programming helps in this case, which the language Mesham has been used in. Nick mesham (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not referring to a different paper. Type Oriented Programming Meets Gadget-2 was written by N.E.Brown, M. Munro, and Y.Chen, was it not? — Rankiri (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reference you linked to above, nore does the paper I am mentioning contain the text that you reference. I can see why you made that mistake - the paper Type Oriented Programming Meets Gadget-2 is contributed to by those co authors, but whereas [17] you refered to above is a complete primary source, Type Oriented Programming Meets Gadget-2 interprets and generalises the work done to a different end. Nick mesham (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I realised after I posted that, that your intention was to prove the connection of the authors of the paper rather than that saying the 4th reference was the 3rd. That is somewhat of a fair point, and whilst that 3rd reference does discuss a completely different aspect and the specific use of the technology it is written by those closer to the subject than is ideal.Nick mesham (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rankiri. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback so far, now I have had a chance I have taken the comments on board and have had a "shake down" of the article, including references which are written by other people and considered more secondary. Nick mesham (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - Guys, as I said yesterday I have revamped the article with more secondary sources to give it increased reliability. With these extra references and tweaks I feel that the article is much more credible than it was initially. The deadline for the admin review is approaching, so if I can get anymore discussion and suggestions then that would be great. Nick mesham (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the newly added sources don't discuss the subject at all. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. — Rankiri (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference Type Oriented Programming by Kris De Volder and Wolfgang De Meuter discusses the whole concept of type oriented programming which Mesham is the first language to implement. In which case I suppose it could be said that, related to type oriented programming, the references written by myself are actually secondary sources to this subject. The reference New Implementations and Results for the NAS Parallel Benchmarks also discusses the NAS benchmarks which are mentioned under notability. Nick mesham (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "directly in detail, and no original research is needed". We're discussing Mesham, not the general concept of type-oriented programming. — Rankiri (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you are splitting hairs here Rankiri - you are right in saying the article is not 100% perfect but the sources mentioned do I think give it enough credibility (and I think that is an important distinction in its category.) I just do not see how Category:Experimental_programming_languages can meet this criteria you quote as, by their very definition, they are experimental and in the primary stage (although Mesham is less so than many of the others.) Now I am sure you will quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me, but from looking at the other languages on Category:Experimental_programming_languages (and even Category:Concurrent_programming_languages) Mesham is just as (and in many cases more so) complete an article with just as many primary/secondary sources and, importantly, as topical as the majority of other languages on these pages. Whilst I respect and applaud your high standards towards keeping Wikipedia a key resource, I do think in certain categories there needs to be some level of flexibility. Nick mesham (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I hope we can get a few more opinions on this article (the ones so far have been very helpful in providing suggestions for improvement.) Please do bear in mind though that this article is within the Category:Experimental_programming_languages category and as such is within that sort of sphere of Wikipedia (the category statement explicitly mentions languages developed in theoretical computer science research, although as mentioned above Mesham is more mature than being purely research.)Nick mesham (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As always, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources means no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is disapointing that no more people have given any more discussion or their views. I do believe that this article is good enough for inclusion within wikipedia, especially with respect to the category it is in. Thanks for those who have given feedback and ideas to help form the article. Nick mesham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. While the programming language may be valuable, interesting, important, and a breakthrough in parallel computing; until it is the subject of independent, secondary, reliable sources it doesn't get an article here. SnottyWong talk 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot, now that it has been redirected.. kur ykh 04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for the Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2010[edit]

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

Of little or no use at the present time. An article on the elections will become necessary; a timeline, however, is not. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already an article on the elections, the previous elections also had a timeline, no obvious reason why this one should be different. Bevo74 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you demonstrate any need for a timeline at this point? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this page is for uniformity with previous elections.Ericl (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 Nothing is known beyond the fact that there will be a contest sometime in the near future. Beyond that, the rest is speculation. There's barely enough solid information to make the main article viable, let alone this one. So, I think this should be merged and re-directed until such time as more information comes out. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is known is the race has been scheduled and is now on. Notice I said the article was a this point a STUB, which means that it's going to grow exponentially over the next few days and weeks. One has to start somewhere, remember...Ericl (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The race has been scheduled, and is now on; that justifies an article on the election. What justifies a timeline except "there are other timelines"? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, what we want is uniformity among the articles. If most other elections has a series of subsidiary articles, this one should have it too. If you get rid of it now, then you'll have to make an entirely new article later. better to have the architecture in place at the very beginning.Ericl (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're pre-supposing that we're going to need a subsidiary article here, which may not be the case. WP:CRYSTAL, remember? Wikipedia does not write in anticipation of uncertain future events. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What future events? Brown has already "resigned" and the race is officially on. It's sort of like what's going on with the US congressional elections of 2010 and 2012. Also, the 2007 Labour timeline, which was, for the most part, unopposed, is there. The event has alreadyBold text started.Ericl (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly premature and right now, is completely redundant to the main article, which is just about justified at this time. The election will not take place for ages, and Brown has made it clear he expects nobody to start announcing their candidacy until the present negotiations about who will form the next govt conclude. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unnecessarily duplication, perhaps in the future. Merge any content that is relevant to the 2010 Leadership election articleOff2riorob (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to labour party? :P Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Labour party or delete it all if there is nothing worthy of merging. I corrected my comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Premature to start this, can be recreated once there actually are any events to record. Fences&Windows 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unnecessary as a stand alone article and can safely be merged into Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rather redirect to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010) as premature, the Labour Party rules for electing a leader vary, depending on whether or not the party is in Government or opposition, so the exact details of how this will run are not yet clear. I have added a cited summary of the procedures to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. The Cabinet have agreed that there will be no announcements of candiature from them until a new Government is formed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary due to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 - especially since no nominations are going to happen after the Government is formed. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Can only duplicate information which would be better placed there. Once there are more events, it might be justifiable to split it off again, but even then I'd rather see it kept in one article unless it becomes too long. Warofdreams talk 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then why not delete the other timelines from the previous elections? Once the race has started, the architecture should be put in place immediately so we don't have to start up again and again and again.Ericl (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, it's generally inappropriate to compare to other articles in a deletion discussion. Nevertheless, the key difference between this article, and those on past elections, is exactly that - they cover past events. If you're concerned about losing the work you've put in so far, you could copy-and-paste your draft into a subpage of your userpage. Once the events are past, the WP:CRYSTAL policy would no longer apply, and your content could then be either merged into the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 article, or if warranted, serve as the starting point for a new article. Davnor (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once events are past...well, Brown's resignation announcement and the start of the race IS the Past, and thus it applies.Ericl (talk)

Please stop lawyering on wording. The start of this event is past; unless you think the contest is already ended, the event is not. Demonstrate for me, please, that a timeline is necessary. Not that it is present on other elections, not that it might be necessary in the future; demonstrate that here and now, there is so much information on the election that a timeline is the only way to break it down simply for our readers. Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst the article may be a few weeks premature, I can't see that it is worth either deleting it or generating bureaucracy, drama and conflict by talking about deleting it. Even if it is deleted now, it'll need to be created in a matter of weeks, so why waste time getting excited about deleting it now when there are other articles we could all contribute to? ninety:one 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a matter of prematurity, it's a matter of necessity. Can we predict that it will be necessary? No. And it isn't our place to. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given the above discussion, I went ahead and merged the useful content into Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 and redirected this there. If people think I was overly bold, feel free to undo the redirect. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Williams (politician)[edit]

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

Another unsuccessful election candidate in the recent UK General Election. While she came closer than most others, she still lost and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only one third party reference in the election and this covers a minor incident in the election campaign and as such falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Valenciano (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsuccessful candidate, has never held a relevant office for the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Should she ever win an office in future, it would be useful if wikipedia editors would be able to see this page to expand upon, rather than having to start from scratch. — Nicholas (reply) @ 06:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered by WP:CRYSTAL. We can't just keep articles on non-notable people on the offchance that they *might* be notable in the future. In the event that she does meet notability in future, then the creator can contact an admin for a copy of the deleted article. Valenciano (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. fails POLITICIAN and GRG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plenty of PoV, Plenty of claims, no sources at all. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-car measure[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced opinion piece. It is inherently biased, and I don't see any way it can be salvaged. It's worth mentioning that the IP user who removed the PROD (possibly the same person as the original contributor) has a history of edits like this. L P ^talk 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research (very original, I would add). My own theory is that traffic planning is done by idiots rather than by a group of people conspiring to get us to switch to public transit. However, as with the ideas here, that's POV and is not based on anything in print. If the idea -- that there is a group of people who have come up with "anti-car" measures that are "usually disguised as improvements to road safety or the environment" -- has been published in a book, magazine, etc., that would be a different matter. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just ridiculous. I tried to suggest essay pieces should have CSD reasons, but no one agreed. It's awful this has to go through AFD. Pure trash. — Timneu22 · talk 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do a fair amount of new page patrol, and I certainly share your frustration with people using Wikipedia to push their opinions. However, I think a CSD criterion for that would be inappropriate for most of the reasons people brought up on that discussion. --L P ^talk 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant POV piece -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced POV piece, nothing even to establish this as a term. Hairhorn (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant POV. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK -- the article as it stands contains virtually no references to sources other than the book itself and is almost wholly original research. Sure, it won an award from Christianity Today (though there is no source for this claim) -- but the relevant provision of WP:NBOOK specifies that a book must win a literary award to be notable on that ground. I can't see that it is notable on the other grounds specified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I suppose a redirect to Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be an okay compromise. This is practically a Cliff Notes version of the book, as opposed to an article about its impact, or about praise or criticism. However, the Council itself made the news; the book itself is just the explanation of their views, and this article is the explanation of the explanation. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace. "Cliff Notes version" is a good description. I recommend a major abbreviation of the article's text with the title being retained. The book contains some scholarly work by respected theologians and academicians. The topic is worthwhile and is highly controversial, hence of considerable interest to many. It should be rewritten as prose in a format similar to an academic book review. As written, it is much more like a professor's teaching notes. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like most WP articles, this is an unfinished product, a work in progress. Before we consider eradicating the tireless efforts of its author we should question its worth as a vehicle for information to our customer--the reader. Let us not forget the spirit of Wikipedia: sharing knowledge. Is the article encyclopedic and is it up to standards? The article is neutral, it says thing about the book. Consider: Does the current text state "RBMW says 'X Y Z'" or does it claim "X Y Z" is true, and then cites RBMW? The first is a neutral description of the book and can be checked for accuracy. The second would be claiming that Wikipedia follows RBMW as a source of truth, which would, of course, be non-neutral. The article states that RBMW says "X Y Z". It says things about the book, not things about truth. It is neutral.--Buster7 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. There are plenty of news sites reviewing this book. Dream Focus 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable because it is discussed in other sources such as Southern masculinity: perspectives on manhood in the South since Reconstruction. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are over 100 Google Scholar citations of the book. There are 393 books in Google Books referring to this book, even after self-citations in other books by Piper and/or Grudem are excluded. That's enough to make the book notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books) #1. The article needs work, but that's not a matter for AfD. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radagast. This book actually does seem to be "notable" in the real-world sense, not just the Wikipedia sense, as an often-refernenced, still debated text for a particular point of view within evangelical Christianity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I was dissapointed not to able to find refutations of the "scholarship" in this book which are glaringly obvious to anyone with a good knowledge of God's word. However the work does seem to easilly satisfy our inclusion criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly rename However, I would be happier it the title ended with "(book)" to indicate that the article is about a book, not directly about Biblical manhood etc. I would also like to see some discussion of reactions to it, reporting what has been said in reviews or other citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Move the article to Complementarian criticisms of evangelical feminism, and precisely the same text would no longer be describing RBMW, but would be quoting RBMW as if it were a reliable source of Complementarian criticism. Why delete a good summary of reliable sources if it can be moved somewhere else and be viable? But, then again, why even move the material? The question is: does the current text accurately, fairly and neutrally summarise the subject of the article? Isn't that what encyclopedia articles are supposed to do?--Buster7 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but edit I consider this a propagandistic POV essay on the concepts propounded by the book, as shown most clearly by the section "Reception", which reads in full: "Christian figures already sympathetic to Complementarianism have praised the collection." The article is in good measure a subtle example of soapbox, presenting the views on an issue under guise of discussing a book. I personally think the best way to deal with this article would be to delete it and start over, but I can;t rule out the possibility that it can be rewritten more suitably. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsy Fowler[edit]

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

needs some references, one more notability artifact. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Finding issues with an article is a reason to perhaps tag one for expansion or cleanup or sources... not to force cleanup by bringing it to AFD within two minutes of it being first created,[18] with the justification that it needs "needs some references, one more notability artifact". That's not what AFD is for. Please, read or re-read WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, the deletion policies at WP:DEL#Reasons for deletion and WP:DEL#Alternatives to deletion. Thank you, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Article is mis-titled. The actress's name is spelled "Kelsey Fowler". The incorrect spelling above does not lead to useful search results.

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

Keep and further expand and source. For a youngster, she does seem to be getting reviewed for her various stage works... specially now that she's touring with Disney after a 2-year stint with them on Broadway. This tyke is meeting WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I renamed the article to her properly spelled name, and added a link to her official website in the article. She has done a lot, and is clearly notable. Dream Focus 09:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Penn School District. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Lane Elementary School[edit]

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

needs more notability, references. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into the school district's article. That's common procedure for most elementary schools. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Penn School District. The building of the new school is important within the context of the article about the district. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per current practice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to East Penn School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. tedder (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veera Parampare[edit]

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

page does not show notability for film. if the user can provide notable references, possibly something on an indian movie chart or something, then i think it'd be set. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bollywood isn't exactly my area of expertise, but it appears to be a significant film with two major stars which is well into shooting already. Notable enough as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Kannada film as the references above show. Note to nom - There is no single "India Movie" chart. There are a lot of regional language film industries of which Bollywood is the biggest and best known to the outside world. Besides bollywood there are Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Marathi and Bhojpuri film industries.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand stub per sources found and offered by User:Joe Chill and additionally available sources. That an article is poorly written is a reason to fix it if possible... not delete it. And toward the nominator's bringing the article to AFD just 3 minutes after it was created[24]... AFD is not for cleanup. A little communication with the author first would have far better served the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Hoekwater[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)

