Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 November 1 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters[edit]

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

Redundant content fork. Copies exactly content from these articles:

All articles say the exact same thing. This article merely lists all articles above with duplicate content. Content already sufficiently covered in separate articles noted above as well as Mariology of the popes. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: as has been discussed elsewhere, the best way to handle these multiple content forks is through an RfC merger proposal. As such I withdraw the nomination and have asked an admin for a "speedy keep" close. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the rosary[edit]

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

Redundant content fork Duplicates content from

  • Comment: There is no such "mass AfD issue" being discussed on the AfD for Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). Everyone should focus only on the merits of either deleting or keeping this article. Note also the usual "supporters" on both articles. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Malke 2010 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Content dispute is best worked out somewhere else. Stop putting tags on half of wikipedia's Catholic articles, Malke. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a substantive note, these are major concepts in the RC Church. Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all the content is reproduced in the above three articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The statement that "all the content is reproduced in the above three articles" is not correct. There is no mention of the historical facts such as St. Eligius, or Lady Godiva referring to it in her will, St. Aibert, who died in 1140, recited 150 rosaries, Saint Rosalia in 1160, etc. etc. etc. in the other articles. Please follow WP:BEFORE, read the articles, etc. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The few exceptions can be merged into Rosary. That article needs some pruning anyway, and it can handle additional content.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the facts That way at all. And in any case, this Afd (among the many others) is a clear case of WP:SK #2.4 and I just commented that your statement was inaccurate. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a simple solution. Since all the articles are really duplicates, they could all be merged easily by simply removing the duplicate content and merging what's left. Also, the wider community consensus is with Wikipedia policy which states that redundant content forking is unacceptable. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not proposing merging, you requested deletion. It is not a duplicate nor is it as redundant as you claim it to be. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as has been discussed elsewhere, the best way to handle these multiple content forks is through an RfC merger proposal. As such I withdraw the nomination and have asked an admin for a "speedy keep" close. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns to Mary[edit]

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

No notability. No reliable sources. Article is nothing more than a list of songs. No actual content. Marian music is already covered in multiple articles, including Roman Catholic Marian music. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Marian music. If I was looking for religious songs about Mary, I would far more likely search for Hymns to Mary than Roman Catholic Marian music, thus, as it is likely a valid search term, I vote redirect. Ravendrop (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Two items should probably be mentioned now regarding a merge suggestion, given that I ended up fixing the article with references, etc. Before it was mostly just a list of hymns, but now it has much new info. Now, the first point is that not all hymns have been set to music, and some chanted hymns may be used on their own unaccompanied by any musical instrument. Secondly, as the first section of the article discusses, it now turns out that hymns are a key part of the liturgy of the Eastern Church, and indeed the Eastern Orthodox place as much (if not more) emphasis on them as part of liturgy than Roman Catholics. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — JL 09 talkcontribs    02:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary and scapular[edit]

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

Redundant content fork

Duplicates content from:

Malke 2010 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4. Content dispute and WP:POINT best worked out elsewhere. Marauder40 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As stated above, content dispute and WP:POINT are best worked out somewhere else. The same discussion is now occuring on so many pages.. this "battle" Malke is issuing is rediculous. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see the controversy. Keep, whether this is a content fork or not. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visendo fax server[edit]

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

No independent sources showing notability, Promotional. Contested PROD. Muhandes (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't ask for speedy deletion as the article is almost two years old and the other speedy deleted were one day old. Note that all content contributors to article are blocked now. Seems like WP:SNOW. --Muhandes (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 07:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Proft[edit]

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

Subject finished dead last in the Republican Governor primary in February 2010. Has done nothing notable since then. Article hasn't been touched since the election showing a lack of interest. He served as little more than a vanity candidate in the race getting less than 50,000 votes in a state of 13 million. Illinois Reason (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a graph. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment on that graph, since he does PR and works as a spokesperson, it goes without saying he'll have some press coverage, but not of himself. Even though he is quoted, he is speaking for someone else. Does that help notability? I would think not, but open to correction. Illinois Reason (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Every election has someone who came in "dead last": that doesn't make those candidates unnotable. Also, calling someone a "vanity candidate" is brazenly POV unless it can be supported by argument, which thus far it is not: fifty thousand votes is still a substantial sum, no matter how you slice it. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Steve - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect per Ray (below). The sources to make him notable just aren't there. Of the 15 references listed at the article, four are from his campaign website. The rest are very unimpressive; the only mainstream Reliable Source item is one story from WGN News. There is a link to the Chicago Tribune "featured articles", but that page doesn't appear to have anything about him. Google News Archive likewise turns up little except "Cicero spokesman Dan Proft said..." The number of votes he got is irrelevant; what he needs is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", and he doesn't have it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010#Republican primary. Per MelanieN, notability is not established - the level of coverage is not significant. RayTalk 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, a redirect might be more appropriate than an outright delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic[edit]

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

Was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7#XCritic_.28closed.29. Same notability issues seem to still apply per WP:WEB. Sources are not independent of the subject, particularly XCritic, Kleinman.com (website of the owner), and AVN since AVN voting includes XCritic. They're all interrelated. Addition of new sources since last deletion review prompts a discussion rather than a unilateral redirect back to DVD Talk. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources, just press releases that I can find. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant evidence of notability. Its supposed "news" site is just a message board. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Hullaballoo. No significant coverage, no evidence of notability, no reliable sources. dmz 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan J. Steinberg[edit]

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

I started to clean up this article, but then I realized that this person likely doesn't meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. In fact, I couldn't find any coverage about Steinberg that wasn't a press release. I don't think Regional Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency is a sufficiently important position to establish notability outright in the absence of independent coverage to justify this article's inclusion. Currently, Steinberg is a columnist for newjerseynewsroom.com where his bio, incidentally, is either a rip-off of his Wikipedia page or the source of a copyright violation on Wikipedia. TabASlotB (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this person would probably fail in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. I also agree that there is plagiarism at work one way or another, unless the person himself created both.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The closest thing to notability I could find in a search was an award from a local chapter of the Sierra Club, and a few press releases. That's all the article provides also, and it does not amount to "significant coverage by independent reliable sources". --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gharios of Ghassan[edit]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Murciano[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail the notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR - the one role made the most about here appears from his IMDB listing to be a single episode appearance quite low on the cast list. The other acting roles are "extra" or "atmosphere"-type roles. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar (Science Fiction Club)[edit]

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

Non-notable college association with no clear secondary sources covering the issue Sadads (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - non-notable college club with no RS...should probably be speedy, but oh well. Cquan (after the beep...) 22:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It had previously been prodded but someone denied it, Sadads (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.Y.T. (band)[edit]

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

Fails all twelve of the faily lax criteria for notability of musicians/ensembles. Wikipedia:Notability (music) Fixer23 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of course it fails. Because the criteria keep on changing, so one day it's in, and one day it's out. An example of this sillyness, is that it used to be if you could verify a substantial national tour, that was good enough. But, now the coverage itself, must be substantial. Fine, but what a waste of effort it is write stuff to be deleted. Best delete it now, and safe future effort of foolish people trying to improve it. No wander Wikipedia is losing editors in droves, as people realize this is a total waste of time and effort. --Rob (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this group has never been on such a tour, so that's moot here. Fixer23 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I didn't say it had been on a tour. I was referring to the sillyness of the guidelines, which I noticed that change, just now, following your link.. If I was arguing for retention, I'd add some sources, easily found, improve content, format with proper inline citations, and put them in the article. But, I won't, and nobody will, because nobody cares. If I did bother, and did get this kept, the rules would change again, and it would be nomed again. So, let's just delete it now. --Rob (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. I mean what's the point of bringing it up if it doesn't relate to this article, since that guideline change does not apply here. (Which logically means this article shouldn't have even existed under old guidelines, it simply does not warrant an article) This article has been around for years now if someone was going to improve it they could have done so a long time ago. The fact of the matter is there simply isn't enough coverage to make a substantial article without using dodgy sources like forums and blogspot. Fixer23 (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't read anything here, since you're arguing against a non-existant side. Nobody is arguing for keeping the article. Notice, I said "delete". Anyways, thanks for all your words, as you've helped illustrate what's wrong with Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way you've stated your "delete" suggests that you are bitter about the way wikipedia has progressed and that you would very much want the article to stay and the only reason you're supporting the delete is not based on wikipedia policy but on the fact that you think you have wasted time improving upon an article that someone has nominated for deletion. The matter is simple, the band does not appear to be notable no matter how much effort has been spent on it (I personally can't see it). Fixer23 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of numerous articles I'm actively trying to delete. We're both guilty of spending way to much time on this, as evidence by the the length of this thread, and lack of interest by others. --Rob (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Below is some of the coverage they have recieved. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "shrink-wrapping: a girl group" by DAVE SCHEIBER, 2 July 2000, St. Petersburg Times
    • "Want to be a pop star? Start at Super Bowl Series:" by DAVE SCHEIBER, 19 January 2001, St. Petersburg Times
    • "Girls in the group, PYT, grew up together in music" by Cynthia J. Drake, 13 May 2001, The Grand Rapids Press
    • Down With Me (Epic) review by Gerald Martinez, 2 September 2001, Sunday Mail
    • Down With Me review by Christie Leo, 27 January 2002, New Sunday Times
That's great! Why weren't they included in the article? Although the last two are reviews and not actual coverage of the band itself.Fixer23 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What stopped you from putting these sources in the article, or searching for them before assuming that they didn't exist? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come across these articles and do not know where this user got them as they do not turn up in multiple google searches, for charting information, general information, awards information etc. (Perhaps they have been collecting sources? And also the fact that all the articles posted by the user are Pay-Per-View doesn't help. Same goes for the other nomination, if I had found coverage I wouldn't have nominated in the first place). Fixer23 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - not based on my interest in the group, but the fact that they achieved a small amount of notability, such as it is. And most of this debate so far is a failed attempt at irony and sarcasm that quickly got detached from the merits of the article in question.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regret being drawn into the user's pity party and have pointed out numerous times to him that his points are tangential to the discussion.Fixer23 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been covered in nationally-recognised media, and also in media well outside their local area (The Grand Rapids Press is in Michigan - a long, long way from Tampa! Therefore decidedly not "trivial local coverage".). Also, I'd like to suggest that User:Thivierr's 'delete' vote be disregarded by the closing admin, given his "nobody cares, Wikipedia is broken, delete it now and don't waste time trying to improve it" argument. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 08:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 90s teenage girl groups honestly aren't my thing so I'm not going to search for references, but this is actually the first musical group page nominated for deletion that's on a band I've actually heard of, so presumably they were covered in a teen magazine or two in the 90s. Roscelese (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) and as per Abductive, local coverage of a band that never charted. It is a shame to delete articles but we would better improve and preserve and protect notable articles than to write about everyone in the whole world. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did see the reference from The Grand Rapids Press, right? That's not by any stretch of the imagination "local coverage" for a band from Tampa, Florida, unless we want to consider, for instance, a German newspaper's coverage of a Spanish band "local" as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had value it would have been inserted into the article, users stuffing a load of vague cites on the talkpage of an AFD does nothing for me, either ask for it to be userfyed where you can improve it or improve it during the AFD is my position, I would never vote to keep an article with vague mentions of notability that no one adds to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raëlian beliefs and practices. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian cosmology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant secondary source coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The vast majority of the article is cited only to primary sources. Most of the article is cited directly to "Rael", a primary source and conflict of interest source. See also relevant prior AFDS, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensual Meditation, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the main Raëlian article. Certainly it's appropriate there. (And why does that redirect to Raëlian beliefs and practices?) BE——Critical__Talk 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to the main Raëlian article. Looking at the article, it doesn't cite many outside sources, so the original has a point. However the Raëlians themselves are notable and so would their beliefs in cosmology by extension. The material should at least be merged, but there is so much here it is likely to get broken out again, which seems to be what happened before. I don't think this situation is actually caused by a lack of extant reliable sources so much as the fact that the article did not reference them. So another option would be to find some; that would be necessary if the article is to be kept. Merging will make the main article very long, which is why it is broken out like it is. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pleased that some Wikipedians still have the word "Merge" in their vocabulary :DKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this article from other pages and found it very useful in studying strange new cosmologies. I think it is too good and complete and well referenced to simply merge. I was so glad to find it. --Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources presented by Sumbuddi seem to have turned the discussion from no consensus to keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard d'Abrera[edit]

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

Bernard d’Abrera is an academic who does not passes the notability criteria of for academics. The criteria in WP:PROF are listed as follows:

  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
    Pretty much the only place that lists him is google scholar, based on the website getcited.org. Most of his books are not well cited (based on google, on average 1.8 cites per year per publication, based on the first 18 hits of work by him), which is surprising as they are overview works of specific regions. Noteworthy, this latter work receives less citations than his earlier work. In my opinion, he does not have made a significant impact in the field.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
    None.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
    Nope.
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
    Nope.
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.''
    Nope.
  6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
    Nope.
  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
    His major claim to fame, besides his self-published biographies about butterflies, is his involvement in the creationist movement. However, he is not one of the highly visible individuals in that movement. Most of his contribution is better covered under the various creationist articles.
  8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
    Nope.
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
    N/A

He is currently not associated with a university or research institute. He never obtained a PhD, and most of his work is self-published. Unless someone can show me that I am substantially wrong about the fame in creationist circles (I think I know all the major players), I think he is not notable and I urge deletion of this article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not looked closely Kim, but it seems to pass WP:GNG pretty easily. He doesn't need to also pass WP:PROF. Are you claiming the sources in the article don't meet WP:GNG? Hobit (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, lets examine the sources listed:
    1. Macleay Museum News, edited by Julian Holland, No. 8, October 1996.
      Wonderful, he visited a museum. I do have those sources for myself, and they do not establish much beyond working in the field.
    2. "Official Website for Hill House Publishers". Hill House Publishers. http://www.hillhouse-publishers.com/. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
      His own publishing house. Not admissible for WP:GNG.
    3. Butterfly blast, Carl Wieland, Creation 25(3):16–19 June 2003.
      Book review of fellow creationist. A dead link and unavailable resource. Main source for much of the article.
    4. What Have Butterflies Got to Do with Darwin?, William A. Dembski, Review of Bernard d'Abrera, The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (London: Hill House, 2001), 353 pages., from "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science <http://www.metanexus.net>", 2001, retrieved August 18, 2007.
      Book review of fellow creationist.
    5. Society Fellows, International Society for Complexity, Information and Design official website.
      Membership of a creationist organisation. Being a member of a comparable evolution societies never ever is enough by itself to be notable.
    6. Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World, Bernard d'Abrera, Hill House Publishers, Melb.& Lond., 2001, ISBN 978-0-947352-37-0.
      His own work. Not admissible for WP:GNG.
    7. Explore Evolution Textbook and Website, Staff, Discovery Institute, June 1, 2007, from Discovery Institute official website, Retrieved on 2007-08-03.
      Link sourcing that his own publishing house publishes their stuff. Not admissible for WP:GNG.
    8. About the Authors, Explore Evolution official website
      Link sourcing that his own publishing house publishes their stuff. Not admissible for WP:GNG.
So, do two book reviews indicative notability? If so, then I am far more notable than he is. My work has been reviewed in major news papers, including The Times of London, The Economist and Nature among others. Anyway, you get the point. Outside of creatinist circles, he is not very notable. Within those circles, he has some notability, but I do not think that notability rises to the inclusion level generally used at wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fun, I have updated my userpage showing my own 'notability' (cough cough).... ;-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should look closely at the sources. Most of them have varying degrees of affiliation with d'Abrera. I would suggest that none of them are truly "independent" per WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain that in English. Risker (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't do much better than that. You might like to look at WP:Prof and follow these pages for a while to learn the technical jargon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I asked my question *after* re-reading WP:PROF. If you cannot explain your reasoning in a way that a well-informed Wikipedian can understand, then your reasoning is not clear. Explain what process you used to come up with the numbers, please, and why you're putting so much weight on the h-index, which WP:PROF clearly indicates is to be used with caution. Risker (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me the approximate cuttoff values that you are using for #citations and H-index to see if C1 is satisfied? I think a mere 2 citations per year per book is rather poor, especially considering that these are overview works.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. Those with an h index of less than 10 rarely pass. There is no formal policy on this; it is just the way that decisions of editors have evolved over the past few years. Standards of notability for academics and scholars in the English Wikipedia are much higher than for some other subjects; garage bands or athletes sometime get by with only a handful of references. Number of citations also varies by subject, for example, a mainstream etymologist like Kim van der Linde has an GS h index of 4 (search on GS for author: "Kim van der Linde") so the subject is cited significantly more than that, maybe because of his unusual views. It is not the job of editors of these pages to determine whether a subject's views are correct or incorrect, good or evil. We only determine if they are notable from having been noted, and in this case it seems that they have. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for answer. I am just a post-doc, and my h-index is below 10 (7, scholar misses software packages and fusses with my composite family name). If I would be notable, it would because of the Sophophora melanogaster controversy that recieved a substantial amount of press. The only nbthing I am saying is that a h-index of 14 is nothing special in my field. Nor is 500+ citations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: complete lack of third-party sourcing, per WP:GNG and "lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" caveat in WP:PROF. Given the topic's WP:FRINGE views, this also makes describing them problematical w.r.t. WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sufficient third party sourcing having come to light to meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ec>weak keep I find the two reviews, by fellow creationists or not, to be sources toward the GNG. I agree the other sources are either irrelevant to the GNG or really weak and only #1 provides even a hint of value. His H-index, if accurate, is pretty low but almost up to notable realm (I'd say 15-20 in many fields would be plenty, I don't know this field). The claim of cites of 216, 153, etc. is actually a pretty strong claim to notability via WP:PROF. So we are over the bar for the GNG (if just barely) and there is a claim to real-world notability. Not the strongest case, but would seem to meet the letter (if just barely) and the spirit (a bit better) of our inclusion guidelines. I've AGF on the Hindex and cites, so if they are mistaken my !vote would change. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this field, a h-index of 15 is easy to achieve, and many many biologists working for 15+ years in the field do have an h-index over 15. I just checked a few colleagues, and I pretty much can add at least 25% of Florida State University biology professors to wikipedia based on this criterion. And based on the general desciption of WP:PROF, I do not think this is what is wanted. See also the discussion I started here on the same issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious question: how many of them have two works with 150+ cites? In my field that's pretty rare for otherwise non-notable researchers. I just checked and the non-full profs in my department tend not to have this (and I'm at a top-10 place in my field). I realize biology may be really different though which is why I ask. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Several. I have no interest in checking the list again. Yes, biology is different. A rough indicator is the general trend in citation indexes of the major journals in the field. Evolution and ecology are mid field players. Physics and astronomy and molecular biology are highly cited. Other fields are substantially less. Let me say it this way, I am not impressed by the relative low h-index and number of citations especially considering that this are overview works. But heck, if that is enough for WP, that is fine, and I will start adding a lot of academics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that both creationist reviews are WP:SELFPUBlished, so really don't do anything to add to WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is interesting. As far as I can see only one is, but that might well move us below the GNG... Hobit (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wieland is the editor of Creation, and the MD of CMI, the organisation that publishes it -- so yes, it is self-published. Further, as a journal "dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories" (WP:PROF#Notes and examples #17), it is not a WP:RS, and should not add to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article in its current is a textbook example of a coatrack article. Notice how there is NO citation whatsoever in the article serving to establish him specifically as a notable entomologist OR a notable anti-evolutionist. All sourcing is interested with discussing his arguments against evolution (including two out of three sources regarding his academic career, both of which seem coatrackish in their one right, and one of which is a dead link). I'm unclear whether this express a pro- or anti-evolution bias, but in any case, being a signtatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is not in any fashion an argument in favor of notability, nor is merely being anti-darwinian anywhere near being a "philosopher of science". Circéus (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From an examination of who has been citing his books on butterflies (look at Cited by in GS) there is plenty of evidence of notability as an entomologist. Agreed that the article needs pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Citation of the book is no mark of notability, as noted by Kim above. ANY work of comparable scope will see a LOT of cites. His Concise atlas has less than fifty cites in Scholar, this monograph has well over a hundred. Should I be arguing that this is a proof of notability? Circéus (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof#C1 says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" so if the cites are independent it does not matter if the sources are self-published or not. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
WP:SPS≠WP:RS, so yes it does matter -- though I would note that the comment you were replying to makes no mention of SPSs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cites are not self-published and it is those that we accept as sources of notability. To be more explicit: we never accept the published work of a subject as a source of notability. A person may have published a thousand papers but if nobody cites them there is no notability. What contributes to notability (in the sense of WP:Prof#C1) is the number of times sources independent of the subject refer to them. In the case of researchers/scholars/academics we are fortunate to have the citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science that allow us to determine this with some degree of objectivity. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, except the citations appear to be more for 'books containing large numbers of butterflies' than 'publications containing ground-breaking research on butterflies'. The first two also cite the works of PJ deVries in conjunction with d'Abrera -- and his most-cited book, The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history: Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae, tops 500 citations. I think in this unusual situation, the linkage between brute number of citations and "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" breaks down. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is not for us to judge whether his work is ground breaking research or just descriptions of butterflies. We just see that he is noted: that suffices for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It most certainly is "for us to judge whether his work" "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". That is what the guideline explicitly requires us to do. "We just see that he is noted: that suffices for notability."=nothing more than a simple attempt to bypass the notability guidelines (which tell us in detail what constitutes notability). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His butterfly books seem to be unique and recognized in the field world-wide. The information on his anti-evolution views is not remarkable really (it takes all kinds to make a world and we all have the right to our opinions) and should be trimmed down to maybe one sentence. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same result as for William Connolley (last nom, WP:PROF analysis), who has a (lower) h-index of 11 also in a field with high citation counts, and some incidental quotations for his other activities. D'Abrera was quoted in NYT once [1], his book was also reviewed in Klots, A. B. (1972). "Butterflies of the Australian Region. Bernard D'Abrera. Lansdowne, Melbourne, 1971 (U. S. Distributor, Entomological Reprint Specialists, Los Angeles). 416 pp., illus. $39.95". Science. 177 (4046): 342–343. Bibcode:1972Sci...177..342M. doi:10.1126/science.177.4046.342., he gets some book coverage in [2] (by Peter Laufer, who was on the Daily Show but doesn't have a Wikipedia page), blah, blah. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quote from Arthur Shapiro (in Laufer's book) about d'Abreras' books:

I'm sure one can find a quote saying that Connolley's contribution to science/Wikipedia was absolutely indispensable or something to that effect. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Although nominator definitely writes novels and perhaps falls under WP:TOOLONG, I have read it and I am sold. The review of sources seems very convincing and competent, while the opposing view boils down to basically h-index theories which are clearly stated in policies we should not give much weight. An editor above claims in other words basically that there was a precedent established with listing index values for similar articles, but this is not so; we follow policies, not precedent set by editors who often vote and force index values as reasonable notability criteria. Delete per failing both WP:GNG and WP:PROF; on all counts.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable entomologist even without his contrary-to-the-scientific-mainstream viewpoints. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like others, I am sold on the nom's detailed argument. I am far less sold on the Keep proponents, whose argument seems almost solely based on h-index results. As it happens, their blithe assertion that h-index = notability pass butts heads against WP:PROF, which doesn't - as Xxanthippe claims - actually explicitly cite it. A footnote to WP:PROF, however, turns up "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used."  Ravenswing  21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable as an entomologist and the attention paid to his belief in intelligent design makes him more notable, not less. Described as a 'world authority in butterflies' here [3] and 'celebrated author of the Atlas of Butterflies of the World' here [4]. There is a chapter on lepidopterists and creationism in 'The Dangerous World of Butterflies: The Startling Subculture of Criminals, Collectors, and Conservationists', where d'Abrera's books are described as 'indispensable' by Arthur Shapiro in spite of 'their stupidities'. The books appear, from Google Books and Scholar, to have been widely cited by other authors. Also see this [5] by Philip James DeVries, where d'Abrera is described as eminent and one of the best-known lepidopterists in the world. He also has a butterfly named after him. If he's not notable, I'm a chocolate orange. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A butterfly named after him. That clinches it for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
He's also cited many times on Wikipedia: [6]. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a moth: [7] Sumbuddi (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whow, so I must be important also with Drosophila vanderlindei. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are, but that's not on-topic for this discussion. The issue here seems to me that d'Abrera is an eminent lepidopterist and is cited in numerous book reviews, books, publications and so on, and his biography would be entirely uncontroversial, except that there seems to be a desire to counteract the 'argument from authority' used by the anti-evolutionists, by trying to prove that d'Abrera is not an authority/not notable and having him deleted here. Given d'Abrera's specialist subject area, the availability of references to his work is well more than sufficient. Given some of the quotes I list above, he plainly has 'made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources' Sumbuddi (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, now you are assigning motivations to me I didn't have. Can we keep talking about the topic and refrain from commenting on the editors? I think he is not that imminent, especially because pretty much everything is self-published. For the type of books he is writing, they are terribly cited. Based on the criteria, I think generally, 10-20 percent of each major university should be added to WP, which as far as I can tell was never the idea. But maybe that is where we are heading, WP is not limited in space. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he self publishes does not necessarily mean the books are not otherwise publishable. His books were published prior to him establishing his publishing company, and also have been published by other companies since - example Sphingidae Mundi published by Eric Classey [8] in 1986. His 'Saturniidae Mundi' (1995-1998) was published by Automeris Press. Prior to 1982 he appears to have been published by 'Littlehampton Book Services Ltd', 'Five Mile Press', 'Lansdowne Press', 'Country Life Books', inter alia. You can't simply write him off as 'self-published'.Sumbuddi (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whow, some of his work, as I indicated, is not self-published. What is that percentage. He books are otherwise pretty much unpublishable, not for the butterfly catalogues, but for the creationist rants he adds to them. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER, as noted. And as a notable lepidopterist who has both a butterfly and a moth named after him, I believe he is distinctly notable (and "10-20% of each major university", I would suspect, doesn't have a critter names after them). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having a species named after you is really not a big deal in the world of systematics. Pretty much everybody with a slight exposure has species named after them, even me. When indicated the 10-20% groups, that is based on other aspects, such as h-indexes and number of citations. Many scientists score far better on many aspects than this guy.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mainly per Xxanthippe, who establishes that the attention devoted to his work by other scholars means that he passes WP:PROF. He is obviously drawing some heat here for various reasons, but given the citations arguing keep for this guy is entirely normal among those who regularly participate in AfD discussions regarding academics. I also think he passes WP:GNG, but given that he meets PROF it isn't really necessary to make that argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very clearly notable under WP:PROF as an expert in his subject. We have often accepted notability on the basis of having identified only a single new species, on the ground that each individual species is accepted here as notable . In this connection, I call attention to the additional reviews of his books, found in WorldCat. [9], and the fairly large number of holding libraries for each of them [10] A considerable amount of re-writing is however needed, to emphasise his purely scientific accomplishments. The extremely negative approach of section 3 is POV, and unacceptable--this section needs to be rewritten entirely. It is not our place to pass judgment, and to end the article as it now ends is unfair emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also "not our place" to WP:CENSOR the opinions of expert WP:RSs, particularly when said sources appear to be suggesting that d'A's expression of his pseudoscientific ideology in his works may be undermining his "purely scientific accomplishments". I would further suggest that the scientific community's expressions of disapproval are far more moderated, and far better substantiated than d'A's criticisms of said scientific community ("futile, conceited and vainglorious, the current preoccupation with pseudo-scientific speculation, which in the end, only distracts us all from the desperate measures we need to take to save our dying home, and our civilisation"[11]). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as the article seems to be heading towards a weak keep or no consensus, I feel like saying that we did not do good here. A scientific peer of the subject nominates and points out that this is not notable, yet we decide we know better.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wild Horses Pulled, no worries. I think that the real issue here is not whether this guy is notable, but the criteria generally used by WP editors to determine notability. Under those WP:PROF criteria, he is not, even now that the article is beefed up. He might have some general notability, and yes, they have been able to pull up some reliable sources that mention him, primarily related to his creationist credentials. What worries me is the extreme low standard for inclusion most people use. As I indicated above, based on the criteria used to determine if he is notable, I definitely would be notable. I have stirred the tempest quite well recently resulting in more reliable third party sources covering my work than this guy (see my user page), I have a species named after me (Drosophila vanderlindei; really, having a species named after you in entomology is nothing when you consider that there are a multitude of millions of species to find names for), and if we take total number of citations, number of articles with 150+ citations and/or H-index, we can add at least a dozen of my direct colleagues to WP, equivalent to thousands of academics worldwide. In the end, the question is, how wide do we want to cast the net, and how do we determine who is included? To me, this nom has been very enlightening to get some insight in that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that he does not meet WP:PROF. However there is sufficient third party coverage of him that it is hard to claim (even by me, hardly an inclusionist) that he does not meet WP:GNG (and I'd probably feel obliged to vote 'keep' on an article about you as well). It is possible that for WP:BLPs that WP:GNG sets too low a standard, given the natural right to privacy of anybody who isn't either (i) very famous (ii) done something very stupid (and gotten caught by the media for doing it) or (iii) very dead. It's possible we need a mechanism for people to petition Wikipedia to say 'hey, I'm not that famous, please don't have an article about me.' HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does sometime happen on these pages that the subject of a BLP asks for it to be deleted. This is often granted when notability is borderline. Not relevant here as subject has made no request. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - The discussion about whether he has this or that award may affect the structure of the article, but that still leaves open the question of whether there is enought reliable source material from which to develop an article on the Bernard d'Abrera topic. There is plenty of reliable source material for the article. I just did a quick search and added info to the article from five references. Google books brings up 1,570 results for "Bernard d'Abrera". Surely there is enought material in there for an article on the topic and it is available to any Wikipedian willing to go and get it. For the benefit of the encyclopedia, is imporant that Wikipedians do not put themselves above the collective of the reliable source material in deciding whether to delete or keep an article, especially for "one of the world's best-­­­known lepidopterists" who maintains the unpopular view that religion has a role in the green movement worldwide. Don't try to artifically pigeon hole this person into eight Wikipedia PROF elements and they say delete because he may not fit therein. Give the article time to develop and let the reliable source material tell the story. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is noted that some of the keeps are regulars on these academic AfD pages and that some of the deletes are newcomers with axes to grind about the theory of evolution. They regard this as sacrosanct dogma and consider that any challenge to it reveals the vilest heresy that must be suppressed at all costs. My own view? The theory of evolution is probably correct but like all good scientific theories it is falsifiable. It has survived all challenges to date and should be robust enough not to fear others. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Contradict comment: this article was in fact created by an ID/creationism regular. AFAIK, none of the ID/creationism regulars are !voting 'delete'. As to "sacrosanct dogma", compare the original theory of evolution contained in The Origin of Species to the modern Theory of Evolution, then compare the claims of the scriptural geologists to the claims of Henry M. Morris. Guess which have changed more. "Sacrosanct dogma", my arse. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that salvo of subtleties goes over my head. The creationists and evolutionists should go and fight their battles elsewhere. I shan't be joining in. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • LOL. No, what anti-anti-evolution fighters generally want is to expose the people who are creationists. That would have been a major reason to keep this article. I personally can't care less about his creationist POV. What I did was take this person and measure him against WP:PROF which he fails. Well, looks like the criteria are used less stringent by the regulars, which is all fine and good. So, he is 'notable', lets close this AfD as keep and move on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio from [12].  – iridescent 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Understandings of Antonio Gramsci’s “History of the Subaltern Classes”[edit]

Basic Understandings of Antonio Gramsci’s “History of the Subaltern Classes” (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pure nonsense. Seems like OR, no sources, no indication of what is being talked about, it's an essay, on and on and on. Not encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the crease[edit]

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

Non-notable alleged "curse," the name of which is only sourced through a user forum, vaguely speculated upon by a couple of local sportswriters in the sources shown in the way bored sportswriters on deadline often do. Fails WP:N, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS.  Ravenswing  20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —  Ravenswing  20:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism, WP:SYNTH. Resolute 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. Cquan (after the beep...) 22:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom says it better than I can-- bored sportwriters on a deadline come up with things all the time, but very few of these catch on. A curse story is easy to write-- you comment on yet another disappointment (in this case, the Texas Rangers losing the World Series) and then try to blame it on something. As with a joke that isn't funny because it has to be explained, this one requires too much description to ever catch on. Mandsford 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Couldn't say it better. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Still no indication of its future importance. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Key[edit]

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

No indication this album is important or significant. Probable redirect to band page. — Timneu22 · talk 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I'm Elyse Johnson and I am the author of this article. It is a relevant article, but I need help with html coding stuff.