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's one of the most important developers in the TeX world today. The article shows this and has reliable sources (the interview). Disclosure: I'm a friend of Taco.--Oneiros (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". A single webpage just isn't enough. If there are no properly published sources it doesn't matter how important he is. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult to find sources outside the TeX world, if you think all sources from there (articles, web pages) are not independent.--Oneiros (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider software developers under WP:AUTH, how should this proved here?--Oneiros (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind sources from the TeX world at all, but it has to be something a lot more substantial than a web interview. An online journal would be perfectly acceptable, but the interview currently used could hardly be called a published source. As mentioned below (in the Till Tantau AfD), even if he is notable there can't be an article if there are no proper sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are these two articles in TUGboat: http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb29-2/tb92hagen-euler.pdf and http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb28-3/tb90hoekwater-luatex.pdf Rivanvx (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by the subject himself do not establish notability because they are not third-party reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. People don't realize what a liability wiki bio is for a private individual until some shits gets added to it and persists for months. Taco is well known in the TeX community, but that community can read the interview with him on tug.org without this 2-liner pointing to it. In the past, I had created a bio for Werner Lemberg, but later deleted it after I concluded I was the only editor watching or updating it— that was also based on a single interview on tug.org as semi-independent coverage about him. As far as the wikirulz are concerned, that kind of interview is too closely related to his work. The TeX papers he authored aren't a criteria for inclusion, unless they are widely cited, which is not the case here. Pcap ping 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ConTeXt. Clearly relevant to the scope of that article, and insufficient sourced material for a stand-alone bio. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability because the unreliable sources are insufficient. Though I would oppose a merge of content sourced to a wiki and other sources of that nature, I would be all right with a "delete and redirect to ConTeXt". Cunard (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources, and I disagree that a merge or redirect would be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm not sure whether lack of reliable third-party sources mentioned by several people means that he's probably not import enough to deserve attention from outside of TeX world or that bibliography might be wrong or at least not confirmed strongly enough. So I'll try to explain both. Argumentation for Hans Hagen would be very similar to this one.
- Importance: My first question would be: is TeX notable at all? The answer doesn't seem so obvious. It's a fact that Wikipedia uses it for writing equations, but I dare to claim that hardly a promile of people uses it or maybe even knows about it. It's importance is hardly comparable with Office. Maybe we should remove all the articles about TeX for the lack of notability? Assuming that TeX is still important enough – who are its main players? It is a bold statement of me, I know, but I claim that if we could somehow rank developers according to their brightness, innovation and influence (and take Leslie Lamport and Hans Hagen out of the game for a moment), Taco would rank #2, just after Donald Knuth (though still a giant leap after him). I probably need to explain that a bit further.
  - Nowadays there are four TeX engines worth mentioning:
    - TeX by Donald Knuth – (the original, if nothing else important for historical reasons)
    - pdfTeX by Hàn Thế Thành – most probably the most widely used at the moment, but development has officially been discontinued in favor of LuaTeX
    - XeTeX by Jonathan Kew - the first Unicode-aware engine that made a huge revolution; matured and widely adopted by LaTeX audience
    - LuaTeX by Taco Hoekwater - the next generation of pdfTeX, completely rewritten and "revolutionary" (yes, sorry, I know that this is a forbidden word if it was an article and not a discussion, but I can afford that word since it's just a discussion; maybe I need to explain that in TeX that's more than 30 years old now many things are very hard to do, so some breakthroughs really deserve that adjective); still only halfway of its development, widely adopted by ConTeXt users due to development of ConTeXt MKIV.
    - (I probably left out the implied eTeX and abandoned Omega/Aleph out.) Both Hàn and Jonathan Kew started the "revolution"; they are both much less active in development, also because both engines have almost reached the level of matureness; Taco took the "revolution" a step higher and after the 80.000$ grant has been given, he was able to devote almost his full-time for development that has run for a few years now.
  - Additionally, there are two graphical engines:
    - MetaFont by Donald Knuth
    - MetaPost by John Hobby (discontinued) and Taco Hoekwater who took over all the recent development
  - The following are the strongest user groups that also donate most money to projects:
    - TUG (global) lead by Karl Berry
    - DANTE (German)
    - NTG (Dutch) lead by Taco Hoekwater
    - GUST (Polish)
    - CSTUG (Czech)
    - (There are some others like Italian, French, Indian, UK, Korean etc., but they hardly participate in funding international projects)
  - The following conferences/meetings[25] are most influential:
    - TUG meetings (global)
    - EuroTeX (European) — organized by Taco at least once
    - DANTE meetings (Germany)
    - BachoTeX meetings (Poland)
    - ConTeXt meetings — started by Taco and planned to be organized by him every two years; size comparable to any other meeting (this year's TUG might be bigger due to the fact that Knuth is paying a visit)
    - NTG meetings (Netherlands)
    - other local: Asian, French, Italian, Czecho-Slovak
  - The importance of ConTeXt might be smaller than that of LaTeX (slightly less users), but despite that, he's the #2 developer of ConTeXt
  - The only remaining means to compare influence in TeX world might be taking into account development of packages, fonts and maintainance of distributions such as MikTeX or TeX Live. I could start listing many other software developers with equally "unnotable" influence that exist in Wikipedia.
- Checking the facts: Now for the accuracy of info listed on the page and analysing where it may be proven (even if that's only the primar source).
  - year and place of birth: no reliable sources cited, but he might be willing to send copy of id if that's the only valid way to prove it
  - main developer of LuaTeX: may be checked in SVN repository for commit logs; same is true for MetaPost
  - first user of ConTeXt: interview, probably also mailing list archives featuring the third user
  - MetaPost was originally written by John Hobby: may be checked in many sources, probably MetaPost manual to start with; further development by him may be checked in SVN commit log
  - to implement some features needed in ConTeXt and by Polish MetaType1 font developers: see interview, but I can also point to some discussions on the mailing list if needed
  - library called MPlib: may be checked in MetaPost SVN repository as well
  - improve efficiency and gain speed in ConTeXt: I can try to send some timings
  - which is known for a heavy use of MetaPost graphics: see http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/metafun-s.pdf
  - president of the Dutch language-oriented TeX users group (NTG) since 2009: properly cited
  - editor of the user group's magazine MAPS: cited, also this (Taco Hoekwater, Redactioneel)
  - first and main organizer of ConTeXt User Meetings: properly cited with link on meeting homepage where the whole paragraph may be double-checked
  - Development and packages: if any information is not clear or improperly cited (it should only contain primary sources that confirm the information; no independent secondary sources describing it in one whole article, I admit), I can try to fix it

I would be greateful if any further comments and votes for deletion could also point out whether the article about him fails in the first (he's not important) or second point (cannot be confirmed that information written in article holds for sure and which part of information is questionable). Thanks. I'm sorry for being so long, but I had no idea how to explain it in a shorter way. --Mojca Miklavec (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being deleted not because he is unimportant; it is being deleted because the subject lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. When information cannot be confirmed for an article about a living person, the article fails two core Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and will have to be deleted. Cunard (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we don't have articles about Hàn Thế Thành, Jonathan Kew, Karl Berry, or John Hobby, all of who are notable in the TeX world, should be a strong indicator that real world notability in some field does not imply wikinotability for various reasons explains above by Cunard. I should add that the biography of Till Tantau, who wrote PGF/TikZ, has also been deleted recently. Pcap ping 08:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the only TeXnicians which have clear wikinotability are Donald Knuth and Leslie Lamport only shows that WP:BIO is buggy (because e.g. all players of San Juan Jabloteh are notable, while software developers in general are not) and Wikipedia is becoming irrelevant (of course the official view is that reality is buggy and Wikipedia is right). And it also shows that WP:ATD is ignored by most editors.--Oneiros (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As response to Oneiros. Let me first say that I know literally nothing about footbal players. I clicked on a random link, for example Kevaughn Connell. There is an non-independent link (some so called "inseder" footbal site) that lists his date of birth, height and matches where he has played. Nothing else about his biography or whatsoever, not even a link like Taco's or Hans' interview where they do tell a bit about their own history. Absolutely zero about other facts about his bibliography. A google search on "Hans Hagen ConTeXt" returns almost 60.000 results (well, there are plenty of repetitions like multiple copies of mailing list archives etc.), while a google search on "Kevaughn Connell football" only returns 4.000 hits (though there certainly are some of existing links that would meet the criteria for "reliable third-party sources"). Related to football, another comment about a player that probably does deserve a place on Wikipedia, Zlatko Zahovič. I haven't seen even the slightest trace of any link to support his biography (though most of what's written is probably true, but nobody has ever complained about "citation needed"). I do agree with Nuujinn that athletes usually deserve more public attention than software developers, but they do make a living out of their fame without necessary bringing any progress to the world, while sofware developers are usually pretty well-hidden behind their product while doing some influential work. I'll be honest - I'm not able to name any of Microsoft developers (apart from Bill Gates), any Mac developer (apart from Steve Jobs, but I didn't even know his name when I already owned a Mac), and almost no names of any developer of any commercial or opensource software which I use every day and which does have a big influence on my work and productivity. Despite the fact that developers were much more important for my life than any athlete I can think of. --Mojca Miklavec (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say "deserve", I said "have". Other stuff exists, and if you have found an article that you feel is not correctly sourced or the subject of which is not notable, please, be bold--nominate it for deletion, or edit it to make it better. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to say that I started writting this biography because I see that Taco is "important" person in ConTeXt world. I tried to put notably sources for that article. If the article does not contains reliable sources, sorry: improve it. Don't delete. I prefer having a little information about a notably person in real world than nothing. But the wikipedia policy is what it's. If you apply, finally, it remains only tech web articles, oh not, it's another reason for deleting ;-). It does that more and more people left editing in wikipedia. --Xan2 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oneiros, I am sympathetic, but the fact is that athletes do in fact have more notability than software developers, especially those who work on FOSS projects. He may be very important to the TeX community, but that doesn't make him notable in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, although I use TeX regularly, that doesn't change the fact that these people are mostly known within their community, not beyond it. I think most TeX users may only know Knuth's part but not the others.. TeX itself is well-known but the developers behind it generally aren't. - Simeon (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost equivalent to the statement (which is also true for me) that "I use wikipedia regularly, but have no idea about its founder." I bet that the vast majority of wikipedia users (both readers, but also writers) has no idea about who created it and doesn't care about that at all. I wonder if number of wikipedia readers who know the name of founder reaches a promile. However this doesn't make the founder unimportant. To the contrary: if there was no founder, there would be no Wikipedia (or whatever other product you may think of). Similarly, I have no idea who founded the company that created car that I drive, the computer I used, ... Most people probably have no idea who invented the lightbulb even if everyone agrees it's important and uses it literally all the time. But that doesn't make its inventor unimportant. (lots of irony: Who cares about Steve Jobs? It's Apple products that people worship, not Steve Jobs, istn't it?) When you say that you use TeX, you probably mean LaTeX and you probably do know Leslie Lamport at least and agree that he might be important. ConTeXt community and userbase is definitely smaller than the one of LaTeX. But I dare to claim that more than 10% (if not one half) knows about its author (Does anyone dare to make the same claim for the author of Wikipedia compared to the number of its readers?) I would accept the argument that TeX or ConTeXt is not important when compared to Office giants. But saying that even if A (author) is (vitally) important for C (context) and C is important W (world), but A is not important for W is violating the rules of logic. Several thousand people know Hans' and Taco's name (based on the fact that the number of subscribers of mailing list is 700 and that those care to read some 30 mails per day). That number may be small, but if the number of ConTeXt users is not much more than that, this implies that almost every user knows him. If number of ConTeXt users is much higher, say for a factor of 100, that means that ConTeXt is more widespread and important than we thought which increases program's significance (and author's significance as well). I agree with Oneiros that the rules for Software developers might need to be adapted. There is constant media attention about Firefox, but hardly any about people behind it. If these particular people were not there, we would all still be using IE. --Mojca Miklavec (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making some very good points and I agree with most of them. Inventors/creators/founders are very important indeed but the question is whether a separate article is warranted. In this case, I'm not so sure. Leslie Lamport would certainly also have an article even if LaTeX (I indeed meant LaTeX) never existed, due to his scientific contributions. Steve Jobs and Apple have almost become synonymous and he's also known for Pixar and other things. - Simeon (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC) See the history of this for example.--Xan2 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing significant coverage of this guy by independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The issue of lack of sourcing is not very well addressed. There are several assertions that Hagen is an important figure in TeX development, but there is no real evidence that being a contemporary developer, or president of Nederlandstalige TeX Gebruikersgroep (NTG) is an encyclopedic achievement, especially when the person and the group he leads, appear to be fairly low profile in the community at large. Much of the referencing is to webfora or other noticeboards where Hagen is a member, and none of that really contributes to the subject's notability. With the reliable sourcing issue unresolved, I am closing this with a deletion result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hagen[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)

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's one of the most important developers in the TeX world today. The article shows this and has reliable sources (the interview). Disclosure: I'm a friend of Hans.--Oneiros (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No reliable web notability, and a "strong keep" from the subject's friend is WP:POV or WP:OR. This article is rubbish and should be removed. — Timneu22 · talk 13:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't know him personally, but he is very important in TeX community. You can find many conference papers, articles and books written by him. He frequently speaks at TeX conferences, e.g. http://river-valley.tv/tag/hans-hagen/ --Rivanvx (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any secondary reliable sources that document coverage of the subject at conferences or of the subject's books? I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for his name in the Google book search, along with various other things to sort through the results, to make sure it was the right guy. Only entries I find is that they mention his name as the creator of that system. [26]. Is there anything out there on this guy other than an interview on a site dedicated to his industry, or this http://river-valley.tv/about-us/ site which is just recordings of confidences? Anything independent of the source? Dream Focus 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs are Taco Hoekwater Till Tantau Dream Focus 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ConTeXt until someone finds independent reputable sources discussing the person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He might well be "of the most important developers in the TeX world today" but it is a very small world and there are no independent biographical sources. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a bit small minded to claim that the pope is notable only among priests. The natural audience is anyone seriously involved in technical communication who wishes to learn the history of their tools, precisely what an encyclopedia exists to enable. I also think there is a peculiar notability bias against individuals whose work is so self-evidently important to the community they serve, that no busy-minded person sees any point in publishing a notable article about the fact (which if you think about it, is secondary to the work itself). There's enough here not to be an outright embarrassment, and if this project continues to deliver at the established pace, his notability will only increase. On the other hand, Taco Hoekwater is presently so thin as to be far, far away from even a week keep with arched eyebrows. — MaxEnt 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another short comment after a second read. I understand the sources are weak, but they strike me as adequate to document a person's accomplishments when conducted in plain view. I don't agree that colour commentary such as His talks are mostly known for diverse style and presenting features that everyone believed were impossible to do with TeX. are permissible relative to those sources. Finally, it bears noting that he has an auteur relationship to a software product whose notability is not contested. — MaxEnt 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone reviewing the article now, please note that none of the 8 footnotes are actually sources of information, they are just external links to projects Hagen is involved with, offering zero information on him. As of now there is just one single source in the entire article and that is the web interview. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Not sure if I'm allowed to vote here at all, but just a few comments to make. The fact that he has been a president of NTG and involved in mentioned projects is something that can be checked in references (if there are not enough references for that part, additional ones may be added; there are plenty financial reports about DANTE/NTG/GUST projects in TeX magazines). The supporting of community can be checked on the mailing list, as well as his presence on conferences and numerous of his articles in magazines. I completely agree that there are no "yellow media" links about his personal life, but I don't think that any of his very personal life that's not connected to ConTeXt would belong to wikipedia anyway. Just about the only non-citable source of information in description seems to be his birth date. I'm not sure if that one is really needed here anyway, but if definition of encyclopedia entry requires that, so let it be. If anyone tells me which references exactly are missing (for which piece of information), I can try to find them and add them. Can someone please tell me how to remove the request to delete the photo? I have forwarded author's explicit permission to use it to suggested e-mail, but got no response so far. —Mojca Miklavec (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability because the unreliable sources are insufficient. Though I would oppose a merge of content sourced to mailing lists and other sources of that nature, I would be all right with a "delete and redirect to ConTeXt". Cunard (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment finding sources outside the TeX community (i.e. independent) about Hans will be hard if not impossible. But I have to ask: Is that really necessary? Have a look at Ulrich Drepper: Surely a notable person. But no reliable sources. (I know that pointing at other articles is a non-argument and I'll happily take this discussion somewhere else). The same is probably true for most entries in Category:Computer specialist stubs.--Oneiros (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. In response to the above, just because Hans is a techie who works on computers all day doesn't mean we have any less responsibility in presenting a neutral biography verifiable in independent reliable sources than we do in our articles about Lady Gaga or Michael Phelps. If anything, it might even be argued that it's more important to source marginal BLPs with extreme care, as misinformation can go far longer without being discovered than it would in a high-profile article with a lot of daily traffic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only in-depth source about him is an interview in tug.org. Pcap ping 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interviews have been published as a book; see the article.--Oneiros (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unlike others here, I've never said tug.org is unreliable. But, it's only one, even if republished in various media. See also my comments in the AfD for Taco Hoekwater, which uses the same source. Pcap ping 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course. And thanks for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulrich Drepper, although I see a general lack of trying WP:ATD.--Oneiros (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This entire discussion is misguided in my view. Hans Hagen is the creator and maintainer of one of the most powerful pieces of typography and typesetting software in existence today. The stamp he leaves here and in other areas of the TeX community, such as MetaPost and luatex, is above and beyond the criteria of notability. His biography should be available to people researching ConTeXt and/or TeX. Any deficiencies should be remedied, but asking for a delete is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.From my vantage point as a professional researcher, I can state that it is pedantic at best, and sophistical at worst, to argue for the deletion of an article about an important figure just because available information about that person is limited. The emphasis should be on gathering more information, not a priori denying users access to the limited amount of information that is available on an important figure within an important and dynamic niche and intersection of the software, typesetting, and typography universes. And the current sources from within that niche are perfectly reliable: The people involved with TUG are generally professionals and experts. It is neutral because TUG in general takes a neutral stand with respect to ConTeXt, not one of advocacy. And professionals and experts with a relevant interest will be sure to notice mistakes and/or lack of balance: The TeX community is not monolithic. User:Ishamid:Ishamid (talk) 16:30 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, due to the lack of substantive coverage in secondary sources. --Pink Bull 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ConTeXt. Clearly relevant to the scope of that article, and insufficient sourced material for a stand-alone bio Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge because the sources in this article are unreliable; thus, the content fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed - withdrawn by nom. Cleaned up nicely. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Levin (writer)[edit]