    Thank you,

    Elyse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysejohnson1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • HTML coding is not the issue, here. That can be sorted out collaboratively. What the issue here is, is this: Is this subject documented in depth, by the world at large, in multiple published works, by people, independent of the subject or its creators, who have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Is it notable, in short? (Timeu22 has used the wrong words in the nomination, note. This isn't a subjective standard of importance or significance.) Please cite publications which document this album in depth, from which a verifiable encyclopaedia article can be constructed. You can started by citing the sources that you obtained knowledge of this subject from. From what published documentation did you obtain your information? Point to it. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) There's no HTML knowledge necessary. Moreover, the problem here is not formatting; rather, the problem is that this album doesn't seem to have any notability (as it hasn't been released) and you have provided no sources that indicate it is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep at Pitchfork there's the confirmed album title and tracklisting. It is months away, but BE gets coverage and I guess by the time this AfD closes there will be new and useful information. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.; Pitchfork's coverage is one reliable source, see also this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I advise using google before nominating articles for deletion in this fashion. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Bright Eyes is a well-known band, and previous albums have been prolific. For example, the last album debuted at #4 on the Billboard Top 200. The announcement of this album has produced a lot of publicity (as the the links provided by Ironholds demonstrate), and the information already announced is enough to justify the article's existence beginning today. There is every indication that this album is important and significant. I have made extensive edits to the article, added a sidebar, added a properly-formatted reference, and have linked to this page from several other Bright Eyes-related pages, including the Bright Eyes navbox. Sfving (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn , with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communities of Innovation (neé Vairamsudhan)[edit]

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

This is a very confusing article. It starts out as an autobiography but then it becomes some sort of essay. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Farnworth[edit]

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

Bio for non-notable target shooter, no third party references. This is the third time this entry has been created, the first two were from banned socks of User:RealDanMan14, this one looks no different. See the SPI page for background. Possible G5 speedy delete (banned user), but also merits deletion on notability terms. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be a case to keep the article if shooting for the England team counts as playing at the highest level of amateur sport. There again, if it's just one appearance, that's a weak claim. But since this claim is unverified and we have good reason to be suspicious of the truthfulness of the article, then unless someone can verify this, Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried to verify the claim but I can't find any significant third-party coverage of this person at all. Fail WP:BIO#SPORT until it can be verified. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Legal history of cannabis in Canada. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis in Canada[edit]

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

Redirect to Legal history of cannabis in Canada. Currently the article is a tiny stub with no content but a large "see also" section, and effectively functions as a disambiguation page. Since legal aspects are the predominant subject matter on this topic, I believe this names should redirect there. If someone wanted to write an article about non-legal aspects of Cannibis in Canada (i.e. pot culture) this article could be restarted with that in mind later. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)[edit]

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork. Catholic views on Mary are already covered sufficiently in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Roman Catholic Mariology

and the multiple "Our Lady of" articles such as Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima. Entire article is a duplication. Also, Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged into Mary (mother of Jesus) which itself is almost entirely the Catholic view of Mary. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Malke: If you think some articles need to be merged, you need to use WP:MERGE and place merge flags, as you have done in several recent cases. An Afd is not to be used as a "surrogate for WP:MERGE". This Afd is a follow on to recnt mass Afd tags and is clearly the result of an ongoing edit dispute, as discussed below. Also, there is no need to make a long line by line list to attract attention, you can just list the articles above on 2 lines. We can all still read them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makle2010, have you read all these articles? The "Our Lady"s are about Marian apparitions with prophesies and messages given by Mary.. viewed in different places by different people, not about the biblical views or historical views of Mary, or even marian doctrine. Rosary and devotions, etc, are absolutely worthy of being their own article.. as are, I believe, ALL these articles. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Rationale and facts are as follows:
  • There is no doubt that the nominator, user:Malke2010, has been involved in an ongoing, long term editing dispute on this page. The continuing series of debates on the talk page attest to the existence of these editing disputes involving the nominator.
  • This is the 7th Afd tag placed by the nominator in the past 10 days on articles related to this topic. The previous mass deletion Afd tags are listed here. This page was also the subject of a September 28, 2010 merge proposal by this nominator. The merge proposal was rejected. There were also a large number of related Afds by this nominator today, after this Afd was posted and discussed, listed below on this page. There are too many Afds by this nominator to produce an easy count here, since they keep re-appearing.
This is a "really clear cut case" of an Afd nominator having an ongoing, long term editing dispute on the nominated page and therefore based on WP:SK #2.4 a speedy conclusion is the appropriate, policy-based course of action. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about removing the endless duplication of articles about Mary. You want it to appear as an edit problem. That's called "wagging the dog." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per reasons already displayed by History2007. Just the fact that this is even a delete request and not a merge request tends to show WP:POINT.Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a merge request and it was rejected. Anyway, I agree with the WP:POINT issue as well. Two WP:POINT warnings have been issued to this nominator in the past 2 months, and multiple editors have stated that there have been WP:POINT breaches in other cases. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe it's time to decide which "Virgin Mary" article's to keep and merge the rest into one or two of them. It's starting to get silly regarding the "fights" going on (and I'm sure Mary wouldn't approve of it, no matter "which one"); And furthermore I think it's time to decide on a main "Virgin Mary" article which would/should carry most of what can be said about her and split (only) parts that would be extending it beyond reasonable prose to read.TMCk (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That may or may not be a separate discussion, but using repeated WP:POINT Afds to make that point is not the way to do it. This Afd is a clear case of WP:SK and WP:POINT in which an Afd is made by an editor (well known to you) with a long history of editing disputes on the nominated page. A clear case of an Afd on a page with previous edit disputes. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this would be a (in part) separate discussion and my comment is meant to encourage one instead of going back and fore-wards with those AFD's that have some merit and other discussions elsewhere to come to a final agreement (which way to go) in a collaborative sense. Your edit dispute between you and Malke is not of any importance in that matter as it doesn't serve WP at all if I may say so and determine if the AFD is "pointy" or not isn't helping either. I placed a comment only expressing my thoughts without giving my "vote" keeping or deleting this particular article for the reason I laid out above.TMCk (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a discussion about which Marian pages should be merged and which shouldn't should take place but I disagree that they should happen on a AfD. I think it just confuses the issue. The previous merge request for merging this page and the Mary (mother of Jesus) page came to a consensus that a page was needed to represent the Catholic viewpoint since it is so different from the mainstream non-Catholic viewpoint. A discussion on what to call that article was subverted by numerous merge requests and AfDs that have taken time away from actual editing. IMHO the contents of this article is the best starting point for the Catholic perspective of Mary (whatever the article is called.) Many of the other articles are there for keeping this article a manageable size. Can some of them disappear? Probably. Like I am not real sure why we have a History of Roman Catholic Mariology‎ and a Roman Catholic Mariology‎ page, but I think a discussion listing every Catholic marian article and deciding which should be merged and which shouldn't needs to take place somewhere else. Marauder40 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with you that the catholic view of Mary differs from other views and might deserve it's own article, sub-article of a still to determine main article to make it more clear and catching on my post above. And yes, a merger discussion should take place somewhere else than on this AFD and if that would seriously happen I don't think there would be more AFD's about article's about Mary as those discussions could determine which article's should be kept, rewritten or deleted. Unless such basic discussion is taking place I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion. Somehow this is the wrong venue to discuss this but till there is another more reasonable venue to cut out the roots of the problem it will (my guess) end up again and again at AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TMC, Your statement that "this is the wrong venue to discuss this" is totally correct. An Afd is not the way to do this. But regarding "I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion", that will naturally end when Afd tags have been placed on them all and rejected, and much time has been wasted, or when some administrator will rightly apply WP:POINT to end the process. This Afd is clearly subject to WP:POINT, as you seem to know. And since we talked about Cortisol below, I just noticed that its article needs help. Should I type here, or go fix that? And let us all watch out for Afd-induced Cortisol. That may become a new medical phenomenon now. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being a bit pointy yourself (re. Cortisol article). Anyhow, I meant to say "I see no end and no reason to not nominating some of those pages for deletion." but I see you understood me anyways. Now, any venue in mind to open a basic discussion? Is there a project page where this could be handled? Don't count on me arguing there but I think it would be helpful to the project having a link here to such page no matter how the AFD turns out.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason you'd like to add?TMCk (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be merged or consolidated. Lyricmac (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to above...possibly be merged or consolidated so long as Catholic beliefs re: Mary are presented in clear and concise manner. Some content forking is probably inevitable when discussing this topic(I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if an editor has made a good faith effort to present RC Mariology in a precise manner while drawing comparisons taken from other articles). I've noticed that some folks seem to get a burr in their saddle when discussing such ticklish subjects as religion; I'd suggest that showing the other fellow some civility on this is probably the best policy (just the opinion of an old and obsolete teacher).Lyricmac (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. TMCk has a good point. We could do a multiple listing of the redundant articles and merge everything. That would eliminate the redundancy in all the articles and open them up to other editors. Note also that there is ownership issues with BVM RC. Just check out the embedded messages when you try to edit there.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though your comments about your "battle" with History2007 have no bearing on the content of the page, could you please point out the ownership issues with the page? Please give one example in the last three months of someone other then you being reverted on the page (not including vandalism edits.) Marauder40 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that note Marauder, I am having serious doubts if I will receive a Christmas card this year from some of the editors on this page.... Time will tell... History2007 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Marauder probably will send you one and so will I if you give me an address (a PO BOX will do) since I don't send virtual cards. Mary X-mas, TMCk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know TMC, that is a much better tone now than all this Cortisol-raising type of discussion. By the way, Marauder did not send me one last year.... All others who will send, please confirm herein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll send you one if I get some address which is not virtual (yet non-disclosing); And maybe Marauder will send you one too this year? As for what you perceive as a "cortisol-raising-discussion", that might be how you experience the "tone" but is not necessarily the case for others and neither has it to be for you.TMCk (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries my friend. You made a nice gesture to try to send, and that is good enough. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then, thanks and have a good one. I guess I call it a night. But still, please think about my comment further above.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with TMCk and Malke2010 that several Marian articles should be merged (and this one should be kept in order for that to happen). Several merges have begun recently, as most who have commented here are aware. This AfD nom with the intent of merging is, I think, a bit out of place. I propose that a larger-scale merge effort be undertaken by interested editors. A common template should be dropped onto the articles in question, referring to a new "talk" page (both could even be in my userspace) that facilitates discussion of eliminating the redundant and very hard to navigate articles (as well as identifying other articles applicable to the merge). Also, this process of consolidation seems to lead to more than one final article, so sorting out where the final content will come from and which titles best represent the content is another discussion that should take place on neutral/central ground (with respect to the articles involved). –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 00:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually Paul, I started on the path to consolidation with a merge proposal on October 25, 2010, to begin to systematically merge some articles. However, the current nominator opposed that, and we were then side-tracked by mass Afds that I found quite distracting and a waste of effort. I do think there is need for some systematic consolidation, but this Afd is not the way to do it. Wikipedia policy needs to be respected and WP:Merge is the proper protocol, not this. This needs to be the subject of a speedy conclusion, as indicated above. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul I am all for you proposal. Opening up a sub-talk page on say the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page and discussing all the Catholic Marian articles and which should be merged and which shouldn't would IMHO be a great idea. Linking to it from the Catholic project page would be required. Similar things have been discussed on different talk pages before but been derailed by the numerous AfDs. The only pre-requisite to creating this discussion page would be shutting down all the existing AfDs. Having them in place when a seperate discussion is going on whould confuse the issue and could lead to uninvolved people making decisions only based on the evidence on the corresponding AfD. Added: I even set up a sample framework for a discussion page User talk:Marauder40/marian Marauder40 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into I think we're all agreed that some of these articles should be merged together, but I don't think there's any consensus for deleting this one as part of the merging. Dylan Flaherty 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Dylan that as part of the consolidation, this article will eventually have to grow, not be deleted. How and what will make this grow is a discussion per WP:Merge and not this type of Afd for a page on which the nominator has had ongoing editing disputes. It just does not look right. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per reasons already displayed by History2007. The fact that this wasn't even tagged for a discussion to merge is rediculous. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And, for that matter, I do not think the article should be merged either. I support it being its own article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There we go again: A number of unjustified Afds are appearing all over the place now. In my view these Afds by this nominator are clearly disruptive to a constructive discussion about consolidation. The growing list of Afds by this nominator is as follows:
These are in addition to this list of concluded and rejected Afds by this nominator in the past 10 days. I think something needs to be done to stop WP:disruptive editing here. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure everyone has noticed by now that History2007 and his "supporters" all focus on the nominator and not the merits of keeping the article. Obviously, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork. Not a single "supporter" has shown one policy reason why the article should be kept, nor have they proven that the article is not a content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malke I believe you have been warned by numerous people including Moonriddengirl before about lumping together "supporter"s of people as if they do not have a thought of their own. Everyone on here has their own opinions, just because those opinions are different from yours doesn't mean they are wrong. Please respect the fact that everyone has an opinion. Numerous reasons have been given for the keep, just because you don't agree doesn't make them valid. I personally think this entire comment needs retracted. Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you prove my point. Not a single word is offered above for why this article should be kept. Not one reason why this article isn't a blatant content fork. Just more of the same focus put on the nominator, including false accusations, and not on the merits of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious why people are addressing your actions. Your actions do not reflect someone that is working within consensus to develop the WP project and the Catholicism sections within the project within consensus. Mass delete requests do not help, they only inflame. There are many better ways for dealing with this situation. I honestly thing admin intervention may be needed soon. At the least the intervention should prohibit you from starting any new Merge/Delete requests. This is a clear case of point. I personally am suprised that speedy keep hasn't already been invoked on this page for content dispute reasons.Marauder40 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Supporters" are not addressing the rationale for either deleting or keeping the article. Focus on the article for AfD and not the nominator. See WP:AGF. Also, see WP:AFD. It specifically states your disputes should not be argued here.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fair to delete a perfectly good article because someone (Malke) is upset and unforgiving that their unnecessary deletion tags are being argued against. The fact that you nominated at least six Marian articles for deletion does not help your position, but rather strengthens mine, and many other editors', opposition. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention "Supporters" for "Keep." Please show 1 reason why this article is not a duplication of all those listed above. Show 1 reason Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is not a content fork: Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think this is entirely inappropriate, this is like saying why does the United States article exist, when we have the U.S. state article, the Federal government of the United States, United States Constitution article, and the List of National Parks of the United States article. You obviously need a starting point for the Catholic understanding of Mary and this is it. Just like someone would go to the US page and branch out from there. They would do the same for the Mary page. As has been addressed numerous times on this page, some consolidation of Marian pages is appropriate. Your methods are not working within consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are demonstrating again that you have no policy to show, nothing to prove by the article itself, not one thing to point to that shows this article is not a content fork. Just proves my point. This sounds like the flea argument that the kid in school writes when he can't answer the question about the dog. So he writes about the fleas on the dog. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is extrememly innapropriate. You do not own any of these pages Malke. Stop trying to rid wikipedia of Marian pages. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Malke: Please read this. You made similar statements before during the previous round. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Malke you obviously don't understand the idea of portals. Why do we have a Catholic Church page, a Criticism of the Catholic Church, a History of the Catholic Church and a List of popes? Why aren't they all part of the Catholic Church page? Because the information in one place is to much and things need to be split out. Same thing goes with Marian articles. There is two much information to fit within the size constraints of an article. Also some of the things you list are only related topics and entirely different subjects. Just because the Rosary is Marian, doesn't mean the entire topic belongs on the main Catholic Mary page. It honestly seems like you have a myopic view of this topic. Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very valid point. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork and should be deleted per policy. The wider community consensus is with the policy and guidelines that address content forks and it is not with the limited consensus of "supporters" here, especially as they have not demonstrated that this is not a content fork. The hatnotes at the top of the page alone prove that it is, as do the dozen or so articles it duplicates.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|Perfect example of why SK 2.4 needs to be invoked.Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give one reason why this article is not a blatant content fork. Focus on that one issue. That is what this AfD is about.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have to answer to you. As far as I know you aren't the admin that is dealing with this article. I am currently only have to justify why this is a SK#2.4 issue in my normal comments. If this delete page isn't determined to be SK then maybe I will go into more details. Honestly the sections like this to the admins are usually counterproductive and unneeded. They are usually smart enough to figure out things on their own without input from the editors beyond their normal comments. You seem to be helping out on the SK#2.4 justifications all by yourself.Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's called wagging the dog. History2007 and his "supporters" do that all the time on every AfD. Same argument, different AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment We have minds and opinions of our own Malke, thank you very much. We are not "Supporters" of any other editor. We clearly have simply in common that we are against all your deletion tags. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Malke the article is only a content fork to the extent that it reproduces material already contained on other Mary related articles. If you want to remove the content fork, then you should delete the part of the article where it reproduces already existing content. After this has been done, the remaining content will not constitute a content fork, since Blessed Virgin Mary is a really separate topic to the historical Mary. Avaya1 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is separate topic to the biblical figure of Mary. There's no advantage to deleting this article, since it is informative on the separate topic of Catholic Marian veneration (however, reproduced material should obviously be deleted). Equally, there is no advantage to merging it with the article on the biblical Mary, since that would merely clutter up that page.Avaya1 (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Avaya1 that the article must be kept. However, I think it is also clear that hypertext-based information delivery does require some summarization, with an expansion via a Main. So let us ask: is History of the automobile a content fork of automobile? Is Automotive industry a content fork of automobile? Is List of countries by motor vehicle production a content fork of Automotive industry ? Is Kinematics a content fork of Classical mechanics? Is Circular motion a content fork of Kinematics? There is a clear pattern here among these articles: a summarization, with a expansion via Main. Here the article for automobile acts as the backbone that leads to the other articles on the topic, as does Classical mechanics. That is how hypertext works. That is how most of Wikipedia is structured:
  • There is a paragraph or two giving the general idea.
  • There is a Main that expands the idea.
  • The interested user clicks on the Main to zoom in.
Else the Classical mechanics article would be a long book on physics. Instead it is a manageable article with hyper-expansions. This style of "hypert-text based" information presentation is used throughout Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please overlook the bolding of deletion above, given that it is by the nominator and can not be a vote. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now - and merge whatever needs to be done so at a later time. Marian devotion is such a huge topic in the RC Church, and so much as been written on it, that having several articles is logical. I am sure there is some redundancy, and probably some things need to be merged, but AfD is not for the purpose of resolving content disputes. Disclosure: I am a former Roman Catholic, now Anglo-catholic member of ECUSA. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to follow Wikipedia policy which states redundant content forking is unacceptable. This article is clearly a content fork and loaded with redundant material. At the very least, the redundant content should be deleted and whatever bits survive should be merged into Roman Catholic Mariology. I agree with Avaya1 that there should not be a merge to Mary (mother of Jesus) as that focuses on the historical Mary. Roman Catholic Mariology already covers all aspects of the Catholic take on the Virgin Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about content forking even though you created Catholic views on Mary (which was merged later thank goodness), how does that work? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: When user:Bearian voted "keep", he made a good comment in the summary line, namely: "Marian devotion is such a huge topic in the Roman Catholic Church, and so much as been written on it, having several articles is logical." That is a valid point, and given the discussion here about Mary, Mariology, etc. it will make sense to ask a few general questions:

  • Is Mineralogy a content fork of Mineral? No, minerology is the study of minerals. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.
  • Is Geology a content fork of Earth? No, geology is the study of the Earth. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.
  • Is Cosmetology a content fork of Cosmetics? No, Cosmetology is the study of cosmetics and treatments thereof. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.
  • Is Mariology a content fork of Mary? No, Mariology is the study of Mary. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.

It is clear that within Wikipedia the "study of an item" is distinct from the item itself. Christology is not the same as Christ, Mariology is not the same as Mary and Minerology is not the same as mineral. Marilogy is distinct from Mary, just as Christology is distinct from Christ. Christology is the study of Christ, Mariology is the study of Mary. There are book son Christology and there are books om Christ. There are books on Mariology and there are books on Mary. And the treatment of the subject is very different in the books on Christ and Christology, etc. etc.

Now, let us ask:

If we assume that A% of the Wikipedia audience wants to know about psychology and B% wants to know about the History of psychology, it is easy to check via page access clicks that A is usually larger than B. In general, 10 times as many people click on psychology than on the History of psychology and the numbers for minerology and its history are even more distinct. Wikipedia users just interested in psychology do need to be burdened in the same article with the details of its history. That is the concept of hypertext: click and zoom for more information.

And uniformity of presentation should be kept in mind. Just as minerals, the study of minerals and the history of the study of minerals are distinct, the same applies to Mary, Mariology and its history. Does it make sense to put Afd tags on mineral, minerology, and Histoy of minerology all at once? No. It does not.

Do we need more examples here? I am sure it is clear now that within a "hypertext-based" information presentation system such as Wikipedia, it does not make sense, nor is it a general strategy, to creat just one long article that includes every conceivable item. So two final questions to ask:

  • Is it advisable, or common practice within Wikipedia to put "mass Afd tags" on many articles on a topic on the same day? No, not at all.
  • Are mass Afd tags on a single topic helpful, productive or cooperative? No, not at all.

I think this mass Afd problem needs to be concluded, and cooperation, or administrative action, to avoid this type of issue will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is not just a content fork, it's also a POV content fork. Veneration of Mary should take a paragraph, not two dozen articles all saying the exact same thing. And always with St. Louis de Montfort and his True Devotions. And everything is cited with trivial citations from Google book previews. Wikipedia policy states that redundant content forks are inappropriate and should be deleted. Also, the wider community consensus supports this policy and that takes precedence over the consensus generated by a small group of editors at one point in time.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malke, I would not say that the support for these articles is by a "small" group of editors. It's staying. Too bad. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment/Speedy Keep: As there is support to keep I will ask an admin for a speedy keep. In the meantime, as suggested by Paul Nyugen and Marauder, it's best to post an RfC discussion on WikiProject Catholicism that will decide how best to merge/delete the multiple Marian articles that are redundant content forks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Number Factoring Theorem[edit]

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

Appears to be original research, with little or no valuable content. (reposting original nom by user:DGG) — Fly by Night (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence was provided that it is notable. Nor is there any reason to believe that it is a more efficient way to calculate factors than conventional methods or even of comparable efficiency. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious original research. The WP:PROD tag should not have been removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up here. I didn't realise it was a WP:PROD, I thought it was a partly filed WP:AfD I guess I'm off the hook because user Symbolsequence had challeneged the deletion on the user page, and all PRODs should be uncontested. But I am sorry for messing up. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I mis-read the template. I couldn't find an AfD page and thought it was a half-done AfD. Sorry! — Fly by Night (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once wp:or was pointed out to the article's creator on the talk page he agreed that the article should be deleted. Almost g7-able. 174.109.199.154 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Ozob (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a clear policy, I just follow.Symbolsequence —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Manger-Weil[edit]

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

Non notable person WuhWuzDat 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are several solid references within the article that show his notability as an unusual entrepeneur who has achieved success in a variety of notable ventures. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of BLP that we need. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my keep and now recommend delete Based on sockpuppetry, COI and attempts to game the system. Thanks to the editors who delved more deeply.Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NHEA Journal seems made up of whole cloth to promote Manger-Weil. I apologize for my gullibility.Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would agree that there is enough sourcing to prove notability, at least as far as the College Wizard and as a professional photographer, and that should be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. If it had even more sourcing , would be even better.— Wolfstorm000 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on College Wizard work, satisfies criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique -- that concept/technique being a method for tutoring students in how to significantly improve their SAT score in only five lessons. Manger-Weil's work has received recognition in numerous secondary sources. WP:BIO(TRothschild) 20:15, 3 December 2010— TRothschild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy Delete as promotional. First. I cannot verify the key reference for him as an educator. The JHEAS article resembles a press release--the wording there is indistinguishable from that of an advertisement. If one thought this a professional journal, that would be peculiar, but it is only what what be expected when one realises there is no such association and, as far as I can determine, no such journal. I know there's a web site [14]--but it gives no information about the purported association or publication--and the other items there look equally promotional. See the google searches [15] and follow the links that look real, and you will see they are talking about other groups. The NEA site does not mention it; none of the lists of higher educational associations I have seen include it. Worldcat shows no such title, whether searching by full title, organization name, or acronym. As conclusive evidence, Ulrich's does not list it under any combination of words. Second. the other sources refer to him as a wedding photographer. The apparently best of them is the one in the Jewish Times., [16]; it is also not a reliable publication-=-at this point it is just the website [17] with even an ISSN; worldCat shows a number of publications of this title from various cities, but none of them match this title--I have no doubt it was once a real newspaper, but I do not think I would now call it one. (Ulrichs shows only an unrelated publication of the same name from Canada.) Not surprisingly, the item is based entirely upon what he says about himself and is thus neither independent nor reliable. In conclusion. I have no confidence in any of the content in the article. It may not be a hoax, but is certainly is an unverifiable BLP dependent for sourcing on unreliable press releases. Again as might be expected, T Rothschild who commented just above, is also the only substantial author, and this is his only contribution. I congratulate him on his skill in constructing an apparently impressive structure out of very little, but though we do not always look as closely as we should at the sources, this cannot be relied on. What struck my attention is a/ that I had never heard of the association, and it's my special field of interest, and 2nd/ that I tend to be inquisitive about articles on people who have done things in a variety of different unrelated subjects. there are a few true polymaths in the world, but the odds are always against it. and need I mention my point that it is not the totally unsourced BLPs that are the real problems. A very good catch by WuhWuzDat. I'll let some other admin close and deal with the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what DGG has found and what I myself found after looking even deeper into the pages cited, it would appear to be a well constructed promo article. It may not necessarily be self-promoting, no way to truly link the author to the person in question, put after finding that the email contact in the Extraordinary Bride article is TRothschild and doing a search for the person Sandy Levine who supposedly wrote the article for the JNHEA and not being able to find any other work by this person, but finding a name match for a PR person, I would retract my earler vote and vote Speedy delete. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I wouldn't go quite to the lengths that DGG did to analyse it, but lack of notability is obvious. The writer of the article has made a mountain of a molehill in trying to make it seem encyclopedic but his claims like "began volunteering as District Enrollment Director for Dartmouth College" tell it all... . One of several thousand such articles which litter wikipedia and should be deleted and left with true encyclopedic subjects and truly notable people... This is indeed a profound example of how "unsourced BLPs" are NOT the biggest problem on wikipedia. They are easily assessed and can quickly be sourced. It is similar articles like these which are sourced and misleading/stretching the truth to glorify the individual as notable and often going undetected because people think "oh it is sourced, must be fine".♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Base and superstructure in marxist cultural theory[edit]

Base and superstructure in marxist cultural theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to be nonsense. What is the topic? Where are the resources? Any independent coverage? Sadly I don't find any clear-cut CSD reasons; G11 was the best hope but I don't see it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Base and superstructure is the foundational theoretical framework of Marxist theory (cultural and economic), but this article appears to be a summary of a non-notable discussion of the concept. It is actually something we should have an article on, if there isn't one, but this article isn't it and can't be made into it. 72.19.82.141 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — Oi. That was me, didn't notice I was logged out. Kate (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with everything that Kate said, except how it applies to this case. If there should be an article, but not this one, we blank the page and leave a one-sentence stub. I'm just not sure that this needs its own article, seeing as we don't have a general Base and superstructure in Marxism article from which this would be a spin-off. This subject might be better dealt with in Marxist philosophy or Marxist literary criticism, but if it does warrant its own article deletion is not an appropriate course of action, no matter how badly this one smacks of something written for a college essay. RJC TalkContribs 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. General treatment in Marxist philosophy would be entirely appropriate (and likely is already there). It's a foundational concept, it's not distinctly different between cultural theory and economics treatments. Kate (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the above. RJC TalkContribs 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AprivaPay[edit]

Related Articles:
Apriva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AprivaPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AprivaMail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apriva Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AFDs: Apriva Products, Apriva

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

Advertisement for a series of non-notable products:

  • AprivaPay is a secure, mobile, downloadable browser-based credit card application, developed and published by Apriva, that conducts transactions by accessing a terminal site from a cell phone. It is a point of sale technology that was created in early 2010.....
  • AprivaMail is a secure mobile email environment, developed and published by wireless solutions provider Apriva, that utilizes soft token and hard token PKI authentication certificate based security features used for unclassified-only Windows Mobile OS device communications
  • Apriva Reader is a type of smart card reader (SCR), published by wireless solutions provider Apriva, that is used in environments where information assurance and security are a concern.