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

Bringing this in as the author of the article noted the article's subject has hit NYT bestseller list. I'm pulling out and calling neutral, however, deferring to consensus - while I don't think one book on NYTBSL is substantial enough to make WP:N, I'd rather bring this to the community for the purpose. Again, going neutral in deference to community. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerGauge[edit]

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

This article is about a company that does not meet either the general notability guidelines, nor the one specifically for companies. The 4 references in the article are (1) not a reliable sources, (2),(3) press releases, (4) the company's web site. I can find no independent coverage myself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Nothing but press releases at Gnews. Nothing on Google but the company's website and this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velveting[edit]

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

Contested prod. Wikipedia is neither a cookbook nor a how-to. The term could be merged into Chinese cuisine but I would find a redirect "velveting" far too unspecific to be associated with cookery. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a cooking technique, then it's possible that this could be written about without sounding like User:Betty Crocker was the author. It's supposed to be a method of cooking meat so as to keep it from getting dry. I've heard of velveting rabbit, so perhaps notability can be established. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It turns out there is a ton of information out there about this technique; it is highly notable. I just rewrote the article so that it is no longer cookbookish. I added three sources but there were dozens more I could have added. The article is a stub but could be expanded. Nice pun on the Velveteen Rabbit, Mandsford. ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And good work on the improvements by Melanie. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the article is no longer a recipe I still don't think we need a standalone for this. Let's merge it to Chinese cuisine. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is your specific rationale for deletion, now that it is no longer a cookbook/how-to article (your original rationale)? Notability? There are a ton of references in reliable sources. Brevity? The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I liked it better when De728631 was advocating delete. Merging to Chinese cuisine strikes me as one of the odder suggestions that I've read. Let's improve the article on aspirin and then merge it to drugstore while we're at it. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the general opinion here seems to be that the subject as such is notable enough, but leaving it as a stub implies that the article can be extended beyond stub quality. And I for one don't see how there is much more to say than what has already been written. If it turns out one day that velveting is the non-plus-ultra cooking technique for whatever reason, we can always break it from Chinese cuisine for a new standalone, but better have it in a proper context now than all alone. That's why I now think it should be merged. De728631 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the good work to improve the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 75th Fires Brigade (United States). Merging to the only existing article, but if someone wants to create an article at 18th Field Artillery Regiment and merge this to it feel free. Tim Song (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment[edit]

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

Non-notable unit. Even 18th Field Artillery Regiment does not appear to exist. Does not appear to assert any notability in terms of unit history. SGGH ^ping! 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article was created by Charles432 (talk · contribs) combining both Public Domain and copyrighted text and then speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G12, I merely recreated a clean stub using the PD text. No opinion on the merit of the deletion request, although I have reverted the article text to the initial stub state, restoring the attribution template and the EL that was accidentally removed on the May 2 addition of unsourced content. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significance for this particular unit. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to 18th Field Artillery Regiment and Keep. We have a growing number of articles at Category:Artillery Regiments of the United States Army and the best way is to keep all the regimental data together - it gets too complicated if we have separate articles for each battalion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the 18th has notability of its own? SGGH ^ping! 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our general position is that battalion-sized units or greater are notable; you can see the other artillery regiments deemed notable in this category, and there are just about thousands of battalion/regiment articles over various wikis. Short answer: yes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I have no objections to this. SGGH ^ping! 10:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to 18th FAR or 75th Fires Brigade (United States). bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at 75th Fires Brigade (United States), it has several battalions 1st-17thFAR; 2nd-18th FAR (this one); and 3rd -13th FAR. Thus, I wonder if what they mean is that this is the 2nd Battalion (of the Fires Brigade), otherwise known as the "18th Field Artillery Regiment". If so, "merging" this to an 18th FAR wouldn't make a lot of sense. Renaming it and (possibly) redirecting the current name, might. IF this is a regiment itself, as I am beginning to suspect it is, then it should have its own article, but it should be properly named. David V Houston (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, if you want to learn about how U.S. Army regiments are organised, take a look at U.S. Army Regimental System. 'Line' battalions of armour, infantry, artillery, and cavalry are battalions of regiments, not battalions of brigades. Regiments have several battalions - some had up to seven or eight in the 1980s. I continue to support an upmerge which will be able to cover all the battalions of the 18th FAR though all the time it's been active. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps. OK, upmerge as proposed by others. I know a bit more about military organization in the mid-19th century than in the early 21st, but not much about either, really. David V Houston (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Baer[edit]

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

Not sure how this family divorce attorney is notable. He writes for one publication. So? This article is written as an advertisement, and I can see no reliable third-party coverages that makes its inclusion worthy on WP. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Mark Baer doesn’t remotely have the notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. His article was created by a red-text, single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deleted the "practice areas" section because that was the part that was flagged as sounding like an advertisement. I can't see what else could be an issue, as I've tried to make the article objective. She Rusty Wake —Preceding unsigned comment added by She Rusty Wake (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — She Rusty Wake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact that the editor has only edited this page is highly suspicious of advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. No independent coverage at all, references are primary sources or directories. There are 200,000 attorneys in California; we don't need an article on each of them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I cannot see that evidence of the band passing the notability guidelines for articles in general or music bands in particular are met. The first keep vote acknowledges that the article fails the WP:BAND guideline, and contains research, and the claim that an article built on such a foundation can be cleaned up and improved is not substantiated. The rationale behind second keep vote is also not well substantiated has been rebutted successfully. My conclusion is therefore that the arguments heavily favor the side advocating deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Firman (band)[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (the Herald Sun review is on the trivial side). prod and prod2 removed saying "references support notability". i don't see which references do that. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are listed on AMG, have released one album, and had their music released on iTunes. They do seem to fail much of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the article does appear to have a lot of original research, although I see no reason that it can't be tagged for cleanup and improved. I see no reason to delete it at this point. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The allmusic thing is only a listing, it was an ep and that is less than the two asked for by wp:music and selling music on itunes is nothing special. I searched for sources to improve the article (and added the one trivial source I found) but didn't see enough to convince me this article was worth keeping. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial sources do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, meets #1 and #11 of WP:BAND. -Reconsider! 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no pass on #11, being played twice is not rotation. what coverage do you think meets #1? I can't see it. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to have to disagree with the above editor, I do not see how they meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. The existing sources are trivial or non-independent (so they don't meet #1), and being played a few times on Triple J and community radio isn't good enough to count as "rotation" in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Colombo. kur ykh 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Chemistry, University of Colombo[edit]

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

I can find no precedent for offering a wikipedia article to a department of a university, especially since this department doesn't seem to have done anything notable. This reads more like an advertisement (or a brochure) for the department; it does not read as an encyclopedic article. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Colombo. LadyofShalott 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding precendent, the nominator should see Category:University and college departments. (That being said, I maintain my vote above of merge is the correct action for this mostly unreferenced article.) LadyofShalott 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was suggesting that this university dept had no reason to have a page, as it doesn't seem to have accomplished anything notable. — Timneu22 · talk 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that seems to be your general reason for deletion, but my precedent comment was directed to this part of your statement: "I can find no precedent for offering a wikipedia article to a department of a university". :) LadyofShalott 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See rename comment below. That's why I couldn't find an article that was similar. — Timneu22 · talk 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do agree this looks more like a advertisement. It could be redone to reduce the flare. Cossde (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to rename if kept, one reason I couldn't find a precedent is that everything else is school-dept, not dept-school. See Eastern Michigan University's Department of Special Education, not the other way around. Also, if we rename, this article name should not be kept as a redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While university then department is the majority style, it is not as universally true as you imply. LadyofShalott 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good place for a new policy, then. — Timneu22 · talk 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect - no notability indicated. UtherSRG (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Colombo. Few Google News hits; I found no indication of notability. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to university page. It's a great example of content that may belong on Wikipedia, but doesn't warrant its own article. tedder (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Colombo. Not each of the departments of each university needs a separate page in Wikipedia. A valid solution would be to merge the page with University of Colombo, where it fits more. Pradeeban (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefsplanet[edit]

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

This article does not establish verifiable notability per WP:N and WP:WEB. Jminthorne (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't claim to know anything about Wikipedia, but there are several pages for other high-traffic internet forums on here. Just thought there should be one for a forum that's been around for a decade now. I was inspired by the Wiki page for SomethingAwful, which has been around just one year longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Can't find any third-party coverage for this forum. (BTW, Bfett81, what you said isn't quite enough to keep an article on Wikipedia; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Here is a Kansas City Star article wherein Chiefsplanet was mentioned by nationally syndicated Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6732254#post6732254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's only a trivial mention of the forum on the forum. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but I had to post a link to the article on the forum because the article itself, which was in the Kansas City Star, is now a 404 link. I could prove that the article does indeed exist, but I would have to pay 2.99 for the KC Star archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chiefsplanet is also referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kansas_City_Chiefs_quarterbacks#cite_note-What.27s_up_I-38 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Other Wikipedia articles aren't third-party sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: How about this? This charitable foundation references the forum: http://www.family-source.com/cache/356442/idx/0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think wikipedia trying to get infomation on everything i think that this site is important metioning cause of the 37 forever foundation.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. In response to Bfett81, SomethingAwful has more than 10 times more members than "chiefsplanet", so it isn't particularly wise to try to compare the two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable local event-management business. Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I saw some news hits, but based on the edit history, it looks like this is an article for promo purposes. It's already been called out as an orphan as well. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Like LadyofShalott, my impression after reviewing this discussion and the article, was that there were possible original research by synthesis concerns, but I have registered that she too has landed on the "keep"-side which has a reasonably clear majority in the discussion. Looking at the article, it appears that the specific facts in the article appear to be sufficiently backed up by the footnote references. The main concern is whether there has been a general concern about islamist militancy in Uyghur guest houses; rather than just unrelated concerns on specific, unrelated, guest houses. It is not all that easy for me to render judgement on that question since I don't have access to the sources, and I must therefore let the voice of the community control here, and in this discussion at least, I cannot see that the community has reached any consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy

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

Attack page that has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The same author has created similar pages targeting the Uighur ethnic group and that were recently deleted. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uyghur_guest_house.2C_Jalalabad, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uighur_guest_house.2C_Pakistan IQinn (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep -- The wikipedia is not a hagiography. Contrary to the speedy deletion justification our nomator offered, that this article "specifically target[s] the Uyghur ethnic group", it references and reports, using a neutral point of view what WP:RS which single out specific Uyghur guest houses as suspicious had to say. Nominator and I have had numerous discussions. I have found that when they challenge material as "misleading" they don't seem to distinguish between wikipedians lapsing from the neutral point of view, and contributing material that doesn't neutrally report what WP:RS say, and neutral reporting of WP:RS where, in their personal opinion, they consider the original WP:RS to be misleading. This is a serious mistake. When an article neutrally reports what WP:RS say it should not be described as misleading, without regard to whether individual wikipedians regard the WP:RS as misleading. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand WP:RS is only one of our core policies and this policy has often been often misused as justification for people who are WP:GAMEing the system. Sure all WP:RS but it has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to an extend where it should be speedy deleted because it is just unencyclopedic. IQinn (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't fully understand this reply. We have many policies, including deletion policies. As I understand it, the merits of covering the topic is what matters. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that your unexplained WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns hold merit -- a weak current version of an article on a topic that is worth covering is a solvable problem. A perception of biased passages in an article on a notable topic is a solvable problem. A perception that passages in an article on a notable topic contains original research is also a solvable problem. Perceptions of these kinds of concerns are supposed to be addressed on the article's talk page. I welcome you offering civil, meaningful, substantial explanations of your concerns -- on the talk page.

WRT your WP:Unencyclopedic concern. This not a policy, it is a redirect to a section of the essay WP:Arguments to avoid. It is a cautionary note of an argument the essay's author(s) consider frequently misused in deletion discussions; problematic; circular; one that should be avoided. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know i am not a fan of WP:Wikilawyering what is a form of WP:GAMEing the system.

I always prefer to fix article rather than deleting them but i highly doubt that this is possible here as there are quite a lot of fundamental problems that even touches BLP issues and violate a few core policies. Let's start with WP:OR WP:SYNTH a fundamental problem that you well know. You have ask another user about this issue and i am going to post his/her answer to the issue of WP:SYNTH, i think it may be a good start to discuss this topic:

...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.

Can you please show some RS as requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this looks like it may violate WP:SYNTH. LadyofShalott 15:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lack of articles from "mainstream" media is somewhat troubling. Also, the selection of refs that are used appear to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV .Nomen Nescio talk 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Responding to a question on my talk page I think some clarification is warranted. First, pointing out the lack of MSM does not mean I believe they are more reliable than the smaller ones. It does, however, reflect the notability of the report. If the MSM fail to report certain stories one has to wonder: why? Second, I find the sources used are not entirely randomly chosen. Which, to me, constitutes a red flag.Nomen Nescio (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WRT confirmation bias / non-random choice, if you are concerned that I cherry-picked references, excluding WP:RS that described Uyghur guest houses that were not suspected of ties to militancy, please take my word that I have not. All the references to Uyghur guest houses I could find describe them as tied to militancy. Are there Uyghur guest houses that aren't suspected of militancy? Maybe, but there don't seem to be any WP:RS that cover them. Anyhow, they would be off-topic, since the title of this article confines it to those Uyghur guest houses that are suspected of ties to militancy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article notes that the US Executive branch chose to no longer defend the allegations it had offered for its justification for holding the Uyghurs, (which included the stays in Uyghur guest houses), when the SCOTUS ruled captives were, after all, entitled to challenge those allegations through habeas corpus. It is probably fair to assert the USA dropped its allegations in late 2008. I would like to find an RS that specifically says the USA dropped its allegation that a stay in a Uyghur guest house was justification for continued detention. I can't find one. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This will be short, as am under time pressure, but will likely augment it later. I already commented on a similar deletion effort elsewhere. Somewhat silly. Perhaps someone's idea of sport. First, there is no BLP issue here. Second, even with BLPs, we have perfectly lovely articles such as FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. No problem with those. This is just the "house" version. As much as I sympathise with "houses", I think the interests of the project are best served by not deleting these. Can't imagine a good non-POV reason to delete. Nor, incidentally, is it synth. Though there is a not uncommon misunderstanding that leads one to consider that. Synth is when Source a says A, and Source b says B, and you combine them to state conclusion C. Here, only A and B are stated. Which is of course what we do all the time -- it's classic combinging sources to write an article. Without saying anything more than what the sources say. That, I see, is what the editors of this article have adhered to quite carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you see that there is already an ongoing discussion about WP:SYN? Could you please address these concerns in detail.

...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.

Do you know any RS as necessary and requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this point directly in my prior edit. BTW -- why are you copying over the comment multiple times on the same page? It makes it difficult to discern whether you are making a new point. And is confusing, as ~~they are not party to this AfD~~ it was not clear, by looking at the edit, whose edit it was. Posting it the second time serves to needlessly fill up the page with repetition.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am - it is my comment from my talk page that has been quoted twice now. LadyofShalott 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply here, thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all will notice that I specifically refrained from saying either keep or delete previously. I am not completely convinced that there is no synthesis here, but it is marginal if at all - especially in light of the comments that Geo Swan has made on my talk page. I think the article could be improved to make clear the extent of what RS have said, but in the balance, I think it should be kept. LadyofShalott 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources and a notable topic. I'm glad it was possible to work out a suitable article title for this material. It seems a little pointy to keep emphasizing other people's questions elsewhere; an answer has been given, but whether it is sufficient to satisfy people is up to them individually, and one person here should not act as an umpire of the discussion. This is not SYN, but presentations of sourced material. Editing intrinsically consists of selecting sources and content. Readers then draw their own conclusions. The sources are appropriate for the subject. WP:RS is just a guideline for the application of WP:V, which is a very general but very important policy--what sources are enough to meet it is always a fit matter for discussion, but we are neither limited nor prescriptive. this has been explained; whether it is detailed enough to satisfy anyone is up to them. There is no conceivable way this defames a racial group--any racial groups will have people involved in various ways in Afghanistan,and whether or not one regards any particular person as a hero or a villain is a matter of perspective. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR and WP:SYN. The topic as such is not notable (the title is simply weird), and could be well integrated into existing articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We measure notability by coverage in RS sources. Given that, how do you deem it not notable? Also, I'm not sure how what you view as a weird title relates to whether it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of NOR or NPOV are not grounds for deletion. I will welcome your explanation of what portions of the article you consider lapses from NOR or NPOV -- on the talk page. Please feel free to suggest an alternate title there too. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Optionally, a merge to Uyghur people#Current Events might be possible if the sourced material was sufficiently condensed. SnottyWong talk 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per nom? Are you agreeing the article is an attack page? An allegation no-one here has defended? The other elements of the nomination are counter to the deletion policy. As I noted above a perception of NOR or NPOV in an article that is on a topic that is otherwise are supposed to be addressed through discussion -- not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North american solutions[edit]

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

Unable to find any third-party notability on this company. (Note, it's difficult to adequately search "north american solutions" as these are pretty generic words.) Exhaustive search showed no notability. I'm not sure if this should be redirected to Cougar Mountain Software or not; there was a link to its blog or something. Overall, this nomination is due to the lack of notability or third-party sources, and mild advertising tone that isn't verifiable (first POS to use cloud computing? really?). — Timneu22 · talk 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original author claims to have some references in the discussion page - "I have additional sources on this company which will add a bit later," but there's nothing yet. I couldn't find anything either. Hopefully Silver163 can deliver before this afd expires... ErikHaugen (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got references but the problem is that its not entirely done by all the third parties. The technology is intriguing and new but CNN, Fox or MSNBC or NBC haven't picked it up, that's the issue. Silver163 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreadable advertising: regardless of notability, this would require a complete rewrite not only to become an encyclopedia article, but for that matter to give a clear picture of what this business makes or does, something the current text fails at: a privately-held company based in Chicago, Illinois that manufactures and markets point of sale, retail software and business software to small to mid-sized companies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deck of 52[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Deck of 52

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

This article does not assert notability of any sort, and pretty grossly violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Really all that one can say about the article in a positive manner. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only external links lead to websites which also are game guides. Not notable and WP:NOTGUIDE. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Normally I don't use this, but "per everyone else". Everything that needs to be said has been. Its WP:GAMETRIVIA and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. If the subject had any significant coverage (which it doesn't) I'd be more lenient, but even then it would need a 100% total rewrite. --Teancum (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to whichever gaming wiki needs this. No notablity ascertained. Clearly fancruft/guide. No developmetn or reception sections. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT: take it to Wikia Gaming. Marasmusine (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Clapham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Clapham. I closed that one, no comment on notability of this page about same individual. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clapham will be part of the World Cup squad in South Africa, should be enough notability for now. --Ureinwohner (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a reference confirming his inclusion in the 2010 NZ World Cup squad -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator of the previous AfD. He's going to the World Cup. That's notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I supported previous deletion but I believe he now fulfils WP:GNG with some in-depth coverage which will no doubt increase over the next couple of months. I'm happy he has now done the "if and when"--ClubOranje^T 07:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's been selected for the national team to play in the world cup in South Africa. It's notable enough. He's also played a fair bit for the domestic team. Nath1991 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sold!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to keep this page. A player cannot play at a higher level than the World Cup. Nzfooty (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It really saddens me that any editor upon seeing the assertions in the original unsourced article [27] would place a BLP unsourced tag on the article and bring it here, rather than try to source it. That's the way to tear down the encyclopedia, not to build it. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tracy Beaker Returns. and protect. kur ykh 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy-Leigh Hickman[edit]

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

A child actor who does not yet meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:ENT. Attempts to redirect the article to Tracy Beaker Returns, as has been done with other AfD Tracy Beaker candidates such as Jessie Williams, have been reverted repeatedly, so that doesn't appear to be an option. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if redirect were the consensus, it could be protected to prevent reversal. LadyofShalott 17:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Protect if not, delete. Just another one of these troublesome articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect this problematic fan magnet until such time as this youngster's career grows and she merits a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per WP:BLP. I would also suggest that the closing admin protect Jessie Williams, also per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church of the East[edit]

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

Okay, this is going to be hard to follow for anyone not familiar with the subject. This article asserts that claim that there was an Oriental Orthodox church in Persia named the "Orthodox Church of the East" that spread Christianity to India. In reality, there was a historical body of Oriental Orthodox Christians in Persia (the Maphrianate of the Syriac Orthodox Church), but this was not a distinct church and it was never called the "Orthodox Church of the East". Additionally, this body had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity to India - this was done by the Church of the East. Oriental Orthodox Christianity was not brought to India until the 17th century. Another editor later added some cited material about what is actually known about Christianity in India that refutes the original claims, which ironically gives the impression that the article as a whole is well sourced. But it's an irreparable mess. Returns for the phrase "Orthodox Church of the East" on Google Books are references to the Orthodox Church, and very occasionally to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India. Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain ^t/c 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain ^t/c 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Esoglou (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst much of the articel is sourced the key claims are not. The only sources I cn find all refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David V Houston (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I find the arguments of the nom convincing. If this is about anything, it is about a church in communion with the Patriarchs of Antich and Constantinople. If so, it is probably about how an Orthodox church outside the boundaries of the Roman and Byzantine Empire was governed. The article seems to jump several hundred years from events, probably of the late 1st millenium, to Marco Polo to a book of 1507: this is the sign of a poor article. This is unless it is really the case that nothing else is known, in which case the article should say so. Several articles on eastern churches were some time ago tagged as needing the attentions of an expert. Nevertheless, I wonder whether this article should not be converted to a redirect, rahter than deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Twist[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. No significant coverage of Twist found at reliable sites. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Freelance writer who occasionally places a column with a mainstream source, but mostly writes for fanzines and blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. 17:47, 10 May 2010 Paulmcdonald (talk | contribs) moved L. William Caine to User:Paulmcdonald/L. William Caine ‎ (Userfy to build up article sources to better level) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L. William Caine[edit]

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

This coach of a defunct college football team is not notable per the guidelines for amateur sports people. The references are not specific, and any biographical data that might be obtained does not look like it will go beyond repeating statistics. Depending on the consensus for deletion, all the coaches in the Texas–Arlington Mavericks football coaches category may not be notable and should be deleted along with the navbox. Maybe the names of the coaches could be added to the UT Arlington Mavericks football article. EMBaero (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO as article does not get reliable sources and he made no lasting contributions to his coaching record. --Morenooso (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ you guys are kidding, right? Very first head coach of a program at the highest level of American football at its time. The NCAA didn't have divisions until 1955, the NFL wasn't formed until the next year (and even then it was considered a "bush league" for quite some time), and the NAIA didn't form until 1937. I'm sure that we could do better for sources, but most would be offline for something from the 1920's. And where the program is now is of no concern. The notability of the individual is as clear-cut as can be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I thought about this for a while. Before attaining a four-year college status, the University of Texas at Arlington football program was at a junior college level until 1959. This is clearly not the highest level of American football at the time since, for instance, the NFL started in 1920 and the Big Ten Conference already had football championships involving teams from different states. Consequently, I do not see how L. William Caine is the least bit notable using the Wikipedia biography standards. Coaches Duval, Edens, Moore, Lambert, Holmes, Milch, and Zapalac should also be deleted in my opinion, but I'll wait to see what the consensus is here before nominating the articles. Most of those coaches don't even have first names as the pages stand today. I think they would have been deleted earlier if not for the professional-looking info boxes and generic references. I see you have created many football-related articles of high quality, but I think this article has no chance of getting past a couple sentences. I would rather see a list of the early coaches in the Mavericks football article with a few quality references. EMBaero (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does require thought, I'll give you that. I would 1) lean back to the precedence set up by Boise State and other programs that have been "junior college" levels that became top level, and 2) find out if "junior college" or "two year college" existed as an athletic classification in 1919 (the NJCAA didn't start until 1937 or 1938, depeding on what your definiition of "start" is) so it is very likely that although the program only had "freshmen and sophomores" on the squad, that they competed against other 4-year colleges and thus were at the "highest level of the sport" by default.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about Grubbs Vocational College would probably be kept without a doubt. UT-Arlington has an interesting history as Arlington College, Carlisle Military Academy, Arlington Training School, Arlington Military Academy, Grubbs Vocational College, North Texas Agricultural College, Arlington State College, and, since 1967, UTA. The school had a football program from 1919 until 1985, and UT Arlington Mavericks football is also something that would be kept beyond a doubt (it needs expansion beyond its current list of 1959-1985). I won't suggest a merge, because we have some admins who twist that around as an excuse to keep. However, there's nothing here that merits a separate page. The entire article is built around a statistic (a combined record of 2-7-0 in the 1919 and 1920 seasons). Having been the head coach of a college football team is not, by itself, automatically notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has two external links used as sources. However, the College Football Data Warehouse has incomplete data on UT-Arlington and doesn't mention that Caine was the coach during the years at issue. The other link is to the front page of UT-Arlington's main athletics web site. If Caine is mentioned somewhere on that site, I can't find his name. I also tried looking him up in the Google News Archive but could not find anything relevant. Unless some source is found to confirm this information, I don't see how we can keep the article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the more I look at this myself, the more I believe that better sources are needed. I'm encountering several "busted links" through my research from when I originally put the article up. I am going to userfy thie article to User:Paulmcdonald/L. William Caine and any objection can be on that talk page. Can an admin or someone else please close this out properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will head over to the UT Arlington library sometime soon and look through their archives for good sources. I'll get together an early history section for the UT Arlington Mavericks football article. EMBaero (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from Beverly Hills Chihuahua[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and makes no real claim for why this should be a stand-alone list and not just have the major characters in the film article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge. Films with one-time characters don't need a separate character list - the characters can be covered in the main article just fine. In this case though, I wouldn't mind seeing the descriptions of the main characters moved over to the main article. Just don't keep a separate article/list. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a brief summary of characters in the main article makes sense, but this is huge and overly-detailed, with a lot of material extremely unlikely to be covered in independent reliable sources (there's even a whole section for characters who only appeared in the deleted scenes!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these characters have any impact in the wider popular culture. Joal Beal (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha Frapucino[edit]

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

Page about a soon-to-be-released film. Minimal budget, no known names, and no reliable sources about this movie. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N.Google: [28]. Google News: [29]. Fram (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly every claim made in the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. --L P ^talk 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per too soon. While willing to believe that this amateur film probably exists and that it will be screened in Budapest, Hungary on May 2010, there are no reliable sources that show any particular notability. Let it be screened... let it be reviewed... let it win awards... let it get some coverage (even if only in Hungary)... and then we might consider the return of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poojah[edit]

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

The article is about an individual famous for one event only, an internet forum post (though there has been a second post receiving some interest on the web). The assertions of notability are based upon news reports of this single post and the honour of being linked from a variety of football websites. Not notable for more than one event, which in itself was barely more than a few small news reports. It is unlikely that this article could be expanded into a quality encyclopaedic article. Pretty Green (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pretty Green (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic example of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above then recreate as a redirect to Pooja (this article actually being a double-redirect in its original form) as it is a plausible search term for either the forms of worship or the name. Keresaspa (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely famous for one event? No thank you! Giant Snowman 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E. This person is notable for one event only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it's "classic BLP1E", then the solution is to rename the article appropriately, not to delete. Despite the references to two major publications, it is admittedly a barely notable event. It probably doesn't need an article, and Pretty Green is right that it is unlikely it could be expanded into a quality article. However, I have this horrible gnawing feeling every time I come across "Delete for BLP1E!" repeated over and over again in an AfD, when the solution for the 1E concern is to rename/move... so my comment squeeks out from my fingertips anyway. - BalthCat (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hardly notable. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 01:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A BLP1E where the event isn't notable either. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither the event nor the specific person behind it is notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis turczyn[edit]

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

Article written by the subject. Prod and other tags have been removed. Not sure of notability, other than he was represented by F Lee Bailey at trial. But only the first paragraph is about subject, and even that is just rambling talk about life and movie deals, and complaints about the legal system. The restof the article, about 50 pages or more, seems to be a list of all major criminals in 1960s USA. Dmol (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for the subject's name gives page after page of irrelevant links - those ones that contain the most unlikely keywords considering their real purpose (drawing the unwary in...). Little of any interest. As to the article, somewhat Proustian in length (as Wikipedia articles go) but rambling in a manner more reminiscent of Joyce. Definitely not encyclopaedic. I'm not at all sure what the point of it all is, either. Is it about Turczyn or Bailey? There already is an article on Bailey. Do we need one on Turczyn? I think not - even if it is shorn of the majority of the current version. Peridon (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Vindeni[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion because "This writer hasn't received any attention and fails WP:BIO. he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it." Prod removed by article creator without reason in edit summary or improvements. No Google News hits as creator of ScriptGirl[30] either, and only 72 distinct Google hits in total for this[31]. Fram (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No indication of awards or honours that would distinguish him as a notable writer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find significant coverage of the individual, or any indication of passing WP:BIO. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ridpath (Canadian artist)[edit]

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

Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. No reliable independent sources for this Ian Ridpath (many for the astronomer). The books are self-published, the paintings have not received significant attention." Contested, with addition of a number of articles he wrote for the amateur radio publication Break-In. However, writing for a magazine (or newspaper and so on) isn't an indication of notability. Being discussed, having received significant attention in independent reliable sources is. A search for such sources is hampered by his namesake, the asxtronomer (who wrote the initial article, apparently), but in the end don't result in sufficient returns to meet WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original entry was added by me (the astronomer). I added it because I found that my own entry was receiving an increased umber of hits and I presumed that a proportion of these were for the Other Ian Ridpath, given his recent emergence on the art scene. Can we leave the entry for a few weeks and see what sort of traffic it attracts? I should add that although we know each other, because of the coincidence of name, we are not related. Ian R (the astronomer).