AprivaPay is a merchant's utility. The Mail and Reader articles contains unreferenced statements that these products are used by the U.S. National Security Agency to guard the secrecy of its communications. (Well, good luck with that.) If these claims were referenceable, they might make some case for historic significance. But as Apriva and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apriva show, there really aren't any good sources under the Apriva name generally. The separate ads for the individual products probably ought to share the same fate as the head business. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 407[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emirates Flight 407 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural renomination. The previous Afd was closed innappropriately by the nominator as 'withdrawn' (albeit after full term). Such Non-admin closures are not appropriate when valid keep and delete votes have been registered. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get admin to reclose 1st nom as Keep - Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourcing establishes notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the accident led to a major investigation, and the dismissal of the crew. Operating and maintenance issues were raised as a result of the lengthy and thorough investigation into the accident. No deaths does not necessarily equate to no notability. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few points for clarification, (but still not voting yet). 1. The crew resigned, they weren't dismissed. 2. The article mentions nothing about resulting changes in operations or maintenance. 3. While there is an (unreferenced) claim that this was serious enough to be classed as an accident (presumably rather than an incident), there is no evidence in the article that the investigation of it was any more serious, lengthy or thorough than you would expect for any other accident investigation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's resigning, and there's resigning. I thought the investigation had concluded, but it's still ongoing, nearly two years after the accident. That said, I contend that the notability of the accident has been firmly established. That the article could benifit from improvement is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this renomination was unnecessary since there was clear consensus in previous AfD to keep anyway. the incident clearly is notable and article adequately sourced. The previous nominator had asserted that it was not notable enough.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was evident consensus to keep this article in the first AfD; the article is well written and well sourced, and I am of the opinion that this is an accident notable enough to have an article. wackywace 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The event appears to fail two of the three WP:AIRCRASH points as follows:
The accident was fatal to humans? No. There weren't even any injuries.
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport? No. Significant damage was inflicted to the aircraft, but the aircraft remained flyable - to the point that a ferry flight was made to the repair shop. I don't call that enough damage to pass this.
The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry? No. From the information in the article, this appears not to have been the case.
...so, in closing, although this is a very intriguing incident, and it was a very dangerous one, it only just barely meets the standards by which aviation articles are judged to qualify for stand-alone articles. I'm all for WP:IAR when necessary, but I don't think it is in this case this is a notable enough incident to qualify for its own article vis-a-vis a mention on the A340's page. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure had this accident (rather incident) occured in somewhere else than Australia, this article wouldn't have had a chance of being kept. It's also ironic how plane crashes in less represented countries, which have recieved notable coverage, have been attempted to AfDs and tried to be removed. In light of this, Emirates Flight 407 wasn't even a crash and just happened to be an event in a country where even incidents might be blown out of proportion by the media. As I pointed out in another AfD, read Wikipedia:Systematic bias. Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per user Mjroots. Elmao (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sources coverage seems to be consistent Rirunmot (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage of the incident in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notabilty. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade holiday[edit]

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

Prod contested by article creator. This is a completely unreferenced article on something that was made up one day. Additionally, the edit summary left when the prod was removed ([18]) indicates that this user seeks to use this article as a means of promotion, which Wikipedia is not. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as hoax: Unsourced promotional article for non-notable, made-up, thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced promotional article for non-notable, made-up, thing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteI was gonna tag for CSD as a hoax. (Did not see it was de-prodded) Someone's having us on. Cracked acorns (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment This edit summary says it all-- "(Please do not delete this article. Earthday was once just a made up day that was not observed by any people. Many individuals are involved in this project. Please propose changes to improve.)"Cracked acorns (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Salerno[edit]

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

This article is about a car racing pit crew coach with insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This item is the most substantial. It provides a little biographical information (some of it incorrect as I can find no evidence he played in the NFL and the wikipedia article states it was college ball), but is primarily quoting his opinion and then moves on to other people's opinions. This item is a mention of his name has having been released. The article is dated 2005-05-19 which is at odds with the claim in the wikipedia article of him holding the position from 2004-2006. Aside from that, I can find nothing of substance to support notability. Whpq (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dale Jarrett, no information on Salerno there, if it is verifiable that he is crew coordinator could improve that article. —J04n(talk page) 13:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There's not much verifiable information to merge. This article was completely unsourced, and the only sourcing I could find are the two items I listed in the nomination. The most substantial one is actually of questionable reliability given that it states he was an NFL player. The other item just states that he was released and the date doesn't jibe with the dates in the article. I had considered a merge but there's no clearly verifiable information to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR was informed of this discussion —J04n(talk page) 13:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's nothing to merge. Pit crew coach is a very minor position on a race team -Drdisque (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and he is not notable. Only the driver and crew chief (+owner) are notable in this situation. Nascar1996 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drdisque & Nascar1996. Royalbroil 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find this page about his time playing college ball. Most everything else I found wasnt substantial enough to build a decent bio. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above deletes (unless RS material for a merge arises).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Archbold[edit]

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

This article is about a professional skimboarder who does not have signficant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I was able to verify his rankings each year by going to the United Skim Tour site (primary sources). What I was unable to find any coverage aside from video clips of him skimboarding. He might arguably meet WP:ATHLETE as a professional competing at the highest level in his sport. However, a google news search turns up very little coverage of the United Skim Tour events themselves which indicates that as a professional sport, it has not yet established itself. Whpq (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bradley[edit]

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

Vanity page, unremarkable person. UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not sufficiently notable or important.--KorruskiTalk 14:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not sure it is a vanity page. User:Warwicksu could just as easily be someone else in the student union wanting to publicise a former president. However, although he's done pretty well with media appearances for a student union president, that's not quite enough. If independent reliable sources started writing about his appearances, that might be different, but as it stands, close but no cigar. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Promotion of non-notable student leader. RayTalk 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UltraStream[edit]

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

Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is claiming copyright for himself as the author. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have claimed copyright as the author - I wrote the text, and I claim copyright over it. Either write some new copy for this unnoteworthy 'radio station', or just delete the article 81.100.64.222 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot claim copyright. The edit box has a notice below "save page" that reads "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." There is also one above that reads "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You of course hold the copyright to your additions, but you irrevocably agreed to license your contributions to Wikipedia when you clicked "Save page".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update 81.100.64.222 has been blocked indef for legal threats, and rightly so (If not for legal threats; then for continued claims of copyright when they handed it to wikipedia irrevocably when they saved that article) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I vote for deletion - on the good advice of my peers this seems to be a non noteworthy Internet Radio station (User: Ihcoyc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsecure (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Possibly candidate for WP:CSD#A7. Dlohcierekim 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The anon seems angry that the subject has been called "non-notable", seemingly without understanding its specialized use here. He writes that calling it such is "libelous". I would courtesy blank this page after closure. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understandable that ordinary people don't understand the "specialised use" of notability when there are regular contributors too who don't understand why a principle that was intended to control abuse is used to destroy information that is helpful even if not vital and treating ordinary people's hard work and good will as something of trivial importance.Opbeith (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more Opbeith - the original writer of this article champions it's deletion because the information shown in the article is not available anywhere else. It's a genuinely interesting insight into the development of an actively trading LTD company which trades with many countries around the world. The addition of this information to Wikipedia, in a page carefully and meticulously curated, is a gift to Wikipedia. This kind of insightful information is not available elsewhere, and some might say an insight into the fragile beginnings of this company might even be a hinderance to the company, in a commercial sense, but the owner has taken the decision to gift this information to wikipedia anyway. For people to dismiss the information as not noteable, is in some ways heartbreaking. Nevertheless, since Wikipedia users feel this information is not of interest and must be destroyed, within two or three days it will all be lost permanently, and it is unlikely the information in this article will be made public again. This is why the original author champions it's deletion; because it was a real, genuine contribution to wikipedia, that people were quick to label as worthless. Really valuable insights like this should be saved for an audience that will give them the appreciation they deserve, and look after them in the way they should be looked after. Jsecure (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of web hosting services-- so the information need not be lost forever. The information need not be destroyed. It just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Try MySpace. Dlohcierekim 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your response Dlohcierekim. This information was released to the public specially, to add value to Wikipedia. To make Wikipedia the source which has more in depth information on the companies and things and topics which shape our world and online environment, than anywhere else. I don't choose to disclose this kind of very honest and vulnerable data on the start of the company to any other website. Let it be destroyed next Tuesday. Jsecure (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation, but Jsecure you were the original creator and heavy initial editor of this article, so I assume that by your comment "the original writer of this article champions it's deletion" you are also the Anon 81.100.64.222? The problem here is that its not about individual editors feelings, its about a clear set of tests which require third party referencing to resultantly establish encyclopedic notability, and (presently) UltraStream doesn't pass these tests. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation, but your pursuit of my edits and articles user Trident13, and your tagging of them as irrelevant and 'not notable', has been very very meticulous. One might say you wish me to understand I am irrelevant. In any case, this article WILL be permanently deleted next Tuesday. And I won't re-create it. So you win. We're going to have your book burning party, and me and my data will be scorched out permanently. Please now don't be seen to rub it in... I am very aware from the other comments all over this article and it's talk page, that the wikipedia community does not rate this content. Jsecure (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of you, but if the subject does become notable, there will be the requisite 3rd RS w/ verifiable information. If that becomes the case, an article on the subject will be inevitable. Dlohcierekim 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, user Dlohcierekim... It's good food for thought... Jsecure (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equally troubling is the lack of understanding that tends to seek the inclusion of random information than is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Such hard work would better serve the project by building information on subjects that are notable. Dlohcierekim 13:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to suggest notability. EEng (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is still going?? Look people, the fact is that this article does not pass WP:N or WP:V at all, and if the subject in question can't even pass our policy for verifiable sourcing, then it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. -- Vörös  yes?  19:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno (2010 film)[edit]

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

Film is still in pre-production. Production has been trying to move forward for a while, but since the film's lead star Lindsay Lohan was sent to jail and now in rehab they have replaced her. It is now scheduled to begin filming in February. Page goes against WP:NFF since filming has not begun and who knows if it ever will. —Mike Allen 12:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:HAMMER refers to albums where the name and track order is not known and, by extension, to 'other media where a name is not yet known'. Can you clarify how this applies here?--KorruskiTalk 14:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he should have referred to WP:TOOSOON which is set to cover films. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Failure to start principal photography does, indeed, fail WP:NFF. However, the project may nevertheless be notable due to the ongoing issues with Lindsay Lohan, and the recent change of stars. There is no shortage of coverage in gossip/celeb mags, but demonstrating reliable coverage may be a little harder.--KorruskiTalk 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per NFF. If the principal photography hasn't begun yet then there is no film to speak of and there should not be an article about it. Many film projects are announced and go through casting and production problems before one of three scenarios generally happen: 1-project is cancelled, 2-project resumes production and goes into filming, 3-project ends up in development hell. Once in development hell, it's not unusual for projects to spend a decade or more teetering between the above mentioned scenarios 1 and 2. That period is inevitably always full of rumors and speculation and it doesn't befit any self-respecting encyclopedia to keep up with such gossip. As far as Lohan's connection to the project is concerned, it is better covered in her own article rather than in a separate article which may in time prove to have no connection to her at all. I suspect (but I may be wrong) that this isn't the only project whose future is dependent upon her legal and other issues so it benefits the encyclopedia more to have those types of issues described centrally in her article rather than scatter it all over Wikipedia. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm. Yes, on reflection, I'm inclined to agree. Delete--KorruskiTalk 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. While this project might show notability in the future, it does not yet have the enduring coverage to be an allowable ezception to WP:NFF. If this changes, it might be considered for a return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macrocarpum laws of astronomy[edit]

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

Delete The article consists entirely of the self-published original research of an A. M. Ilyanok. There are no sources establishing the credibility or notability of the work. The claim that the supposed laws link gravity with electromagnetism is not supported. Neither is the claim that the "speed of gravitational waves is considerably exceed speed of light and gives possibility to create Galactic Internet". Pontificalibus (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that the rest of the scientific community has even noticed it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research; no independent sources; no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- All the author has done is take the values of certain physical constants and then rearranged them in various ways until he gets close fits to observed quantities. Give me any eight to ten different numbers, such as my phone number, date of birth, etc. and I can do the same thing. This "theory" is madeup bollocks, and a search for either "Metaquantum laws of astronomy" or "Metacarpum laws of astronomy" provides nothing but Wikipedia and its mirrors. Clearly this is just an attempt to promote a particularly stupid bit of pseudoscientific balderdash. Reyk YO! 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love science fiction, but this is not the place for it. Dlohcierekim 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first three are interesting, but the rest are just idiotic. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is yet another fringe topic and there is no evidence that it has achieved any notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's worse than non-notable. It is numerology masquerading as something resembling science. 70.109.186.180 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) (You don't wanna know who I am.)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wommack[edit]

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

An evangelist. Spammy article by someone with obvious COI. No independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les Brown (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

I have been able to verify almost nothing in the article. The basic biographical facts seem to be based on accounts he wrote of his own upbringing, back to periods that he would have been too young to remember. Everything is either self-published, or based upon self-publshed sources The references for his accomplishments are false,. His books are self published, and almost unrepresented in Amazon. I see no sources documenting his work as a dj. His film is based only on an imdb article which is a user-written sketch out any details of cast or production. The awards can not be documented. There are zero reliable news sources available. The station listed does not exist, though one of the same call numbers exists in another part of the country. Success University has a blank website & I doubt its real existence!!