That's very modest of you, but I'd guess that whatever traffic is going to the article about you is probably looking for you. This is Wikipedia: after pop culture, science pretty much rules here. Art is way down the list in priorities, let alone an article on an artist with a small, localized profile. freshacconci talktalk 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads like an advertisement, does not seem encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing yet to support prominence or notability. JNW (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he gets more page views than this guy [32] 79.65.102.52 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a helpful comment. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Woods[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion beacuse "His name plus motocross gives three Google hits, no news or books hits. No reliable independent sources about him are available. Where the new info (post 1977) comes from is very unclear. Fails WP:ATHLETE." Prod removed because "won 1977 National Championship". However, I can't find evidence that the "National Motocross Association" was ever the "highest level of a sport", despite its name. The main body for motocross in the USA is the American Motorcyclist Association. He isn't listed on the "Every champion that ever was" page[33]. So no evidence that he is notable from any available sources, and no evidence that the title he won is in any way notable. Fram (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete based on content. Yeah, content normally isn't a deletion issue, but this article is so poorly written that I believe it does more harm than good for Wikipedia. Further, only offline sources are given thus making it very unlikely that the article will be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham United FC[edit]

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

Amateur club playing at a non-notable level of football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 10:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiProject Football/Notability is rather vague, but it also seems to fail Notability in any case. No searches, especially news searches, showed any results in a national publication or showed them to have played at a national level. --Triwbe (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the page for Nottingham United FC should be kept, because they are one of the biggest amateur clubs in the county by numbers and members and have a team in the Premier Division of the Midland Amateur Alliance which is one of the oldest amateur leagues in the world and the team they run in there(Monty Hind Old Boys) is almost 40 years old. They also run Attenboro Cavaliers in the Long Eaton Sunday League Premier Division(previous Champions) and have a meeting with the grading officer this month to get the Saturday team pushed up into the Central Midlands League, and there are other Central Midlands League Teams on Wiki, so why not Nottingham United? They also have a tour to play professional clubs in Europe this August and recieve frequent local media attention through their on the pitch success, community projects and various charity fundraising events. --Nottsutd (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Nottsutd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"and there are other Central Midlands League Teams on Wiki" - See Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor (article creator) is saying only that they might get into the CMFL, not that they're already in it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point regarding the CML, but just the fact they have 6 adult 11-a-side teams sets them apart from other amateur clubs and makes them one of the largest amateur clubs in the East Midlands. Also they have international media coverage, you can read about them on the Bulgarian National Futsal League website here: http://www.blfz.eu/index.php?limitstart=18 on page four, the team in the red kit. The article is about their upcoming European tour and the matches against 3 pro teams will be broadcast on cable TV, again something that sets them apart from other amateur clubs. You can check the photo on the BLFZ site to the ones on the NUFC page. --86.1.178.69 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since they started in 2008, it's highly unlikely that they've played in the top 10 tiers of the football pyramid, and they've not played in any cup competition that grants them notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Recreate if/when they reach a high-enopugh league. Giant Snowman 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above. Non-notable team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Is the Notts Sunday Football League part of the English football league system? Is this club part of the National League System? If it is, then we should keep this article. If not we should just delete it. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- No Sunday leagues are part of the National League System in any way, shape or form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is because this club is playing in a league which is not part of the National League System --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The club has only received local coverage, and doesn't play at a high enough level of the Football League system to imply notability. BigDom 06:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The club has a meeting with two committee members(including the grading officer) from the CML on Thursday morning for a pitch/facilities inspection regarding their application to join. If the club is accepted, would the article on the club have a place on wiki? It looks very probable they will be admitted, can this page by saved somewhere if it is deleted before the club has its confirmation? --Nottsutd (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately the rule of thumb used by the WP:FOOTY project is that a club must play in the top ten levels of the English football league system (the levels which are eligible to enter the FA Cup). Even the top division of the CMFL is lower than that, I'm afraid. The only CMFL teams with articles are those who have previously played in higher leagues..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created a new discussion about this in the WP:FOOTY talk page. Please view my comments about this. I feel that it is about time to change this rule to include level 11 clubs as well. I have been waiting more than 2 years for this rule to change! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this discussion, though. Even if this club does join the CMFL (not guaranteed) they would surely join the lower of its two divisions, which is not level 11) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The club had a meeting on Thursday with the Chairman and Grading Officer of the CMFL and were accepted. It was also decided by the FA that both the Supreme and Premier Divisions will be step 7 for the coming season and will most likely be changed to North and South Divisions, with the North promoting into the Northern Counties League and the South into the East Midlands Counties League. Nottingham United FC have been put into the Premier Division and would be in the South Division if the changes go ahead. As they are now at step 7, it makes a big difference to their notability as a club.--Nottsutd (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then if it is confirmed that they would be a step 7 club, I would like to keep this article as well! It is because it is also my sincerest desire to include ALL step 7 or level 11 English football clubs to Wikipedia. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not current consensus, though. Current consensus is that only clubs down to Step 6 are notable. You can't say that an article should be kept based on what you think consensus should be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Schrader[edit]

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

vanity article by subject himself Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, vanity article. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSix[edit]

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

I can only find once source[34] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably. There articles about CSIX (e.g. [35] EE Times), which is something else, so it's hard to find out anything about this web site. Pcap ping 09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaminade College School[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as requiring citations since December 2006. It makes use of no secondary sources to back up any of its claims. No reliable secondary sources appear to exist online, judging by a few Google searches -- Books turns up a few directories of schools, but no substantial coverage, and News turns up nothing. A proposal to merge to a locality article was rejected without comment. Shimeru (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Usually, for North American schools, it seems that High Schools or the equivalent are typically considered notable, while lower grade level schools are not (barring unusual factors or outside notability). So, as a high school, this school should (in theory) be notable. But any school with 750+ students should have some sourcing - and there simply isn't any beyond the usual confirming-existance references. So, hrm. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to consider that line of thinking suspect when an article can be tagged as unsourced for over 3 years without any attention being paid it. Is that too short a period of time? Would we allow an article about a band or a webcomic to sit in a state like this for three years on the argument "sources probably exist, somewhere"? Shimeru (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not likely, no - but there seems to be a firmer precedent with regard to Schools than with webcomics or the like. On point, there's a reason I didn't go Keep or Delete. But if sources are available about the school itself, as the editors below seem to indicate, then we should probably keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They aren't, though. Look at the arguments so far. "We have an established policy that all high schools are notable." No, we do not. You won't find WP:ALLHIGHSCHOOLSARENOTABLE alongside WP:V and WP:OWN. "Sources exist." Do they? I see one source about a music teacher that only mentions the school in passing -- trivial. One source about the school's football program changing from one high school sports league to a different one -- pretty trivial, almost all high schools belong to a high school sports league. One source about the river cleanup and trout farming program -- this is at least a solid independent reliable source, but it's still not about the school itself. We have nothing showing anybody has taken note of the school itself as an institution. Nothing on its history, its founding, its mission, aside from the primary source, the school itself. This is a situation that would not stand for a biography, a company, a band.... Shimeru (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact is that consensus is derived from AfDs, and you'll be hard pressed to find a delete outcome in any high school AfD in the past few years. Its about 99.9% keeps, I believe.--Milowent (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but consensus can change. Five years ago, we had many articles "sourced" like this one -- including BLPs. The project as a whole has been moving toward more rigorous sourcing, which can only be a good thing in the long run. It seems that schools are still using looser standards, but I'm fairly confident that will change eventually. If this is kept, as seems likely, I'll test it again in six months or a year. Shimeru (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Test it now on smaller, private schools with fewer mentions. Abductive (reasoning) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The purpose of a bright-line rule, in part, is to avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin on which high schools are notable and which are not. Myself and other editors think that's a waste of time better spent elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am in general agreement with that. I also believe that having articles on high schools is useful for editor recruitment. Editing an article on one's local high school is unlikely to cause anxiety in newbies, who may feel they have less to offer on more technical articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with this, and also feel that Wikipedia is better for having these articles. I strongly agree that it would be desirable to "avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin" in this area; unfortunately, that goal has not been attained, yet.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's unlikely ever to be, as long as some of us value rigorous sourcing. I do, however, respect your effort to improve this article. You are the only 'keep' voter to attempt to do so, to date. Shimeru (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure why others are reporting no coverage for this school: I get 854 hits at Google News archives for the search string <Chaminade Toronto>. Many of these are pay per view but some examples include a Canadian music teacher of the year[36][37], a discussion of the school's status within the Canadian high school football structure[38], and "a student-run fish hatchery [that] grew into a river-cleanup model for the entire city [and] won one of 10 Green Toronto Awards last night."[39] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number of Google hits is never in itself an indication of notability, for several reasons, and in any case 854 is a very modest number: a search for a high school I attended gives 64,000 hits, and a search for the high school my children attended scores 23,800. I have looked at the first couple of pages of Google hits for "Chaminade Toronto". The vast majority of them are not reliable sources, not independent of the subject, only a brief mention, or more than one of those. Probably a tiny minority of the 854 are actually useful by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree: I am referring to Google News hits and these do show actual news articles. The point of the count is that the school is covered extensively in the media. The bottom line is that this is a significant high school in one of North America's largest cities.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I notice that sources are available to meet WP:ORG. WP:NHS outlines the arguments why high schools should be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. --Milowent (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others above. It's a secondary school and sources do indicated notability. As for sources not being in the article for 3 years, Wikipedia has no deadline. Some articles could go twice that or more without improvements, but that doesn't mean the topic is not notable.--Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an established policy that all High Schools are considered notable. This clearly is a 9-12 school, established in the 60's, serving classes in the high hundreds. What on earth makes this an exception to precedent. Worse yet, since people here do quote precedent, how can we start a trend against any high school now? The answer is: of course not. This is a frivolous challenge to this article.Trackinfo (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again we are told "We have an established policy that all High Schools are considered notable". Once again no we do not. The extent to which this is consensus' is debated, but there is certainly no such policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Toronto Catholic District School Board. Sources exist, and the consensus on en.wikipedia is that high schools are notable, (exception; very small private schools). One example of how our society considers high schools to be notable is that any serious obituary of a famous person will always name their high school. Abductive (reasoning) 08:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I realize this is a futile !vote). Contra many !keeps, there is no policy or guideline that says North American 9-12 High Schools are inherently notable. In current practice, maybe these article are generally kept, but WP:CCC, and in this case I hope it does. I'm a firm believer in logic behind WP:N: we need independent, reliable, secondary sources if we're going to write neutral article article on something. Synthesizing an article out of primary sources, self-published sources, and trivial, passing mentions in articles about other topics is just that--synthesis. There's a difference between being an encyclopedian and a historian, and we need to be mindful of it. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus. "It's ugly and needs cleanup" is a poor rationale for deletion. tedder (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As has been said above, there is no policy that high schools are automatically notable, and the supposed consensus that they are is largely based on people saying in AfDs words to the effect "we should keep this one because we always do keep them", which is what has happened in this case. The trouble with that approach is that it prevents consensus from evolving. Are there any good arguments why we should regard high schools as automatically notable? If there aren't then the fact that people in the past have taken that line is not very persuasive. If those of us who disagree with this automatic notability idea keep saying so then maybe eventually we will get a genuine discussion, rather than just being told that consensus is for "automatic notability" because it is. The notability guidelines say notability needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. Is there a good reason for ignoring that guideline in the case of high schools? If there is then please tell us what that reason is: don't just tell us we should ignore the guideline because that's what we do. About the only reason which has been put forward is "Editing an article on one's local high school is unlikely to cause anxiety in newbies". In a way that is a good point, but it is completely out of line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to say "we will allow articles on subjects which inexperienced editors will be happy to edit". As for the various editors claiming there are sources, some of them make statements such as "sources exist" and "sources do indicated notability", but do not say what sources or why they are enough to establish notability. The sources are not of sufficient standard to justify the article if it were on another topic, such as a business. Only if we take the line that high schools are exempt from Wikipedia's normal notability standards is there any case for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing being prevented is easy research, and the things preventing it are Google Snippet View and paywalls. I have added a couple of sources to the article just now. I haven't used this story on nuked feces in the article, but I challenge you to find it in the seaches provided at the top of the AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument usually put forward as to why high school articles are usually kept is because for just about any high school, there are almost always sources somewhere, if not on the net then in local and regional "dead tree" newspapers without online archives (or archives behind paywalls). This assumption is usually correct for any high school in the "western world" so we give it the benefit of the doubt. If the high school in question is somewhere in "South Succotash, Induganda" where such alleged sources are less likely, the argument of avoiding "western world bias" is usually put forward. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the reason for the convention that all high schools are notable (a convention that I initially fought against, because I tend to be deletionist on local institutions) is that so many of them are, that it isn't worth arguing over each of them. Probably 2 years ago, when this became firmly established, about 90% of those in the US or Canada were easily sourceable, even using the resources available free over the internet to those unwilling to see what their public library had on offer. Now it's probably 98% at least, at gradually getting near that in other countries. Should we debate a thousand of articles, to remove 10 or 20 that might be slightly sub-standard and do not harm? Given the millions of articles remaining to be written, it would be a very poor use of resources. In fact, we'd probably make far more than 10 or 20 mistakes in each direction while trying to do it, and end up with a worse result by anyone's standards than if we took them all. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments outlined in the essay WP:NHS. All high schools are notable. This school has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to verify the information. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, there are some good arguments which I had not seen before for accepting automatic notability, so I have withdrawn my "delete" above. However, I still have reservations, so I am not willing to actually say "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this is heading for a keep close, this is a largely grandstanding delete !vote to support the views expressed by User:Shimeru. This school lacks significant coverage in reliable sources as opposed to the occasional coverage in respect of discrete events. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered my notvote to include the possibility of merging to Toronto Catholic District School Board. It is true that the article lacks sources which analyse the school as a whole. Abductive (reasoning) 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee PHP[edit]