I can not even find evidence for the one thing that ought to be possible, a marriage to Gladys Knight. There is also a article about what might be the same person,Leslie C. Brown, but i cannot verify his position in the Ohio House or Representatives DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiaki Kuwahara[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Notability. No reliable, secondary sources (etc.) on which to establish the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. Also fails WP:ENT. Article has been tagged as an unsourced BLP since 2008. PROD tag removed but no WP:RS added. Links on japanese wiki had been checked before applying the PROD template. Plad2 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tag said the reason for prod was "Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found. Listing at AnimeNewsNetwork not a WP:RS]" So I deprodded that. All information is confirmed on the guy's official website. As for notability, I think his long career, in many notable works, makes him notable. Dream Focus 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All information is confirmed on the guy's official website." = clear violation of WP:SELFPUB #5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Also WP:NOTINHERITED, so being "in many notable works" does not automatically make him notable (especially as he is only the voice, not the voice&vision, and only in a single language-market -- how many languages have these "notable works" been dubbed into?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable third-party sourcing or indication that any of the roles listed here are sufficient to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the roles I've checked out were extremely minor, thus failing WP:NACTOR, which require several significant roles. Being what is essentially an extra, or background character, in a number of works does not make one notable. —Farix (t | c) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't being the voice actor who dubs the part of a regular cast member in a popular show or that of a character in a big budget Hollywood film, make him notable? I don't see how dubbing an actual show like ER, is less notable than dubbing a cartoon character in an animated show. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I would think that counts. Dream Focus 14:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that he has done the voice of any significant characters. All the parts he has done have been minor parts. —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In The West Wing the character Leo "Thomas" McGarry is the Chief of Staff for six seasons. He did the dub for him. Dream Focus 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about this? Thomas is only this character's middle name, not his nickname, and is never mentioned except when he's giving his full name (e.g. when testifying before Congress). He is never called, baldly "Thomas", the only name given in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another character named Thomas? I wonder if they call him by his middle name in the Japanese dub version, or Google translator is wrong. Is there a Japanese version of the show's site listing the cast? I'll go and check on that now. Dream Focus 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely -- John Spencer (actor) was in his late 50s at the time -- so it seems unlikely they'd have him dubbed by a voice actor in his early 30s. It also seems unlikely that the Japanese would latch onto a middle name mentioned at most only a handful of times in the English version. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other "Thomas" is "Thomas Bailey", a side character of the series. —Farix (t | c) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Bailey is mentioned a few times, but never seen. It is entirely possible however that some extremely minor, easily forgotten, on-screen character was named Thomas (but was too minor to be listed in List of characters on The West Wing). It is also at least as likely that some random minor character got renamed "Thomas" in the Japanese-dubbed version, as that they unaccountably decided to call Leo by his very infrequently used middle-name. This is why we require reliable, unambiguous sources for such things. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reliable third-party coverage. No indication that he even dubbed a major role (who the hades is the "Thomas" he was meant to have dubbed on The West Wing?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Ditto, who the hades is the "Costello" he was meant to have dubbed on Prime Suspect? -- I can find no mention of that character either. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC) )[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Eljamal[edit]

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

Ultimately the subject was just another soldier killed in battle and appears to be non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N. It is also lacking in reliable sources and has POV problems. Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think being the first casualty in an undefined battle is enough notability. The heavy POV issues clinch it for me (I was originally planning a "weak delete"). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep: changed my vote because of Tiamut's (go dragons!) and Nableezy's work demonstrate that there was more to it than just being the first casualty. His death was used more or less for propagandic purposes, much like Ernst vom Rath's assassination prompted Kristallnacht (no comparisons of the Middle East situation to the Holocaust is meant, of course). It's a bit tenuous for notability, but I think it's enough. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nominator, this does not seem any more notable to me than any other casualty in a war. Thus the coverage would need to be "significant" for it to satisfy the WP:GNG and I don't believe it is in this case. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if this person is notable or not. There seem to be no significant coverage of this person in English sources. I cannot judge sources in other languages. One source given seems to be a forum thread, and another is a broken link. There is no article on the Battle of Tel Arbaein, which is the single event for which this person may be notable. Also, the article seems to be written from a non neutral point of view and needs a rewrite (not a reason for deletion though). Marokwitz (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not establish any notability for its subject. It also happens to be grossly POV and badly sourced. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Just one individual combatant who died in a decades-long conflict, and tragic though each individual loss of life is (as is the whole conflict itself), just dying in conflict is not sufficiently notable. The only GHit on quoted "Battle of Tel Arbaein" is this article, and though there are hits on the unquoted phrase, it's hard to believe this is a notable "battle" rather than just one of many villages in which fighting took place. The horribly "hero worship" tone strongly suggests it is not objective. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Probable Keep, based on the sources found - but it does desperately need rework and the much better quality of the article now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps people are unfamiliar with the variations in transliterating Arabic names. Doing a google Book search for "Khalil al-Jamal" brings up 29 hits [19]. I've added two sources to the bibliography that suppport the high attendance at his funeral (150,000 in a country of a couple of million is a pretty big deal). It is true the article needs work but the guy is notable. PS. I moved the title to the name Khalil al-Jamal since that is the most common transliteration. Tiamuttalk 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he notable Tiamut? The article simply states that he was the "the first Lebanese commando to be killed in action in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Do we have articles for the first American killed in the Vietnam War, the first Australian killed in World War I or the first Askari killed fighting the Germans in East Africa in 1914? (I could go on...) Of course we do not. IMO this clearly fails the notablity threshold set out in WP:MILMOS/N which ascribes notability to individuals that:
  1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
  2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
  3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
  4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
  5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
  6. Commanded a notable body of troops in combat; or
  7. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them; or
  8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
  9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, a division or larger formation, or their historical equivalents.

Anotherclown (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anotherclown. I think he's notable because he meets the general WP:N guideline. His death is mentioned in 29 books published in the English langage, mostly from academic presses. And there is heavy coverage of him in Arabic language media reports. Note that the WP:MILMOS/N states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ..." and then the things you listed above. I take that to mean that if a person meets WP:N then that's enogh to warrant an article. Perhaps for the military history project the criteria is more specific. But this person is notable not primarily for his contribution to military history, but for his effect on political developments in the region - his death constituting an important event in Lebanese and Palestinian political histories, as recorded by reliable academic secondary English language sources. Tiamuttalk 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, he has in act received a national medal of honor posthumously, issued by the then Prime Minister of Lebanon [20], so he does in fact meet the particular notability criteria for the military history project and not just the WP:GNG. I hope you will change your vote accordingly. Tiamuttalk 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add which medal he recieved? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited only says "a national medal" awarded by the Prime Minister. I'll try to find more info about which medal it is specifically, but I don't think his notability hinges on what kind of medal it is. There is enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article regardless. Tiamuttalk 06:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not a war-stopper as you say, but if the information is available I think it should be included. Regardless any assertion that that fact that he was awarded a 'national medal' makes him notable (as you say above), clearly does rest on what medal it was as MILHIST notability guidelines only ascribe automatic notablity to those awarded their nation's highest award, e.g. the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor (and their equivalents). Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am the author of this article.
  1. I just translated it from the Arabic Wikipedia without alteration which I think is a mistake. I understand now that I need to follow a different standards with the English Wikipedia and I will be glad to do that. I think this will reflect positively on the Arabic article as well.
  2. Al Jamal death was a milestone in many respects, in Lebanon as well as in the Arab world. His death, and the massive participation in his funeral of the opposing parties, was the start of many political movements that universalized the Palestinian struggle across the Arab countries, and unfortunately, lead to the Lebanese civil war. Neither the article nor the references reflect this point. It is a mistake. I will try to fix them (in the English and the Arabic versions).
  3. Any article written about any aspect of the Israeli/Arab problem will be viewed as propaganda by one side or the other. I hope the Wikipedia have the tolerance to accept the point view of the other and exercise academic pressure to ensure the neutrality of the articles rather than mere deleting them.

I am planning to spend the coming few days to improve this article based on your comments and, hopefully, with your help, in its English as well as Arabic version. After that, I will leave it to you to decide on its fate as per the Wikipedian standards. AboluayTalk2me 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Aboluay. I'll try to help too (I've already added a few books and cleaned up a couple of sentences). I hope people will review the linked sources and reevaluate their position as WP:N is in fact met. Wiki articles don't have to be perfect to survive deletion (per WP:IMPROVE). Thank you for your contributions. Tiamuttalk 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All true, however in the article's previous state the POV was glaring and the notabilty was not and wikipedia should be very wary of such articles. That said I am prepared to change my vote if the final citations are added (especially the sentence about the significance of his death, which IMO the notability of this subject rests on). Anotherclown (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject has been covered in numerous reliable sources. Here is a sampling that I found in a very brief search:
As the subject is covered by multiple third party reliable sources, the subject meets the general notability guidelines. nableezy - 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see that he is mentioned in quite a number of books, but the paucity of the biographical information included in the article suggests to me that these maybe passing mentions only (admittedly I haven't read the books listed). So I am left to question just how significant this coverage actually is. Anotherclown (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough that an article could be written on his death, his funeral, and the impact his death had on Lebanon. Ill see what I can find for other biographical material, but those sources may be in Arabic. nableezy - 20:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I have to say that I am impressed with the effort that a number of users have put in to bringing this article up to standard. Well done so far to guys like Tiamut, yourself Nableezy and of course to the original author Aboluay who I must commend for his good nature through this process and the genuine efforts to improve the article. As I said above if the final citations can be added I'd be happy to see this article remain. Anotherclown (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anotherclown. And I just wanted to say thanks for continuing to clean up the cites and other things in the article. Its nice to work with people whose primary concern is improving the encyclopedia. Tiamuttalk 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic and well sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw - As the original nominator I wish to withdraw this AfD given the work that has been done to improve the article. The topic is clearly more notable than it appeared in its original form, although I still feel it to be only marginal. Good work and thank you all. Anotherclown (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). I just looked at the article as it stood at the time of the nom, and I dont think anybody can blame you for questioning the notability given the sourcing and the difference in the transliteration in his name. nableezy - 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted already. Tone 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crookie[edit]

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

Author contested prod. Apparently promotional material. Not notable software product. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I'm reading it right, the software being blatantly promoted is for illegal hacking. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 07:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AgriHouse Inc[edit]

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

Right on this side of the A7 fence. Non-notable company/organization. Access Denied 05:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per A7, non-notable, no sources, no claim to notability, clear COI with creating author, so tagged. Cquan (after the beep...) 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - When I placed the speedy, there was a lot less there and no significant references. Still Delete on lack of notability and clear COI. Cquan (after the beep...) 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough - I did not compare what I saw with earlier versions. LadyofShalott 05:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Crichton.  Sandstein  06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crichton's untitled posthumous novel[edit]

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

Unpublished/unfinished novel. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Dolovis (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article does not have enough content to justify incubation. From my understanding, the publisher has not yet even hired a co-writer to finish the still untitled book. This article is premature. It may be properly added as a Wikipedia article after it has been published (if and when that happens). This is a clear case of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Dolovis (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any to Michael Crichton, which does not appear to duplicate any of this info. (It would be better placed in a list subarticle on Crichton's novels but the editors of that article series seem to have disdained such an approach, preferring to work with a category and with a template box. This AfD shows the potential weakness of that approach.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the author article or the list of works article. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Because the content is too thin for a stand-alone article as yet. But the "Crystal Ball" epithet doesn't apply, I think. The manuscript exists, written by a very famous author, whether and how it's eventually published or not is another issue. Barsoomian (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Exactly, this article is about the fact itself, not the novel per se. In my opinion, it should be kept or at least merged, not deleted. Jmj713 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also believe this article should be kept or at least merged, but definitely not deleted. (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2010 (US-CST)
  • Merge to the Crichton article. A Crichton work is too valuable not to appear some time in the next century. (Consider Hemingway's posthumous works for the tardiness of those appearances.) Varlaam (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Maggie Della Rocco Griffin[edit]

The result of this discussion 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra GNU/Linux[edit]

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

Delete. Insufficient third-party coverage to establish notability. Yet another non-notable Linux distribution. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to DistroWatch Chakra is more popular than MeeGo, Moblin, OpenBSD, Xubuntu and more recently even more popular than Gentoo and Kubuntu of which all have Wikipedia articles. Additionally the Chakra article is barely older than a week. It is still being extended. Also, the article is also notable because the Chakra project also produces the very popular KDEmod packages for Arch Linux. I was planning to extend the article with info about KDEmod.
    In a related note, the nomination comes as no surprise, considering Yworo already vandalized the article before (eg. by removing secondary sources and later bitching about the lack of secondary sources). –KAMiKAZOW (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have just added the main Distrowatch profile page to the article. This confirms the notability of this distribution to the standard required at WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did find one source with substantial coverage. (A second that's a bit more reliable would sway my decision.) The Distrowatch entry is a directory listing and the Distrowatch rankings are based on page view counts, so they don't establish popularity in a meaningful sense. --Pnm (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Search for KDEmod. Chakra grew out of KDEmod which has a long history. If the article stays, I'll enhance it with info about KDEmod but I'm not doing this work just to see it deleted. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start by adding a well-referenced section on KDEmod to Arch Linux? If in the process you find good secondary sources you could create a neutral point-of-view article on KDEmod. With the primary sources you already have for Chakra GNU/Linux and the Jeff Hoogland post, you could include a short section about it. --Pnm (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KDEmod never was a project by Arch Linux. It is and always has been a 3rd party effort by the community now called Chakra. Adding KDEmod to the Arch article would be plain wrong. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There isn't even enough reliable source material to determine an article title that is consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The cited sources call this topic by various names. I don't think we can hang our hat solely on jeffhoogland.blogspot.com and distrowatch.com, even assuming they provided enough reliable source material for the article. Content source blogs and other websites generally do not need to make the hard inclusion/exclusion decisions of paper print media. Per Pnm, perhaps start by adding a well-referenced section on KDEmod to Arch Linux. You can make redirects to that and eventually WP:SPINOUT a topic if needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are limited to the product website, a blog and a directory-type listing. This fails WP:N.  Sandstein 
  • STRONG KEEP All you who who say delete are idiots. The deleting by these kind of criteria is the reason I personally stopped donating to WP. --Lucinos (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Lucinos please edit your above comment so it complies with WP:CIVIL. Calling other people who disagree with you "idiots" is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pnm hits the spot with his evaluation of the sources. There is no sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means the article fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cartoon Network (Arab World). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network arabia[edit]

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

Duplicate article of Cartoon Network (Arab World), no citations or references. JJ98 (Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Secret Syde. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Davies[edit]

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

WP:N concerns. I can't find reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this punk rock musician. (news/web/books) j⚛e deckertalk 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations[edit]