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

Neither a claim to notablity, nor reliable sources found. I've given the creator a few days to expand the article as he requested, but nothing showing that it passes WP:GNG has been added. Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edited your link to WP:GNG so it works Wickedjacob (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Furthermore, it's been snowing here since day 1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance in the Dark[edit]

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

The article is unnecessary, it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia. This article is about an irrelevant song, that for no reason, got an article. The whole article is about the not-even single song, and most of its contents are about composition (irrelevant), live performances (already described on her tour article) and "reviews" of the songs that in fact are reviews of her album (most of the "reviews" are one line long, and in the original reviews the song is not even a highlight). It even has a media file, like if the song was really important, and a "cover" that is a picture of the booklet. The whole article is trivia, like the live performances. All the information could be easily mentioned on her tour article or on its album article. This has to be deleted, redirected or merged with any other relevant article. BTW, like with a lot of gaga-related articles, her fans are trying to create irreleant articles, just take a look on speechless, or the indepent article that they wanted for the music video of telephone; Wikipedia is not a fansite, I bet you can have thousand of gaga's articles on a wikia or something like that, but not on a "NEUTRAL" and not "PROMOTIONAL" Wikipedia. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song). I don't see a single fancruft in the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced and written. I think its a great article. Are there copyedit issues? Onefinalstep (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG, charted single. -Reconsider ! 07:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when a composition section is irrelevant to a music article? The fact that most song articles dosen't have one dosent't make it irrelevant; and live performances and reviews aren't trivia. Your points are not valid for a deletion. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well written and the song is notable because it charted. Crystal Clear x3 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a massive hit, but a charting single by a major artist and a well-written article as well. No convincing reason given to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid reasons for deletions. Highly documented article, charted song, performed live on multiple ocasions. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely no reason for this to be even discussed, complies with WP:NSONG. It is a charted song with cover and has charted in two countries. I would say delete if it wasnt so well written and sourced ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why? Have Reliable Sources, currently Good Article and Did You Know? nominee. There's no reason for delete this. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not currently a good article. It is trying to become a good article, but the references are a problem. However, still no reason to delete even if it does not become a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, leaning more towards redirect – has demonstrated notability per both WP:NSONGS and the WP:GNG. However, I don't see how the information here can't be contained in the The Fame Monster, The Monster Ball Tour, and Lady Gaga discography articles. –Chase (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is lengthy enough to have a space in Wikipieda. Plus, the song charted on two reliable charts. Also, I don't know what you are talking about because it's not fancruft. Everything is relevant and how is the composition of the song irrelevant? All Lady Gaga articles are very well written and I definitely think you shouldn't rag on works that are GA. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my last edit, the image is of it as a digital download in foreign iTunes Stores and reviews do not have to single handedly focus on the song and only the song. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination statement is fundamentally flawed. 1) As a charting song with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources, this song isn't anything near irrelevant. 2) A song does not have to be a single in order to merit in article, as this article clearly demonstrates. 3) The song's composition is a core aspect of articles about songs need. In fact, it wouldn't pass a good article nomination without it. 4) The article does not read non-neutral or promotional, as suggested by the nominator; even if it did, copy-editing would be the route to take, not nominating the entire article for deletion. This article meets and surpasses the requirements noted in the notability guideline for songs and should not be deleted or merged. — ξ ^xplicit 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not currently a GA. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is. Xtzou (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasons have been sufficiently explained. --uKER (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same arguments as above. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above; inane nomination. Katerenka (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, notable article with no violation of WP:NSONGS, stupid nomination. - ηyχ αμς 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the song is not notable, the album is notable and her tour is notable, and this article has nothing except pieces of review of her album and synopsys of her tours, this is not an important article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...didn't you already say this in your nomination? There's no need to repeat this. Anyhow, there are charts and significant coverage which grant it notability per WP:NSONGS. Just because you don't like the artist or the song does not mean it is "not important"; you are not the judge of that, Wikipedia's guidelines are, and according to them this song is important enough. While I'm shaky on whether it should have a separate article, pushing something for deletion by calling it "irrelevant" is just absurd. –Chase (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I won't give a bolded "keep" because I'm not going to waste my time reading the article or looking for sources, but I would point out that the nomination, wordy as it is, doesn't give any policy- or guideline-compliant reason for deletion. The guesswork about the identity of the authors and the subjective opinion of this being a piece of trivia are not reasons for deletion, and the real giveaway that this is a tendentious nomination is the repeated use of the word "irrelevant", which is a meaningless word without it being specified what the subject is irrelevant to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a good article, it need not be here. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not a good article in the sense of a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't you who keep with the annoying "it's not a GA" right above? Sparks Fly 23:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now starting to be biased in the review. I don't know whether the nomination is biasing his points. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Speedy Keep - Absolutely nothing wrong, no idea why there is even a discussion. Candyo32 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason for the article to be deleted, haters of any kind of artists have no policy to decide if the artist's article is "important" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.199.190.124 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing SERIOUS, but work needs to be done. There is no need for deletion. Sami50421 (talk) Sami50421 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's no need for it to be deleted. I think the article's very complete and well argumented and sourced. If Speechless (Lady Gaga song) has an article, why not Dance in the Dark?. I think that the later of both is even more important because it's thought to be a single by Gaga's label, and in fact it was an iTunes promo single. And, for your information, the "cover" is the official cover taken from the iTunes promo single. I think that you arguments are sometimes immature and teen-like, when you use sentences like: "like if the song was really important", "it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia". This kind of sentences sound like you're a very angry teenager... Don't take it personal... Just, take it easier and get less stressed. It's a constructive advice. --87.218.192.187 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; well-sourced and established as a significant song. Tezero (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* It is clearly a notable song because it has gained a lot of media attention as well as being sung live at a very well know event. it is exactly the same as Speechless in this regard. It's likely to be a single too even though Alejandro was chosen instead, because even though Gaga has said she has written half of her 3rd album, she is still on tour until 2011, so the Fame Monster ear is by no means over yet, a good 6/7 months, which is enough time to released it as a single and promote it further. calvin999 23:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxwell Show[edit]

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

Subject of article is not notable. WP:SIGCOV Lack of information readily available via internet, online databases, library, etc. Subject of article is afternoon radio show which was cancelled approx 6 months ago. Subject of article is already covered in article sub-section of radio station which carried the show. Apparently, no other station ever carried the show (syndication or otherwise). Only 1 wikilink leads to this article from others on Wikipedia (the show’s former station; see here).

Article is poorly cited. WP:CITE Article only contains 6 citations. Of the 6 citations present: 2 are fan videos on YouTube; 1 supports information which is only indirectly related to the subject of the article; and 2 are from an amateur blog.

Subject of article is not covered in a neutral way. WP:NPOV WP:WEASEL Article was created immediately following the show’s cancellation. Contributors of article appear to be promoting the show in hope of it being picked up for broadcast on some other station. Article also has no talk page. Most contributors are unregistered and unfamiliar w/ Wikipedia. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pridmore Corporation[edit]

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

The article is a stub about an electronic component distributor located in Melbourne, FL. The article reads like a WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:Advert. There is no citation and nothing WP:N about the company. Onefinalstep (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article violates WP:V and WP:NOR. The main thesis is not directly attributable to any reliable sources. Dancter (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Dancter (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and Salt - It seems folks have no clear idea about what "Eighth Generation" is. Everyone feels that a Nintendo DS that's bigger/smaller/orange/not portable is a whole new console, or that an addon such as Natal or PS Move is a whole new console. Recommend salting until some real information on the next generation of consoles comes out. --Teancum (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL no systems yet released even if announced. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:G4. The previous AfDs were all closed as delete, and the article's conclusions are still not explicitly supported by any of its sources. — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Salt seems a bit much... There are in fact numerous reliable sources that discuss this future generation in a crystal ballish sense. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but if reliable and verifiable sources can be used to discuss the topic generally then I see no reason to completely delete the article. The article as it stands would probably have to be substantially rewritten to fall on the proper side of WP:CRYSTAL so perhaps delete is the best option at this point, but SALT seems overly reactionary. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Looking at previous AfDs they're all much older, so I've changed to a non-strong Salt - I still feel the article won't be needed until we have actual eighth gen info, not yet another iteration of the Nintendo DS or things like that. It's much safer to just Salt the article than bring it back to AfD yet again. When there's actual info any old WP veteran will know (or be able to learn) the process to ask for unblocking so the article can be created properly. In the meantime any rumors and whatnot can incubate in someone's Userspace. In replay to Thibbs, as far as the reliable sources in the article all of them talk about current gen information. A bigger Nintendo DS, and motion technology for the Xbox 360 and PS3 - there's nothing about a true next-gen, stand-alone system in there. --Teancum (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned it twice, I should point out that Nintendo considers the Nintendo 3DS a successor to the Nintendo DS series, rather than an iteration of it. That's a big reason why the issue is reemerging now. Dancter (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Per no proper sources. This is a very large topic and event; it is either described with similar appropriate coverage or not crystalled at all. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing in Abridged Quotation[edit]

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

Nom & ...

... opine Del, as Non-notable and OR; plz note that the ProD tag stating the concern

Non-notable, even if pub'n in "a free content undergraduate journal" were an answer to OR, since there are 30, count'em, 30 Google hits on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation".

was removed by the primary ed'r w/o the edit-summary, and -- under any reasonable construction of of this diatribe -- w/o the tk-pg rebuttal the tl requests.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, as I said on my talk page, the tag said I could remove it. Pluse it was wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Where did you get 30 from? You can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The primary editor of the nom'd article, before their routine removal the ProD tag, twice edited the stated reason for removal (tho they had not placed the tag and clearly favor retention); for the sake of completeness of the process, i address those changes here, as if they had been appropriately offered as arguments in the previous (ProD) forum:

The 2nd contiguous portion of User:Jfeen's 04:06 edit on the 7th to the nom'd article may be simply an objection to the # count of "30" that i provided, since "30, count'em, 30" was replaced simply by "2" (and i decline the pitfall of trying to respond to any unstated objection to my emphatic wording). I'll stick my neck out to the extent of observing that while the current result of G-test on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation", ~~which~~ reads:
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 27 already displayed.

That count of 27 differs insignif'ly from my earlier outcome of "30",. And the current outcome of "About 206 results", produced when "repeat the search with the omitted results included" is selected, is in the same ballpark with what i recall being promised when i searched (generously ignoring the fact that "Page 7 [out] of 61 [total] results" marks the end of that broader search). Thus "2" may be a typo for 200, 206, or the like. (If "2" was intended, we can defer comment until we hear why "2 Google hits" would be favorable.) Even if those 200, or 206, were not mostly copies of the 30 or 27 (probably made automatically and without credible judgment on the accuracy or significance of the content), they would be insignificantly closer to demonstrating either notability, or status as established knowledge, than are the 30 or 27.
(We may for now safely ignore the 1st contiguous portion of that edit: it which seems simply to reflect, at the expense of replacing my wording with an ungrammatical and ambiguous one, that colleague's conviction or fear that "prof'l" -- after "secondly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Summarizing_in_Abridged_Quotation&diff=prev&oldid=360656351 in yet another edit -- and "pub'n" are ambiguous.)
Their edit 15 minutes later (besides changing the body of the article) destroys the direct quotation from them that i was responding to (made in an IP contribution of 21:33, 5 May 2010, which User:Jfeen as of 04:03 on the 7th now claims to have made -- tho mis-timing it at "11:59"). Perhaps they failed to recognize their own words, construed my direct quote as something i hypothesized they might say, and preferred to blame a hypothetical ProD-nominator for offering a different -- and still more hypothetical -- justification.

If i've missed the point, we clearly need to hear a lot more clearly what the point is.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, as stated previously, and as I said on my talk page, your "30" count is not only wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (you can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit)--but it is also superflous; what does 30, let alone the actual 2, hits have to do with anything?
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Search engine test#Notability. 2, 30, and 200 would each be an extraordinarily low G-Test for notable topics.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like WP:OR with no notable google hits or google book sources. I don't quite understand your list btw, might be broken formatting.--Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the critique. The insurmountable formatting problem flows from the fact that having indented within a point on the numbered list, you can't out-dent back to that numbered point's same level, without ending the list or going on to the next numbered point -- so sometimes, as here, it looks as if the starting graph w/in a numbered point is an unfinished paragraph. I reworded some, adding cues that may help make the syntax a little clearer.
--Jerzy•t 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savonneux, yes, it does look like that, but it looks like that because it was published in an undergraduate journal. cf. my response to Deor below.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lost me in the first sentence when it said: "A Summary in Abridged Quotation or Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (SAQ or SAQing, i.o.)--similar in appearance to block quotation--is a protologism ...." If the article admits that it is naming the subject by a protologism, we don't need it. If this is a legitimate topic, then don't call it a protologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, I was informed that calling it a "protologism" was a misnomer; I changed it back to "neologism". Also, why would Wikipedia not need it? Everything in academia is a protologism until it becomes a neologism and then, finally, a "technical term".
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would have had a slightly less negative reaction if the article had begun as follows: "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (SAQing) -- similar in appearance to block quotation-- is a recently proposed methodology for abridging texts--a common procedure in academic writing." In other words, the article should indicate that its subject is the methodology or practice of summarizing in abridged quotation, not the term summarizing in abridged quotation. On the other hand, the sources used in this article are largely irrelevant to the topic, so upon further consideration, I would say that a better reason to delete this article is that it is insufficiently sourced and describes an apparently non-notable editing process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to me like personal instructions for misquoting people—and an extraordinarily bad idea. Deor (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, firstly, this talk page isn't for you to discuss the merit of the ideas discussed in the article but rather the merit of the article qua article; secondly, in defence of his idea, it is explicit instructions on how to not misquote people--you must have gravely missed the point; it eliminates all possible bias. If you'd like to read the article where this is actually discussed, I think you can find Mr. Feenstra's article on Grand Valley State University's Philosophy Department homepage in .docx format, but I checked and it is not there, so just asked to be sent it from [email protected]. I am in the process of converting the journal it was published in to .pdf in order to deal with the WP:OR and notability tags.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Copy a writer's words, replacing whatever you deem unimportant with ellipses; then eliminate all trace of your alterations by deleting the ellipses" is a form of misquotation where I come from. Deor (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If i were wavering on deletability, i would weigh in the fact that even tho goofy ideas sometimes become notable, the goofiness of this one reinforces confidence that the G-test is not just a quirk. But i do think that Deor's invocation of OR & NOTHOW as bases for Del are the more compelling part of their opinion.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame for Jfeen to waste energy on those measures, if their only purpose is to qualify the work for sourcing a WP article. They seem confused about what is at issue.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources [40], [[41]]. Nothing to establish the notability of the term. The concept seems to be WP:OR based on a number of standard editing procedures (particularly Block quotation and Abridgement). The article also refers to itself as a "protologism," which is a direct contradiction of WP:NEO. There's nothing to save.--Savonneux (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not yet well enough established, though an interesting idea. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope May[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)