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

Unmanageable list; almost totally incomplete (it has a pretence of listing railway stations in every country in the world). In some cases the "stations" are actually wikilinks to randomly chosen cities which have stations in them. No sources. Overlaps with lists of stations in individual countries which are, themselves, unmanageable/incomplete in many cases. bobrayner (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have other content which does that much more accurately, and in a more readable/manageable way? For instance, categories, and navboxes such as {{Railway stations in Europe}}.
I think you have a good point about plausible search terms, but Wikipedia cannot cater to every search term, and especially some of the more popular ones. Few sane people really want a list of all railway stations in the world; if they actually want a list of railways stations in one particular place then - should this article get deleted - the searcher will get a list of other articles listing railways in particular places. Who knows, this might even prompt them to use search terms that actually correspond to what they want.
Considering the number of countries we'd have to add to a disambig (including the bizarre profusion of space-filling articles which list stations in countries that, in real life, have no railways), plus lists of stations on specific networks (there are many like this),even the disambig would be impossible to maintain - it would have, what, 300 or 400 entries? Even then it would be incomplete, as a large number of stations don't make it onto such national or network lists. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about the job being done with categories and navboxes goes against WP:CLN. I don't think the overal list would be impossible to maintain - one link per country - we already have dozens of country based lists (list of countries, being one). Lugnuts (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A policy of one-link-per-country would make the list easier to maintain by deliberately excluding even more entries for a reason which bears no relation to the article title. (Thousands of stations are in national lists; thousands are in non-national lists; and thousands are in neither). That might be a good approach on an article called List of incomplete lists of stations by country but on this article, whose remit is not qualified, it would not solve the original problem. A reader arriving at the article expecting a comprehensive list of stations would still be - as they are now - either misled or disappointed. bobrayner (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It needs a lot of improvement though, ultimately it should just become a bunch of nav boxes brought together, for the time being it's a mess which needs to be tidied up and trimmed down. 86.7.168.223 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this seems like badgering - that's not my intention - but I would point out that it needed a lot of attention at the last AfD 4 years ago and nobody seems to have been able to address the problem in the last 4 years. Which is not entirely surprising given the very large amount of new content which would have to be created, either here or in other articles, before this list could even approach 10% completion. For example, in June 2006 the article listed 7 stations in France; now it lists 14; in reality the list of French stations is a 53 page PDF. And that's just one country. I would love to see this article made accurate through normal editing, but it's just not possible. The article is full of huge holes.
Even just linking to other lists of stations is no solution, as there are hundreds of them, of which many include fictional stations and/or exclude real stations, and other lists are simply missing from wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'd like to avoid the impression of shoving a "Delete!" message down everybody's throat, so I'll back off for now. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could consider, for example, an article that I worked on yesterday: Moçâmedes Railway. The railway has 56 stations. We have articles for none of them. I haven't even found a source which names the stations yet, so how could all 56 pass WP:GNG? As often happens with railway stations, though, the lack of sources is not an obstacle - somebody else seems to have looked at a line on an old map, and used that to create a "list of stations" which comprises the names of 20 towns near the line on the map. That incomplete, misleading, WP:OR list of 20 is quite representative of what this article would link to if it was recast as a list-of-lists-of-stations.bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are between 10 and 500 stations in every city in the world, plus any number of rural stations. They plainly can't all be notable. I wouldn't have thought that even the majority are notable, and indeed a non-exhaustive survey of railway station articles suggests the vast majority are limited to information on the station's geographical location, year of construction, and which lines it services. I'm not about to go on a crusade to prune the number of these articles back by a factor of 10, but at the same time I'm not prepared to concede that the number of notable railway stations is any greater than maybe seven per city in any but the most historic and romanticised of rail systems. (I speak with an Australian bias on this - the city of Perth, for example, has somewhere between 50 and 100 stations, many little more than a platform with a ticket machine, and I'd laugh at anyone who claimed that more than a half-dozen were capable of sustaining a meaningful encyclopaedic article. Sydney has more history and more stations but still very little to say about the minutiae of its rail network.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus indicates, and has indicated for quite a while, that railway stations are in fact all notable. Their articles aren't permastubs either; there are many railway stations which are average as far as railway stations go and have GA-class or higher articles. Every station on the Brill Tramway, for instance, has a featured article, even though the stations were mostly small and have been closed for decades. (For the record, the situation with US railway stations isn't that much different from Australia, and there are several GAs on average US stations.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) sets a much higher bar (ie. notability criteria which many stations cannot meet). If you've got a link to the discussion where people agreed that all stations are notable, that would be helpful, as I'd like to go there and ask why folk agreed on a threshold so different to WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). However, this is a bit tangential to the current AfD so feel free to discuss this in a different location... There is no doubt that some stations are notable; but how on earth could we list all stations? bobrayner (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheCatalyst31, do you have any more information on this "consensus" that "railway stations are in fact all notable"? This is very different to policies and consensuses that I have read elsewhere on wikipedia, so I'd like to have a closer look. bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this AfD, for one, in which numerous stubs on train stations were kept, per WP:SNOW no less. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay, not an actual policy. This seems to be one of those cases where there's no standing notability policy but individual stations aren't put up for deletion very often and generally survive AfD if they're verifiable. (If the station is unverifiable, that's a different matter entirely of course.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An impossible attempt to list non-notable things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this would be impossible to maintain as an exhaustive list (there would be tens of thousands of bluelinked stations alone), it should exist as a head list for the numerous smaller lists of railway stations by country and by system. Railway stations are a notable topic, and the smaller lists (List of Amtrak stations or List of railway stations in the West Midlands, for example) are proper lists which should be indexed from this page. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all certain those lists are notable either. List of Amtrak stations, for example, doesn't link to any stations at all, but rather the localities in which the stations are found, which rather suggests that not a single item on the list is able to demonstrate its stand-alone notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refactor into a list of lists, by country and/or by regional system. Whether or not all railway stations are notable is not a relevant question, so long as many are, and we have lists of them, and this list can organize those lists rather than trying to reproduce all of their content. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list of lists per Postdlf filceolaire (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Continuous track. At any rate no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked vehicle[edit]

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

Redundant to continuous track. If not deleted it should be renamed continuously tracked vehicle because tracked also applies to trains. Marcus Qwertyus 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Kegresse track is just a continuous track but replaces the metal parts with rubber and is fitted to the rear wheels. There is also something called a pedrail but it is a wheel. Marcus Qwertyus 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- at the very least this must remain as a redirect. It is a common English phrase and is a highly likely search term. There are 100+ pages that link to it, including numerous redirects of types of tracked vehicle. Merge/delete would also make categorisation difficult: "continuous track" does not belong in a category "Types of vehicle" (for example) any more than "tracked vehicle" belongs in a category "vehicle components". Logically, this article should also contain a summary section listing (and linking to) vehicle types which are tracked.
    Pedrail is highly related too -- same concept (or at least, same problem to solve) -- shows that this should be a top-level article.
    The concept of anything railway-related being called a 'tracked vehicle' is something that would only happen in wiki-world. It's the sort of tortured English categorisation that is creeping over Commons. While technically correct English, I'd be interested to see anywhere in real life that actually referred to a train as a 'tracked vehicle'.
    EdJogg (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the comments above say it all. To say the title includes trains is pretty close to pedantry. Malcolma (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Continuous track (actually, I would prefer to merge that article to this one, but I doubt there will be support for that given the states of the two articles): there is considerable merit to the nominator's argument. The distinction between the two is virtually nonexistant, and that doesn't justify to me having two separate articles. There is no evidence on either article that continuous tracks are used on anything besides vehicles. The Kégresse track is just a specific type of continuous track, so I don't think that warrants a "parent" article, as that would be misleading. Likewise, the argument that pedrail wheel is a similar concept might be true in that they are related, but doesn't justify keeping the articles separate. I do, however, share EdJogg's view on the relationship between tracks and railroad--tenuous at best, and not worty of a rename (though I see merit in Continuously tracked vehicle as a search term and have created it as a redirect). The previous discussion was based on WP:DICDEF and nominated by a banned vandal, so there's no help there. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but why is the other article titled by the non-specific, descriptive “continuous track” rather than “caterpillar track?” —Michael Z. 2010-12-01 16:35 z
    • I think that "caterpillar" is more of an Anglo nickname than a worldwide technical term. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and no. The first successful tracks were introduced by the Holt Manufacturing Company, who later became Caterpillar, the name 'caterpillar' having come from someone observing and commenting on the motion of the track. The name came about right back at the origins of the device, it's not a recent thing. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The two articles seem to be largely redundant to each other. Leave this as a #redirect Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiger Stadium (Detroit). There's very little content about this game at 1999 Detroit Tigers season, so it's pretty clear that this content should go into the stadium article. The community should decide how much of this content should be merged. KrakatoaKatie 22:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Detroit Tigers game at Tiger Stadium[edit]

Final Detroit Tigers game at Tiger Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Final game at Yankee Stadium, these "final games" aren't notable enough for their own articles. Any important bits can be listed at Tiger Stadium (Detroit), but a separate article is inappropriate. Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid arguments for inclusion, and certainly nothing that would make it "obvious" that the article is notable. There are, like, approximately ten bazillion articles on Wikipedia. It is hardly surprising that one could hang around for 5 years before someone noticed that it didn't cover a notable topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing doesn't need to be saved. It can be parsed down to the nuts and bolts. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.. for example.. the box score looks like it was cut and pasted from some other website...and should go away anyways. Spanneraol (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is lengthy, yes, but the majority of the content is of questionable encyclopedic value. I don't think we need quite so comprehensive a series of quotes, a full list of uniform numbers, the boxscore, etc. This stuff can be easily pared down. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing, it's not all that rare.. if you were to write an article about the last game played at every stadium in the history of baseball then you would have scores of articles... this one may be more current but that doesnt mean it should get more notice than a mention on the season page. Spanneraol (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stadiums are used for decades, making the last game at one seem pretty rare. Per WP:RECENTISM it isn't surprising that this article popped up before the one for Sportsman's Park. I'm not saying the topic can't be covered in a season or stadium article, but I question the requirement to do so when individual articles are created for the most trivial of college football post-season bowl games. 72.244.204.30 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect into Yankee Stadium (1923). There's nothing in the article but the line score and three footer templates, and there are no regular season game line scores in 2008 New York Yankees season, so the old Yankee Stadium article seems the best place. I'll leave it to editors to discuss if they actually want that line score in the article or not. - KrakatoaKatie 22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final game at Yankee Stadium[edit]

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

The final game of Yankee Stadium isn't notable enough for its own article. Mentions of Jeter's speech are appropriate at the Yankee Stadium page, and perhaps his own. Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And I disagree that the final game is well-known. The game itself is not well-known and there's no evidence of the game's lasting notability. That it was the final game at Yankee Stadium is well-known, and Yankee Stadium clearly has lasting notability. That's a key distinction, in my opinion. What's notable, in this case, is Yankee Stadium, not the game itself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this game notable is that it's the final game at the Stadium, especially given that it was the last event at a historic place that's been around for 85 years. The fact that it's the very last game should make it inherently notable. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll end up talking ourselves in circles if we keep chatting on this point. I can agree to disagree on this. My argument is essentially that the game itself doesn't inherit notability from the stadium's closing, whereas you think it does. Will be interesting to see how this AfD turns out! Cheers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More fancruft from Yankee fans who feel that every single thing that happens to the team is notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the unnecessary Yankee hate? I am a Yankee fan and I AfD'd this page once I found it. There's one for the Detroit Tigers too, so it's not just a Yankee thing. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Spanneraol. -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Yankee Stadium itself is certainly a notable subject, the final game is not. If the final game were of importance to the season in which it were played (such as a playoff or World Series contest), I might be able to agree that the game itself was notable. But, just as Game #162 on the Yankees' schedule that season, it doesn't pass muster. If this article is allowed to stay, what is to prevent an editor from creating Final game at Jarry Park and claiming that it, too, deserves its own article? Strikerforce (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, to match the article on the Toiger stadium game, which is a model of what this article should be. No need to delete it in the meanwhile, though. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - Whether its notable enough for its own article is subject to debate, but its a notable event that we should cover.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The season article already contains more information about this event than this article does. Spanneraol (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a redirect if it makes editorial sense.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing, it's not all that rare.. if you were to write an article about the last game played at every stadium in the history of baseball then you would have scores of articles... this one may be more current but that doesnt mean it should get more notice than a mention on the season page. Spanneraol (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stadiums are used for decades, making the last game at one seem pretty rare. Per WP:RECENTISM it isn't surprising that this article popped up before the one for Sportsman's Park. I'm not saying the topic can't be covered in a season or stadium article, but I question the requirement to do so when individual articles are created for the most trivial of college football post-season bowl games. 72.244.204.30 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The college bowl games are post-season games, which usually are deserving of articles... the final game at Sportsman's Park for instance is completely trivial.. does anyone even remember what happened in that game? Does anyone really care? What about the final game at South End Grounds? Or the final game at Boundary Field? These trivial events should really be covered on the stadium pages or the season pages... wring a whole article about them makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2008 New York Yankees season or delete. The idea that the last game or the first game at any stadium, even the famous Yankee Stadium, merits its own article, isn't supported by any policy. This boxscore can be put in the season article. Redirect is suggested only because it's a logical search term. Mandsford 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 3 Stuff packs[edit]

The Sims 3 Stuff packs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article mearly reiterates almost the exact same information as in the actual Sims 3 article. Bobish35 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Pandya[edit]

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

This person is not notable.There are no references found about him.He's only credited for taking the part in Indian freedom Movement.As this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dinkar_Pandya Another user promised to add detail to the article, but since then no information was added. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Check out Google Books and you will find references. He was among those closest to Mohandas K. Gandhi during the Salt Satyagraha, which was a key historical moment in the campaign for Indian independence. To say he's only credited with this does not diminish the notability of these events and his role. I agree that the article is now weak, but the solution is to improve it, not to delete it. This is about the notability of the subject, not about the failure of an editor to follow through. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to find more research Tinkerb5 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen328. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cullen328's arguments are very well-taken by this editor, but a review of Google Books turns up nothing that suggests notability. I see a few brief mentions, and no significant coverage. Happy to change my vote if someone else has better luck. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudev Adigas Fast Food[edit]

Vasudev Adigas Fast Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ravichandar84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restaurant chain in India. I can't find any RS on the topic, just lots of business listings. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population. The arguments for deletion are compelling, but there seems to be no reason why the information can't be preserved elsewhere. This is a tricky AfD closure, please message me if you believe I've got it wrong. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Tasmania by population[edit]

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

Recreation of a recently deleted (4 days ago) article. While the content has changed slightly from the original, it still suffers all of the problems listed at the previous AfD. The rankings are no longer present, which means that the article really has no function now. The original article missed over 80% of UC/Ls, while this one misses 75.2%, a slight improvement but not sufficient to justify retention. References are still not provided for each entry. The differences between the original version, which is now userfied at User:AussieLegend/Tasmania and the current article demonstrate the issues that I presented at the original AfD. AussieLegend (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The criteria for lists are set out at WP:SALAT, and in summary are fairly broad and essentially permit any list of reasonable but not excessive size with clearly defined scope and potential value as a navigation or analytical aid. This list topic is therefore within the pounds of potentially acceptable topics. If the list content is poor or incomplete that is an issue that can be fixed via normal editing. AfD is not for cleanup. I have read over the previous AfD and feel that it did not attract sufficient discussion to be seen as an authoritative community statement on this list. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, this is an article that is just an indiscriminate list of an apparently random selection of 26 UC/Ls (UC/Ls are explained below) from the master list of 105. The links in the article do not necessarily correspond to any, or the correct, physical place (also see below) so this article doesn't really have any value, at least to anyone who understands what a UC/L is. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you know there are 105 UC/L's? i also believe the article was only intended to list UC's perhaps though if the article is not deleted i'll research and add the L's. Stony ¿ 05:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would a list of UC/L's which are arbitrarily defined by a statistical body represent "potential value as a navigation or analytical aid"? This is not an issue that "can be fixed via normal editing" - it's a profound issue of WP:V and WP:OR. Orderinchaos 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I (re)created this revision after no knowledge of the first, i basically used the victorian article as a guide to writing this, which also lacks reference for each locality. 75.2% missing based on what exactly? as the list itself refers to UL's which are 1000+ persons, pretty sure if anything i missed maybe less than 5 of them. Also perhaps instead of a deletion request, maybe suggestions on the talk page would have been more appropriate? to give us a clue as to how to improve it, basically people are just going to see a red link and redo this page time and time again. I feel that given the afore mentioned victorian article is basically the same as this, then if this is deleted i believe that article too should be considered for deletion as they both have similar content. Stony ¿ 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'They'll just recreate it' isn't a reason to not delete, and if it comes to it we have ways of dealing with that (see WP:SALT). However a willingness by you to continue improving the article is certainly a factor that argues towards keeping it and hopefully AussieLegend will take the time to work with you to address his concerns. (I confess I don't understand his references to UC/Ls myself.) - DustFormsWords (talk)
  • Comment - I just thought rather than delete it every time, we can use the talk page to post issues about improving it, when i recreated this i had no knowledge it previously existed nor why it was deleted, no way of knowing how to improve it which would have been helpful. Stony ¿ 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't notice the warning that said the page had been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion, like these:[25][26][27][28] when you tried to create it? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No i never(blind maybe) however i did on the talk page. Stony ¿ 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UC/Ls (Urban Centre/Locality) are statistical areas used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They do not conform to the borders of suburbs, towns, cities, Local Government Areas or any other physical places. For example, the "Newcastle" UC/L includes most of the city of Newcastle LGA, part of the city of Lake Macquarie LGA and part of one suburb in the Port Stephens Council LGA. Certain places are excluded without explanation (see the non-shaded areas in this image) while some non-populated areas are just as strangely included. The ABS provides projections for all population centres each year, but UC/Ls are only accurate once every four years, when the census occurs. While they are a guide to the population of a region, using them as the basis for a list of places (the article was originally created as a list of cities) results in an article as useful as "List of shades of colors of apple sauce".
I actually agree with Stony that List of places in Victoria by population should be deleted. Unfortunately we couldn't come to a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Victoria by population and the people who voted to keep it have made no attempt to improve that, or any of the other articles discussed at WP:AWNB#List of cities/places in <state> by population. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not substantially different to the version which was deleted at AfD a few days ago. The article is not useful in its present form, for the reasons AussieLegend has put forward - the selection of the places in question is entirely arbitrary and the ABS themselves do not use UC/Ls in this manner (they have "Statistical Sub-districts" which they use for comparison, which are just as arbitrary but take in a distinct area rather than leaving large bits out.) The fact that the Victorian version does not have citations is actually a major problem with that article (actively being discussed elsewhere), not a reason to recreate the problem elsewhere. Orderinchaos 03:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Delete mystified why there is such a need for such a list, two afds, and one recreation - there must be something desperate going on somewhere - there is adequate material in the Tasmanian project that with some further linking can provide the interested reader far much more information and leads to it - - the lack of adequate criteria being addressed as to why locations are listed, against the status within the LGA's and governmental (state and federal) criteria of population statistics - would be better served in articles rather than this list SatuSuro 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:NOT#STATS, Wikipedia is not for excessive listings of statistics. But this guideline does encourage lists like this to be placed in a table, as this one is. Sebwite (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your support is based on the excessive statistics being in a table? Or did I get that wrong? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of cities in Australia by population - I think the article has useful information in that it focuses on population centres specifically within a state - listing each state with dropdown links into List of cities in Australia by population would be cleaner than having separate pages for each state and territory. Australian Matt (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Close?) - If this were the first AfD, I would have said Keep - absolutely a great, useful list. However, item #3 at DRV says you gotta have significant new information has come to light since the deletion. That significant new information needs to overcome the reason for the initial deletion. In this case, it didn't. The AfD nominatior should have taken the reposting of the topic and/or denial of speedy delete to DRV instead of posting at AfD. It would not be wrong to procedurally close this AfD and list at DRV. What is going on here in AfD2 is that the first AfD is not being given its effect - we're redeciding an issue that already has been decided. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gonzalez Jr.[edit]