This article does not appear to meet any of the criteria of the wikipedia "professor test" for academic biographies. The subject of the bio is married to a notable person, but this does not confer notability on the actual subject of the bio according to wikipedia standards. Note also that almost no pages link to this page. Perhaps the contents of this page could be abridged and merged into the spouse's page if this is deemed appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual is the spouse of a notable person AND is an accomplished individual in her own right. She is the author of two books -- one which is published by a publishing house that has a wide reach in UK and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 May 2010

— 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If not having other pages link to this page is grounds for deletion, then many other pages should be deleted. At what number of linked pages to a page is the latter consider worthy to be on Wikipedia? Indeed, what makes Wikipedia valuable is that it can provide information about topics that is not available via the typical channels. This individual may not fit the criteria of "notable academics" but given the work that she does both individually and with her notable husband, this warrants a page of her own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedividedself (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Thedividedself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources confirm notability as a stand-alone article regardless of spouse. Article needs wikifying - which is not motive for AfD.--Technopat (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have time at the moment to try to disentangle search results for the subject from coincidental juxtapositions of the words "hope" and "may", but I would point out the the subject's position as director of the Center for Professional & Personal Ethics at Central Michigan University, despite is grand-sounding title, doesn't seem to be a senior academic post - according to her university bio she "does all of the web-design, podcasts, and promotional materials for the Ethics Center and its student-centered projects", which sounds much more like an administrative than an academic position. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to what Phil mentioned, I find that the standard "professor metrics" are unimpressive. She has one book having average holdings ("On Socrates": ~250 institutions) and another with pretty meager holdings ("Aristotle's Ethics": <50 institutions – this is a new book). GS is not much help here because most of the hits to the phrase "hope may" are false-positives (there are oodles of them). However, WoS shows no discernable research publications. Indeed, aside from the material that discussed other people (now resected), most of the article simply talks about her undergrad and grad school training. This seems, on balance, to be a vanity bio. Just to remind the panelists here (two of whom are brand-new to WP), having a notable spouse does not in and of itself confer any notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Another reference, not mentioned on Hope May's page, can be found at http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol6/iss2/11/. The work that May and Wigand do together, combined with May's work as an independent author, should suffice for notability according to Wikipedia standards. May's most recent book is held by libraries throughout the world and is published by a highly respected international publishing house which has a Wikipedia page (Continuum). The entry for Continuum's page says that it is a "leading academic publisher in London and New York". That book was released in late February 2010 and libraries are just beginning to include in their holdings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, I think that's my point. You're arguing notability on the basis of one 10-year-old book having average holdings and one newly published book. That's it and it's pretty unremarkable for someone who is an associate professor. Let me point out that the bit about being a "leading academic publisher" is PR fluff from their corporate website and does not in fact appear on their wikipedia page, as you claim. I rather doubt that Continuum is held in the same esteem as the actual leading academic publishers like OUP, CUP, or PUP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I wrote the synopsis at the top of this page but didn't know to make a vote. My nomination of this page for AfD was based on the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), which seem the like only relevant notability criteria in this case. The question, it seems, is whether the subject meets Criterion 1 listed at that page. This is a subjective measure, of course, but that page makes clear that having a lot of published works is not sufficient. Rather, the works must be unusually high-impact in the subject's field. Having one decade-old book at 250 academic libraries and a newer one at 50 academic libraries (number of academic library holdings being one of the suggested measures at that page) as described by Agricola44, as well as coauthoring a 2005 article in a Pacific University Oregon philosophy journal (which does not appear to have a wikipedia page) as mentioned by Bereitschaftspotential, does not seem to make this associate professor stand out as one who has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Perhaps in the future this subject will meet the notability criteria and reinstatement of the page will be justified. But by my reading of the subject's impact in the discipline, the notability criteria do not appear to be currently met. --71.92.75.174 (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. But a few comments: I wouldn't judge by what journals have WP articles, many, perhaps even most, of the notable journals do not yet have them, especially in the humanities. Two university press books or the equivalent is the usual standard for tenure in the humanities at the best universities, but Continuum is not really a leading publisher of the quality of the major university presses, and Wadsworth/thompson is a publisher primarily of undergraduate textbooks, not scholarly work. Not only does ser not yet have tenure, she does not even appear to be a member of the regular faculty. It's not clear how to deal with academics whose notability is primarily as presenters in the popular media, but i suppose for that aspect of an academic career we should use the standards applicable to any press commentator, and I do not think she meets them. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion) Actually, she does have tenure and is now an associate professor. She also is the recipient of an "excellence in teaching award." One of her articles "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" is cited by leading scholars of Plato/Socrates and used in several dissertations http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/phl/faculty/may.html. http://www.cm-life.com/2001/04/20/fiveprofessorshonoredforexcellence/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion) See the google entry for the "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" which reveals numerous citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Scholar lists seven citations for that work - way below the number required to confer notability on the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article itself, in the discussion above or in the results of my own research to indicate that the subject even approaches the level of notability described by WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to her husband. Many of the keep comments above seem to be of the form "she has tenure, therefore we should have an article on her". That's far below the standard required by WP:PROF. We still have no evidence (e.g. in the form of high citation counts) that her publications have made much of an impact, the teaching award is also not "highly prestigious" and "at a national or international level" as WP:PROF #2 requires, and I don't see a lot of independent press coverage of her which might satisfy WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF. In the absense of verifiable evidence that she's notable, I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to point out that Associate Professor does not guarantee notability--by our usual standards, some are, some aren't--I haven;t been keeping count but I think about 2/3 of those that come here are deleted--it depends to some extent on the university, to some extent on the publication record. Even full professor isn't a sure bet, unless it's from a distinguished university. And, fwiw, an excellence in teaching award, or most other awards, from just within the person's university means very little. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf we compare this case to Jill Biden, then Jill should not have her own Wikipedia page, but should be merged with her husband. She is an academic but has no extensive publishing record. Like May, Jill founded a non-profit and does non-profit work. It seems to me that Wikipedia's catageories of "notability" are too narrow. If one is married to a notable spouse and is "accomplished" either through non-profit, artistic or scholarly work, then this warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, it seems that if May was *not* a professor, then there would be less of a debate. This debate seems to be about the substantiveness of her work, whether an associate or full professor warrants notability, whether tenure implies notability, etc. Also, to the point about "google scholar" above, if one googles the name of the "Socratic Ignorance" article, one gets much more than 7 references. Let's grant that this is a borderline case. The precedent set by Jill Biden implies that Wikipedia recognizes a category of notability of the individual meets two factors: 1) is married to a notable spouse and 2)produces creative work that is recognized by a community, and/or engages in philanthropic work. The publications and the citations to May's work meet those criteria. Would there as be a great of an objection if the entry just said "spouse of Jeffrey Wigand" who publishes work in ancient philosophy and made NO reference to her academic position? I think it would, and there would be fewer objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.136.63 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an anonymous non-editor, my opinion on wikipedia standards should perhaps be discounted, but I think it's safe to say that the standards wikipedia has created, rather than precedent, should be the criteria under consideration here. Indeed, I'm sure there are many non-notable bios on wikipedia right now, most of which will sooner or later be deleted. But although I don't see it as germane, I may as well comment to the Jill Biden example. An accomplished woman and educator in her own right, she was married to a famous senator (who was frequent on the Sunday Morning Talk shows, I think, since the early 1970s when he first became a senator) since 1977. She was his wife when he ran for president in 1988. It was only in August 2008, however, when she became the Democratic nominee for Second Lady of the United States, that someone created a wikipedia page for her. I don't think she's notable for being married to someone famous. I think she's notable because she is Second Lady. Finally, I don't think this is the place to discuss whether Wikipedia's notability criteria are too restrictive. We're trying to discuss whether a particular bio meets these criteria. Presumably there is a place on wikipedia where people debate what the actual criteria should be.--(user 71.92.75.174, as above, but on different computer) 131.215.67.222 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standards are interpreted through precedent. A standard is simply a general principle and the general principle gains meaning through concrete examples. So the two cannot be separated as without examples general principles are meaningless. The majority of Jill Biden's page is devoted to her status as an educator. And were she not married to notable persons (senator, vice president) she would not have her own page. In fact, as someone argued before, being a spouse of a notable individual does not confer "notability". This IS Wikipedia's standard. Therefore, Jill Biden should not have her page according to Wilkipedia's standards. The fact that she DOES shows that Wikipedia recognizes a hybrid category if two factors are present 1) being married to a notable spouse and 2) being an educator/philanthropist/etc. Hope May fits within this category and therefore should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthursenior (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Arthursenior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. This discussion is about Hope May, not about Jill Biden. The spouse of a vice president of the United States will unavoidably become subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, which is our basic criterion for a separate article to exist. The same does not apply to the spouse of a whistle-blowing former tobacco company executive, however worthy she and he may be. I would add that this clearly orchestrated campaign to keep this article can only possibly reflect badly on Ms May by making it look as though having a Wikipedia article is more important to her than building a reputation via her academic work. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prod - fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR inclusion guidelines. Also, notability is not inherited, so her spouse being notable does not cause her to be notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon music[edit]

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

This article is about a record label with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article as been speedy deleted 4 times under the title Bandwagon Music. Whpq (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Once again my entry for Bandwagon Music is to be deleted.

I am beginning to think there is some kind of conspiracy against Bandwagon Music!

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_labels you have hundreds of music labels the majority of which have nothing notable about them.

To pick a couple randomly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Apostles_%28record_label%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Beads_of_Sweat or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark_Records

Why are they not being deleted? There is many many more like this.

Bandwagon Music is THE ONLY MUSIC PUBLISHING CO-OPERATIVE on the planet

Surely that is a more notable quality than most?

Thank you

Jules --Juleseleven11 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I understand if you delete this page but surely that rule should apply to many many other entries here on wikipedia. I know I have come across plenty. J --Juleseleven11 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Also, Juleseleven11, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. If you think those articles should be deleted, then nominate them for deletion as well. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jules does this article no favours by making such claims as "Bandwagon Music is THE ONLY MUSIC PUBLISHING CO-OPERATIVE on the planet". Are we really supposed to believe this? Has (s)he really done the research to check that no other such cooperative exists anywhere on the planet? It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about whether this article should be kept when people make such ridiculous statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phil, First of all I don't believe we can have a sensible discussion about this as you seem to have already made your mind up. For the record I have spent ten years of my life researching this subject so yes I do feel justified in making this claim. How long have you spent? I challenge you to find another. I am sorry that you find it ridiculous. Perhaps the wording could have been less overstated.This labour of love will be the death of me!! I shall return with this entry in the not to distant future ;) Love and Light, Jules--Juleseleven11 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just spent a few seconds researching this subject and found the Nota Bene Music Publishing Cooperative in Christchurch, New Zealand, which, the last time I checked, was on the same planet as St. Albans. I have not made my mind up, but it will be easier for me to do so if you refrain from making untrue, incredible and self-aggrandising marketing statements, the type of which I would expect from grasping capitalists rather than an ethical green cooperativePhil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Not sure I can recover from that one.You make a fair point. I dont work too well in this grasping capitalistic society, because of this I at times over aggrandise my position to compensate. I apologise. Leave it in or take it out. Que sera sera. Jules--Juleseleven11 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mammals of India. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian mammals[edit]

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

Fork of List of mammals of India but incomplete and without sources - naming convention not followed - (animals do not have nationality) Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the existing page mentioned above? An incomplete list of mammals by region seems less than useful to me, and if someone DID want that info, they wouldn't search for a page called 'Indian mammals', IMO. IF this were to be kept, it needs to be renamed as 'Indian mammals by region' or some such. David V Houston (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting looks good. —innotata 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mammals of India. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, obviously. I would advise the nominator to, in any future such circumstances, simply make a bold redirect rather than bring the article to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect. --Beloved Freak 11:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was going to say "But then we'd just want to delete the redirect" but WP:REDIRECT#KEEP suggests it ought to be kept. So I !vote for redirect. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manpreet Singh[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also it appears that much of this article may have been created by the subject himself. Appears more like a marketing page for a relatively obscure equity analyst. RedGreen990 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search does not come result in many notable hits for this person. Also, the firm he works for is pretty small (approx. $1 billion in assets). A few of the sources are just normal recognition articles published by the CFA Institute which they do for numerous individuals throughout the year. Also, what few references they are on this article are also found in this person's Linkedin profile. There's nothing to support that the subject is famous. 151.151.109.22 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable. The article is disguised to make him appear to be notable. 166.137.9.182 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 18, 2010[edit]

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

This should be merged. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete if possible, article being used solely for promotion. -Drdisque (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, unambiguous promotion. I'm won't even dignify this with a mention of whatever book release it was supposed to be alerting us to. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. Article is being used for promotion (possibly self-promotion) of a non-notable book. And i'm not going to get into Wikipedia's rule against the creation of articles for unremarkable specific dates (or if there isn't one, it's a given). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). –MuZemike 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Audience[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND GregJackP (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goof night[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable neologism in its defined form. Yes, there's an entry on Urban Dictionary for it as a Saturday night in general; however, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. No notability, no verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable, possibly WP:MADEUP neologism with no reliable references. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism of questionable (i.e. zero) notability. ... discospinster _talk 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD A7.--Savonneux (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, with some of the edits being made to the article, it could almost qualify under G10. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two verifiable sources are added. It is a fact that the term exist. Wether you believe it or not, or find it insignificant at this stage does not change the fact. IT does exist. Now if wiki to stay progressive I think the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertcat (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Libercat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete Neologism made up by someone.WP:CSD: A7, G10. Edison (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought saturday was stirfry night.--Savonneux (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete To the author, before we get into any WP:BLP issues, don't use Wikipedia to mention your friends and acquaintances by name. Pathetic. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and lack of other notable substance. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, non-notable neolgism. I would love to speedy this one, but there is no such speedy criterion, as I often lament. There are several votes for A7, but A7 doesn't come close to applying. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. I cannot really see any reliable sources, and Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source. The mention of Paris Hilton seems rather far-fetched. JIP | Talk 06:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quickly, whether by Speedy or SNOW or IAR. This is obviously just an attempt by some kid to get their name on Wikipedia, if only for a day or two. Let's not reward such misbehaviour by giving it any further attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic historical fiction[edit]

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

This list article duplicates categories under Category:Historical fiction by setting esp. Category:Novels set in sub-Roman Britain and is not notable Sadads (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, google searches of this topic, though it is clearly extent (thus the appropriateness of a category), doesn't return a serious discussion of it as a movement or field thus no article should be present. Sadads (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edith Pargeter has a series set in medieval Wales; Sharon Kay Penman has a series set in medieval Wales; the Outlander is set in 18th century Scotland, Sir Walter Scott has Rob Roy, among others, set in Scotland. This off the top of my head without a search. It's a useful category, and that could be populated without too much work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper, this is an article not a category.Sadads (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it seems I've made a good argument for a category. Sorry about that. A little busy these days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's done here would be better done in a category, as noted above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joey Shaw[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Reifsnyder[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Still not sure if he's a notable enough actor. The reliable book sources also trivially mention him in the context of his role with Wide Awake. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His significant and notable (2nd credit) role as Dave O'Hara in the move "Wide Awake" alone makes this actor notable. His additional movie and TV credits are just icing on the cake. Moorsmur (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Based on role in Wide Awake. - BalthCat (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fins (band)[edit]