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

Delete. Not well sourced article. Notability clearly not established through one small blurb in a Brooklyn paper, the rest mostly online, blogs, Linkedin, Facebook, and self-sourced. No real productions. "Notability" is yet to come. Suggest waiting until subject truly is notable. Editor is straining that this person is "notable" already. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator's analysis is sound, I don't see enough here to satisfy our requirements. Perhaps in the future, as you note. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this person is a film student at best with no professional experience. self-produced projects only. seems to be a self-added article. anonymous. 17:11, 30 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.214.15 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Miró[edit]

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

This BLP has remained unsourced for over three years. A search for sources showed that the subject has not received any independent coverage in reliable sources to verify he meets general notability criteria. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of announcers in English-speaking countries[edit]

List of announcers in English-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally wp:listcruft and incomplete. Category:Radio and television announcers covers appropriate list info. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep If it's appropriate for a category, it's appropriate for a list, WP:CLN. I can see other objections to the way that this is arranged, but not everyone likes to do the "and what's under this rock?" search that categories limit themselves to. Mandsford 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's certainly a place for lists of announcers in this encyclopedia, but I don't see why "in English-speaking countries" is a good way to organise this. If we just restrict ourselves to sports announcers, who make up the majority of this list, I, in common with most of my fellow Englishmen, would be unaware of any of those involved in North American sports, and I would suspect that most North Americans would be unaware of those who commentate on the sports played in the rest of the world. As an example most English people would feel that "our" announcers have more in common with Bjørge Lillelien than with any of these baseball announcers that nobody in Europe has heard of. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless listcruft. Vague and arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Of no conceivable utility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASCA International[edit]

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

Not a notable organisation. Only trivial mentions on Google News, Books. Unreferenced for three years. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage". I claimed these are all trivial. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That’s why we have AFD – what you propose as trivial, I see as enough to qualify as significant for inclusion here at Wikipedia. I did reference the piece now. So if it is kept, at least it is referenced. There I agree 100% with you…..all articles should be cited. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and that's why simply asserting that there are Google hits does not in itself constitute proof of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See that, we are both in agreement here. Before I express an opinion here at AFD, I do try and make sure the article is properly sourced.. You are right, a lot of !votes are just that an expressed opinion. If you are state side….Happy Thanksgiving if not have a pleasant day. ShoesssS Talk 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A significant number of the sources above amount to a single sentence, or aren't about this organization at all (half the Google Scholar hits). The other "Scholarly" hits are the website of a "Cyber Community Centre promoting events on Vancouver Island"—hardly a scholarly source—and a dissertation that mentions NASCA's website as a source in a single sentence, and a book that does little more than describe one page on its website (currently ref 2). The rest of the options in "Google Books" suffer from similar problems, only worse, since most of them provide little more than the name and address. Of the news articles, it looks like most of them name NASCA's website as a source or quote a person connected with it—again, the single-sentence trivial mention. There's a lot of them (and, again, some of the hits are about Nasca, Peru or otherwise unconnected), but I don't think you could build anything longer than a permastub from these sources: You could pretty much say "it exists" and "____ was a director" and "they have a website" and that's about it. Only the Vancouver Island website says anything more than that about them, and that's a pretty weak source. I don't believe that this complies with WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm all for cobbling together an article from single sentence sources. Sometimes, a reliable source is only good for three or four words in a Wikipedia article and you use what you have. The problem here is that the sources mostly say the same thing, so there isn't enought to put meat on the bone. Lifestyles Organization is the parent company of NASCA International. You might want to try developing an article on Lifestyles Organization as there likely will be more reliable source material for that than for NASCA International by itself. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Cook (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Assistant Professor. Worked on the team that created Applescript. Seems to want to take credit for being the lead architect, but poking around seems to indicate that he was that he was one architect among several on the team. Has a few book mentions in Applescript related books, but most are in passing. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I suspected. Would the nominator care to tell us what the subject's h index is, which he no doubt discovered in the course of WP:Before. h index is a useful indicator of citation performance, although in ambiguous cases a detailed analysis of the citations themselves has to be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
H-index has an only weak correlation to notability, and should not be considered in deletion discussions. Gigs (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP with only primary source, apparently. May change opinion if there were reliable third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. His body of academic work is self-sourcing and stand on their own. RayTalk 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All but one of the results on this Google scholar search appear to be his, and the one exception is far down the list. From that search, he has five papers with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Re the nominator's "assistant professor" comment: apparently, he is associate. He has enough seniority and impact that I would expect him to be a full professor (and UT Austin is a very good university especially in CS) so I imagine the reason he is only associate has to do with the large amount of time he spent in industry. Which is to say, I don't think we should hold his academic rank against him; we should look instead at his accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I meant associate. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of high citation record and acclaimed achievements in technology. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's a weak consensus, but it's a consensus. KrakatoaKatie 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Garage Scheme[edit]

Good Garage Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Fails WP:COMPANY, secondary source (Car Dealer mag) appears to be a press release, other sources are primary (company website). Article is overtly promotional. The Interior(Talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. With sources like this I think it would pass the notability threshold. I think a promotional tone should be fixed through normal editing rather than deletion. I have seen substantial criticisms by independent sources which are mysteriously missing from the "criticism" section (looking at the article history, they were previously added by IPs but deleted by the article creator. I spy a COI, but again, deleting the article is not the best solution to that. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism (while it was allowed to appear) alleged that this site was a marketing effort/customer loyalty scheme for Forte products. As such, this perhaps is not a company per se. Source you provided reads very much like a press release/puff piece, as I feel the article does now. Should we have an article for a marketing effort for a company that doesn't have an article? The Interior(Talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability isn't inherited; we have notable software written by non-notable coders, notable objects made in non-notable factories, and so on. In this case, I think there is sufficient third-party coverage of the Good Garage Scheme to get it over the notability threshold, but only just. The article's other problems should be corrected through normal editing imho, but I wouldn't completely rule out deletion as an answer to that. Could go either way on this, and if you insist on deleting it, I won't be crying myself to sleep :-) bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the removal of adcopy stuff would leave very little, and I wouldn't feel comfortable rewriting with just the Get Surrey article as a source. So I think I'll keep this open for now. The Interior(Talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is enough RS material to meet WP:N. I added some referenced info to the article in a history section. That should give those interested in the article an idea of what Wikipedia is looking for and how to cite that info. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really confused. Uzma, the information you have added is for a UK government-backed scheme that was never implemented. This "Good Garage Scheme" is not government affiliated, so I'm wondering how those additions are relevant, besides the shared name. One of the main reasons I've put this up for AfD is that there is some major concerns that this scheme is not what it is being represented as, and now its even worse, as the reader will now think this is an official government oversight program. If you have some RS's about this subject please supply. The Interior(Talk) 22:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheth G. H. high school (Borivali east)[edit]

Sheth G. H. high school (Borivali east) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to have been a non-notable charter school in India. I say "appears", because much of the text is nonsense, and the place is not mentioned anywhere. It lacks specific identifying information. A Google search failed to verify its existence. From what is in the article, it makes a claim that it used to exist, and was a middle school operated by some company or association. There are textual clues that it was a middle school that used to be in India. I can't imagine that this would be considered notable by the community. My suggestion is to delete this now. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Based on other Indian high school articles that have passed our way at AfD, I think there may have been some misunderstanding about this one. The article refers to the schools as "Gujarati Medium", "English Medium", and "Marathi Medium". That doesn't mean middle schools, it means the schools teach (or taught) in those languages. Here is the website of the Borivali Education Society, (named in the article) which lists this school as "Seth Gopalji Hemraj High School".[32] Google searches turn up lots of mentions of the school[33][34] and even a map[35]: the WP:RS status of these mentions is certainly debatable, but the school's existence seems not to be. Under the usual practices applicable to schools whose existence is verified, including the desire to avoid systemic bias, I suspect this should be kept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, please fix it by adding those and suggest a move. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very well established that all secondary schools are considered notable here, because it is almost certain that sufficient references will be found. In this case, it will be rather difficult finding them, since the school was apparently more important in an earlier generation than it is presently, and among the most difficult areas for people at the enWP to work on is older material from India--very little is on the internet, there is no adequate periodical or newspaper indexing in any language, and there are almost no sources available outside the country--in the US in particular, library holdings are amazingly weak. All that is necessary to keep the article is to verify the real existence of the school--we have occasionally found articles on high schools whose actual existence we could not verify, and those articles are of course uniformly deleted, as have been articles on high schools that are still in the planning stage. The original article did not even do that, but Ariloxos has been able to find sources that are good enough for that purpose, and I added them. I also moved the article to its proper name, as they indicated. It is clear from the sources that it is not a middle school. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geo digital signage[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced stub that has been deleted already as spam. It was re-created. It should again be deleted. A Google search revealed all of 4 Ghits. It appears to be either science fiction or original research about a new invention. I can not even verify its existence. Delete. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could not verify its existence, and even if it does exist it probably wouldn't deserve an article of its own. However, since it isn't mentioned in Digital signage as a type of it, it further adds to my belief that it doesn't exist. --Slon02 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Real but boringly trivial intersection of two mature technologies. Like Location-based service for cellphone spam, but not as intrusive. East of Borschov 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building Investigation & Testing Services[edit]

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

Unremarkable company - article looks like an advert, with no references that actually establish the company's notability. Biker Biker (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with some industries is that there are not a lot of references on the internet showing just how notable a company is for one reason or another. This is especially true when the industry is rather specific. The company under discussion is very notable in their industry - they are used by many notable companies that are in Wikipedia however due to the nature of the business it's very rare to get any company writing about how their floors were tested and weren't up to scratch - they really want to keep that under wraps. However I have included a reference of a company which provides raised access floors which indicates that they have their products tested by the company under discussion - and that suggests that the company under discussion is well respected (i.e. notable) in the industry (or surely they wouldn't mention the company name). WyrmUK 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparently zero notice anywhere except in online trade "press" plus a customer mentioning that, well, they're a customer -- by this standard any concern not wholly defunct would be notable. And even if there were "a lot of references on the internet," it almost certainly wouldn't help. You need to argue from WP:COMPANY, not from vague good intentions. EEng (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no sources [36]. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no third party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WinShell[edit]

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

Despite a previous AfD which closed as keep and which was 'flagged for rescue' by the Article Rescue Squadron, there are still scant sources to demonstrate notability. There's a smattering of trivial sourcing, but nothing to pass GNG AFAIK. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that they all seem to be trivial mentions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A six-page exclusive article is not "trivial" by any stretch of the imagination. --Karnesky (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is the six page article again? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the six-page mention in the German-language book source. --Pnm (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac James (band)[edit]

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

Is this really Notable? Rd232 talk 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Notable qualifications, the band meets the requirement in a couple of ways. Two notable members. Both Joel Ekman and Blackie Starks have done notable things. [1]Joel Ekman was the co-founder and drummer for Stone Sour, Blackie Starks has a song on a Nascar DVD titled Nascar Images Adrenaline Vol 1[2] and two of his former bands have had songs in full FM major rotation.

Currently the band Isaac James has songs in full FM major rotation and has distribution in major retail outlets including Best Buy and Itunes[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionyourbeliefs (talk • contribs) — Questionyourbeliefs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak as it may be it still meets the minimum requirement. Here's something else for you I found while looking, Blackie's former band Field of Grey was signed to Spectra Records [4] while he was still fronting it. Spectra also is home for artists such as Lou Gramm of Foreigner, T-Rex, and Cutting Crew. That means that two artists in this band have had major record deals and have had major FM airplay. Questionyourbeliefs (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2010

References[edit]

  1. ^ www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=116264
  2. ^ www.amazon.com/NASCAR-Adrenaline-Vol-Michael-Madsen/dp/B0002I83XQ
  3. ^ itunes.apple.com/us/album/too-much-horsepower/id322599518
  4. ^ www.spectrarecords.com/09artists.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works... meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND[1][2]

User:Questionyourbeliefs 11:45, December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almir Aganovic[edit]

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

BLP unsourced for over 2 years, no reliable secondary sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This search shows (a very small number of) potential non-English sources but I'm unable to read them to check if they qualify and current policy is that unsourced BLPs should not be given the benefit of the doubt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any WP:RS to show WP:BIO. Found mostly wiki-mirrors and nothing new to add. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very easy to source, and I have done so, right out of google news archive with the help of google translate. Did the nominator even think to look? And not only will sources in any language do for Wikipedia , but if online, they're easier to use than they used to be because Google translate and other translation programs are available to give at least the rough meaning for almost all languages? Not all the older G News archive links still work, but there are is a useful summary at [37] DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As DGG was able to source and added to the article. I fixed some of the wording but the article is still short and reads poorly. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon D. Allen (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. IQinn (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Writing a book does not satisfy the general notability guidelines, although being written ABOUT may. Of all of your comment, only the PBS documentary would count towards notability - are you able to cite it? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is already cited, currently the first citation, to WETA, the PBS station that produced the documentary. Also please note that she is one of the characters in a play -- about soldiers who wrote from the front. Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7: author request HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon D. Allen (OARDEC)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. IQinn (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ www.weeklyclipper.com/
  2. ^ http://www.afreshentertainmentmagazine.com/photography/isaac-james-band
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_30&oldid=1142640081"