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Nancy ^talk 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. -Reconsider ! 09:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Frei-Pearson[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable person who is potentially running for public office. Lincolnite (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, basically. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not sure if it's spam, but it is certainly non-notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He is a candidate for public office compliant with notability guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.50 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson has been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles about his work with Children's Rights (a non-profit) as well as his leadership in a class-action lawsuit against Con Edison following a weeks-long blackout in Astoria, Queens, New York. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets some passing mentions but not sufficient indepth coverage. [42]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astoria (airline)[edit]

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

Non notable short lived airline with a single plane. noq (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep this content. A short lived airline that existed for a year, tops, with one plane. Outback the koala (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Outback the koala. Not notable. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuen Wai-hung[edit]

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

Delete. Feng shui proponent, notability not established, contested prod. Only one obscure reference, other than self-published sources. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete Can't find any notable references by Googling for "Yuen Wai-hung" or "Wai-hung Yuen". I guess there might be Chinese language sources out there somewhere - are there any Chinese speakers who can check? -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two non-self publishing sources Face magazine (FACE 周刊) and (忽然1周). This is not an issue of source. Two to three sources from one editor on first edit is actually pretty good. I can find you 50 articles with no references at all. Secondly these types of subjects are generally not online. It is about 100% unsearchable in english. You are wasting your time. This person is notable in the east. Benjwong (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails test for coverage. Google results for FACE周刊 "袁偉雄" has 3 hits - 2 from personal homepage, and the last the article being considered for deletion. Search for 忽然1周 "袁偉雄" has one hit - this AfD itself. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of this type of topics are not online. I cannot emphasize that enough. Benjwong (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notability requires independent referencing. I cannot emphasize that enough. All we have so far is a self-published website and one magazine article. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. References don't have to be online - if you have offline references (eg to reliable printed material) you can use those - but the key point is that there must be reliable references of some sort. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Ahuja[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP article, not sure about notability. Bringing here to assess. -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, what an awful article! I agree with deletion based on notability, but even if the person is notable I can't read/understand the article to determine that. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have improved it a bit and imo there is a bit of notability, right now I'm neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslaw Magola[edit]

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

The only claim to fame of Miroslaw Magola is a number of appearances on a german and a french tv-show. The article does not meet Notability guidelines. Also a conflict of interest is obvious from the pages history. Last but not least, facts are not Verifiable and it conflicts with WP:BLP, since no reliable sources are present (other than the artists sayso, that is). For an account of articles about Miroslaw Magola on other wiki's see meta:User:Kleuske/Miroslaw Magola. Kleuske (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this is a notable "psychic". Edward321 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable for being in encyclopedia. Danko Georgiev (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Röda tråden[edit]

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

Foreign TV show, no indication of notability, no cited sources. delete UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign'? This is the internet… I translated it from the Swedish wikipedia. Davidleeroth (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... But this EN.wikipedia.org That doesn't mean an article about stuff in other languages can't exist, but it does mean that anglophones somewhat less likely to be interested. David V Houston (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was just created. Sure, it doesn't have lots of external references to reliable sources (which might well be in Swedish), but he hasn't had a chance to put them in yet! A major (which this might or might not be) national TV program is likely to be notable, IMO. OTOH, checking out the Swedish page, there are NO references there and the page has been around since '03 (!) OK, further results. The phrase is obviously a common phrase in Swedish, as the google search shows. I tried a news search, adding the word television (which seems to be the same in Swedish), and I got a bunch of hits, but most still seemed to not be about this show. Not reading Swedish, it's a bit hard to tell, though. Davidleeroth, if you can find good independent secondary references (even if they're in Swedish), PLEASE note them - preferably in the article. David V Houston (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source written in Swedish documenting that Pekka Heino was the host of Röda tråden Davidleeroth (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - marginal notability, but I find it difficult to support nominations for deletions based on something being "foreign". Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective are recommended as reading. Tomas e (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough, mentioned on the official site of the culture festival. I don't really understand why a TV show being "foreign" (non-American?) would be an argument for deletion. JIP | Talk 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to reject articles in English on the grounds that they happen to be about Swedish TV shows that few non-Swedish speakers might have heard of. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above. Original language/country is irrelevant to notability. - BalthCat (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though Trackinfo is reminded to assume better faith in the future. –MuZemike 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Black[edit]

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

No claims in the article amount to WP:Notability, and I can't find sources that establish it. I can't even find evidence that her real name is Pettigrew, as claimed in the article. Unreferenced BLP. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So there are no sources, why bother looking for a source, lets just delete the article instead. Yes, that's sarcasm. I've added several sources to the article. She seems to be what the article says she is, which is usually the case of these "dangerous" unsourced BLPs.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources added meet the requirements at WP:V#Sources, which is the only way to establish notability. Let me examine the 3 sources added:

sciencestage [43] - this appears to be a usergroup, and thus is not reliable.

Zurina Bryant photography [44] - Blogs are not reliable sources, and cannot establish notability.

Fashion Eccentric [45] - another blog.

I'm always happy to withdraw a nomination if I have missed reliable sources, or if sources are available offline which I don't have access to. The sources provided clearly don't meet WP:RS, though. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I added more. At some point these things need to end. Normally in journalism, two independent sources justify information. Here we are now up to 11 different sources listed on the article. You can discount one, or two, her Facebook is obviously self generated. But there are multiple modeling agencies marketing her pictures and services, charities she has worked with at public events and even if there are blog entries, from multiple directions they are essentially saying the same kind of things. Its a concept called corroboration. She's listed as a host of a regular series on HBO. That should make her notable.

I don't know this person from adam. I haven't been to Singapore in decades. Its more about the principle. That people will criticize an article, no, that they will readily delete an article because of what they don't know. But they won't lift a finger to try to find out. How did I come up with these extra sources? I'm using this super secret search method called google. You should try it some time. There are other things like it around. Deleting reasonable articles, deleting other people's work, is not an honorable pursuit.Trackinfo (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources added:

PlushAsia [46] - this is nothing more than a photo of her.
Give [47] - this is an advertisement for an event, so I can't see this as establishing notability. It's only a passing mention, so it fails to satisfy the WP:GNG requirements from that angle as well.
Pop Shuvit [48] - this is a blog, and a passing mention of her at that.
Phantom.com.sg [49] - This is her resume, that doesn't count as either a reliable source, or evidence of notability.
The Collective [50] - This is a talent agency that sells her talent, that is actually controlled by her.

As I mentioned before, I have done a search for reliable sources, and I would suggest that you read the policy and the guideline that explain what a reliable source is. None of the sources offered so far meet the requirements set forth in those places.

Also, please stop accusing me of violating WP:BEFORE. I have looked for sources, and could not find them. That's why I brought the article to AfD. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me connect the dots for you and other folks who like to delete articles. Cites from the article: #1 says "As the host of Friday Picturehouse on HBO Signature (StarHub Ch 66), Linda Black has a job most cinemaphiles would kill for - featuring new, exciting and edgy movies premiering on Asian television." and it ends with "Catch Linda Black on HBO Signature Friday Picturehouse every Friday at 10pm on StarHub Ch 66." Which pretty much identifies where she works. #2 reads "Linda Black (Pettigrew) is an American born, Singapore based television host who is best known for hosting HBO Signature's 'Friday Picture House' and Discovery Channel Asia's 'Cathay Pacific on the Move'." Different text, not duplicated but corroborates the same message and adds a second major network that she works for. #3 is promoting a charity event she is hosting "Linda Black, a professional model, emcee and HBO host." She is a significant enough of a celebrity to MC a fundraiser, and again it corroborates HBO. #4 is a different charity promoting a different event she is hosting. Again she is identified as "Linda Black of HBO" #5 is a blog item from her husband, who turns out to also be a celebrity and the previous host of the show passing the baton "My last few weeks on HBO Signature are coming to a close soon – I’m being replaced by the very talented Linda Black, as I move to a new show on CINEMAX." As for her real last name, this is already the second tie in to this guy. #6 is her resume hosted by a Singapore modeling agency. #7 is a photographer's blog, again mentioning husband and talks about her modeling career. Gee, another point in the article corroborated. #8 is her page on a second modeling agency site, called the Collective, which is run by the various models it is promoting including herself and her husband. #9 is a fashion blog talking about a fashion show which was attended by "local celebrities" "Linda Black and her husband Oli Pettigrew" Take any one or two sources, yes it might seem weak. But she's treated as a celebrity, and is referred to as having a notable job at two notable TV networks by all of these sources that are clearly different. And if she were deliberately self-promoting, (OK she obviously is on a couple of them, plus her facebook page) you'd certainly think she could come up with more and better mentions than this. As I said before, I have no interest in this individual--its just one I clicked on that said there are no sources. I found sources that back up what the article says. That should be sufficient. It apparently wasn't, so I found more. Its not a victory to successfully remove somebody else's work from Wikipedia. Its a tragedy that so many people on here find sport in trying to do that.Trackinfo (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, only one of the !voters addressed the notability of this recording. This is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Nuce[edit]

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

Bootleg with no assertion of notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Provisional Keep There are quite a few GHits for it, and I'm wondering if a bootleg that helps document the formative years of a very notable band might be sufficient for notability in itself? Some more detailed searching is needed, but I don't really have the time now -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, Queen is a great band, the better. What can be more notable?.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takhribchi[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. The only Google hit for "takhribchi" and "saboteur" is the article itself. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't look like a widely used name for an Iranian special force member. I can't read the language, but perhaps this this website could help us? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. The site listed didn't seem to contain enough content. As that is the only source, I'd be inclined to believe that it fails WP:N. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The one reason for retention does not adequately address and is outweighed by the nominator's or the other's reason for deletion. –MuZemike 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Business Executives[edit]

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

Basically unreferenced page with reliable, third-party sources very thin on the ground, bringing its notability into serious question. Very few substantive news results etc. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 08:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This organization meets this standard for inclusion. Kugao (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to add some sources to prove that claim? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about 2,570 hits on Goggle News. Kugao (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to add some sources (to the article, yourself, now) to bring it up to the required standard? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article's references and the many of the google hits are adverts from schools. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd[edit]

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

Delete What is the claim to notability here? No major awards or accolades, this guy appears to be a run of the mill journalist. Terrible sources, and little links here. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd's writings are excellent examples of critical analysis and speaking truth to the power. I think the person who wants him deleted does not want such important critique of U.S. empire to be read.

Exactly. No major awards? Hello. Project Censored for a start. Published a book. Moscow Times tenure during cold war. This call for deletion is simply a partisan move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.137.243 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His story was picked as one of 25 top stories by Project Censored, that is not what I would call a 'major award'. Writing a book and working for the Moscow Times does not make him anything more than a run of the mill journalist and author, as I said. If you really want this article to stay, why dont you try improving it rather than accusing me of partisanship? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to (barely) meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Most of the bio is unreferenced; the only refs are his works—primary sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale

Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell

Articles for deletion/Trader Bob

It's Optional[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to the list. Ultra-obscure pricing game with none of the impact or staying power of, say, Plinko. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, AGF'ing that the latter is a better choice. If not, then please discuss locally. –MuZemike 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Shears[edit]

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

no reliable, secondary sources about the topic Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringo Starr, unless there's a more suitable sub-section of that or another article. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fictional character with no impact on the wider popular culture. Joal Beal (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (better than to Ringo Starr, I think, because the character is played by other actors in various Sgt. Pepper spinoffs). Hard to see any good reason for a separate article, based on what's presented here. Some of the material in this article might be usable there, so maybe this is technically a merge?--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS memory management[edit]

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

Questionable notability and unreferenced. moɳo 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as long as refs to Apple are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Although refs from Apple are good to have, please note that third-party, published references are needed. See here for more detail.--moɳo 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a news search and only got 2 articles. WTF!?? I can't imagine this isn't notable, but the news search sure doesn't demonstrate any notability! Hmmm... there isn't a 'Windows Memory Management' page either, and maybe the general Memory management page would suffice for both? David V Houston (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think this article should be kept. Mac OS memory management issues were one of the most well know/infamous issues about the pre OS X days. MtD (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)~~ I've been told that my comment here was inappropriate so I'm removing it. Sorry. MtD (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I managed to find only a few reliable references to the article: [51], [52], and [53]. This is definitely a notable topic, but references are sparse. If it is decided that this article should not be kept, I vouch for a merge to Mac OS. Otherwise, I'm voting weak keep.Airplaneman ✈ 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lotta information there, in detail but it would probably be better off in Mac OS. Looked for sources and there probably are more just a lot of noise since Mac OS covers so many versions of the same operating system. Is there a Mac collector wiki where they go into detail on this stuff? --Savonneux (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is too big to merge to Mac OS—it's actually linked from there as sub-article. Clearly needs references. There's an OS X internals book [54]. I'm sure there's OS 9 and below secondary coverage in this area as well, just not easily accessible. What I was able to turn are user-oriented books [55]. OS 9's memory management was annoying enough that users had to deal with it explicitly. Pcap ping 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge to Memory Management. References need to be improved, but delete is not substitute for marking as needs cleanup or ref. improved. I did some programming for Mac OS back in the day and it's approach to memory handles was on of the more notable details compared to other OSes. I'ld be sort of surprised if there were not more sources out there. Because of the age though it might be difficult to find web based sources, old programming magazines and books might be good resources. I tried a quick search for memory-handle on books.google.com finds a bunch of snippets about the topic, but didn't see any where enough of the snippets were available to use as a source. I do wonder if the article should be renamed or made a "Memory Handles" section of Memory management. Regardless it should be mentioned there. PaleAqua (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've improved the references in the article and it now includes references to 3-4 independent sources, making it more Notable. Some of these sources summarise Apple documentation, and one is a former Apple employee, which may weaken the notability slightly. It also contains further references to appropriate Apple documentation, addressing the references issue. twilsonb (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Computing articles should be more like this one --- identifying issues and providing overviews --- rather than scattered through dozens of articles about minor wares and languages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 13:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Meredith[edit]

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

clearly WP:ONEVENT applies here. take away the flood and she is unknown. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Reconsider ! 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E. Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kinda cute, but fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Coverage is largely local, and only for this one thing. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'm not really comfortable with an outright delete. Her invitation to India by Oxfam is distinctive. I suggest that significant portions of this article should be merged into the main article about the 2007 floods. Currently only her image is there, presumably because editors felt there was sufficient information for a separate article without bogging down that one. - BalthCat (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Grounds[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable product/software, article isn't supported by reliable, third-party, published sources. I've looked and can't find any reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, no notability. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Meier[edit]

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

Unremarkable auctioneer. Only coverage I'm finding is in primary sources, a blog questioning the business practices of his auctioneer service or refers to someone else (a University of Wisconsin athlete). Zero google news or book hits on the name. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going, going, gone. Notwithstanding his three World Automobile Auctioneer championships, his business activities are far from notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trival, no notability established whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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