Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 September 29 September >

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 Merge to Wind Jet#Accidents and incidents. There is clearly no consensus for this to be deleted, but a number of the rationales for keeping it as a separate article appear to be faulty. Suggesting that the article be kept to wait if it becomes notable later is clearly a non sequitur which effectively argues that it's not notable now - the opening comment, and four other "Keep per..." rationales, stated this. Other Keeps invoked WP:OSE (or even OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) but there is generally a failure to rebut the argument that we are talking about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT here. However there is clearly no reason why some of the material should not be included in the airline's article (where I note there is already a summary). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Jet Flight 243[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wind Jet Flight 243 (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 about a non-fatal air accident which fails WP:EVENT by virtue of having zero evidence of historical notability or significance. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for now. There seems to be this bizarre idea on AfD that no deaths = no notability, but that has no basis in policy or in practice. It is verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources, and there's no harm in waiting a few months to see if anything comes of it. It's unreasonable to ask for evidence of historical significance 3 days after the fact. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Make your mind up - is it notable already, or are you asking for permission for it to hang around because it's not doing any harm, so that we can assess it later on? The first approach to deletion is perfectly valid, but the second one isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I'm going to have to break down your vote here further and respond, because it looks like we already have a game of follow the leader emerging.
    "There seems to be this bizarre idea on AfD that no deaths = no notability"
    It's nice to know you think that, but it's quite irrelevant, as I did not nominate it for deletion for that reason, it is provided for background information only. The relevant page is WP:EVENT, which has no such requirement, or exclusion, for that matter.
    "but that has no basis in policy or in practice."
    per the above - it was an irrelevant point in the first place, so there was no need to start dredging up other irrelevant articles off the back of it to somehow imply that this article has some sort of accepted precedent behind it. It does not.
    "It is verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources,"
    this is simply a WP:VAGUEWAVE....presumably to WP:N, but without a link, we (and others already), are just guessing at what you might mean.
    "and there's no harm in waiting a few months to see if anything comes of it."
    this is a classic non-argument - WP:NOHARM. There is every harm in turning Wikipedia into a news article waiting room. The Article Incubator is where we keep the articles that have potential, but cannot be shown to be worhty of inclusion yet....or better yet, your sandbox, if you are volunteering to take responsibility for it....
    "It's unreasonable to ask for evidence of historical significance 3 days after the fact"
    It is unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to temporarily host articles so that they can hang around just on the off-chance they might become notable in a few months, and then expect others to go around cleaning up the inevitable mess and leftover cruft such a misguided approach to the deletion policy would, and does, create. There is nothing unreasonable about this at all, this is how Afd works all day every day, and it is precisely this sort of article that WP:EVENT was written for, so you can hardly ignore it if you think it's requirements are inconvenient.
    MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Kafziel. Shiva (Visnu) 00:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? None at all? Are we playing follow the leader here today? MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be calm and respectful - do not badger/insult other people just because they disagree with you. Shiva (Visnu) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an Afd. It is not disrespectful or badgering to expect you to have your own opinion on the matter. Given that your only contribution here is to agree with a contradictory rationale, whose actual intention w.r.t. the issue is still open to interpretation, I should think that it is more respectful for you to realise the deficiency of making such a vote, and correct it, rather than implying wrongdoing in others. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly advise you to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA out of respect for Wikipedia and your fellow Wikipedians. Rudeness and belligerence only drown out the opinion you are expressing. Shiva (Visnu) 02:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I strongly advise you to read the pages you are linking to. If you think for one second I am going to let you wave around NPA as if that is remotely relevant here, you are quite wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per sound reasoning provided by Kafziel--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing that it is both notable right now, and that it should be kept to see if it becomes notable, is not sound reasoning in the slightest. It is positively unsound reasoning infact. You would have more chance of having your vote counted if you didn't just piggy back other people's thoughts, when it's not even clear what policy or guideline is backing up their rather vague and WP:ATA-like opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well Mick if you looked at your track record at recent AfDs and mine it would be very clear who has a problem getting their !votes counted. And let me boldly predict that there is no way in hell this article will be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treating it as a game as ever WR. I'm guessing you put as much thought into this Afd as all the others based on the evidence. I am pretty sure that whatever happened in those other debates, the outcomes really had nothing to do with anything you might have said, which is generally not a lot, as you can only seem to manage these sorts of 'per x' votes anyway, and then fall back on this ridiculous grandstanding act of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and all your WP:WL got you nowhere MMN. looks like people are giving more weight to my 'per X' !vote than anything you have to say. I dont think that you get it that nobody cares what your arguments are anymore. this AfD is another fine example. needless waste of time IMO--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are in their wisdom giving weight to Kafziel's opinion, without expansion or clarification. Whether that is a good idea or not, we shall see. But with your comment here demonstrating just how little thought you put into this Afd, I'm pretty sure your particular influence on the closer's reading of it has just dropped to zero, if it wasn't that low before. You have nothing to offer here except pulling irrelevant acronyms like WL out of your ass and being a boring grandstander. MickMacNee (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:MickMacNee - I know you have been warned before, but please read WP:CIVIL and adhere to it. Sniping at everyone here who disagrees with you and using uncivil language like you did here adds nothing to this AfD, which is an obvious WP:SNOW case. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of things add nothing to an Afd. This warning was just one of them. You should just concentrate on not making the sort of reading mistakes like you did down below, and let others worry about their knowledge, or lack of, of the contents of CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps when you have time you can add an update here as to how well the campaign of harassment, insults and vitriol is moving this AfD forward. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is moving things forward is it? And kindly do not use terms like harassment here, that has a real meaning here, and it does not even come close to what your apparent issue with me is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if no body died in this accident, the 123 people are very lucky to be alive. Flight 243 touched the ground at only few yards from the rocks and sea and this accident could have been a disaster. If we don't want to consider the 20 walking wounded we could at least look at the fact that an Airbus 319, worth millions of dollars (not italian lire), wont ever fly again because its structural damages. Also, we need to consider that this accident was caused by "windshear", very common at Palermo airport (between sea and mountain), and the problem could happen again. Have a article/record on wikipedia of this type of accident has more than one reason to exist.--Sal73x (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes - it is entirely possible, and appropriate, to have a record of the incident on Wikipedia, without actually having an article on the incident. The idea that an aircraft was written off (citation?) means that an incident is automatically notable, is an entirely disputed one at present - can you imagine the implications of having an article for every single airliner write-off on Wikipedia? It's a recipe for disaster just like this incident, and it's simply not our mission. That content disaster can hopefully be avoided with a bit of common sense, and adherence to WP:EVENT, otherwise, why did lots of editors spend the time writing it and getting it approved, for it to be ignored? If there is an issue with Palermo and windshear in particular, then that should be being treated within a separate article, not by documenting every near-disaster on it's own page, but I don't see it, if it already exists. And if it doesn't, then creating that article rather than defending this one, is what should be under consideration. MickMacNee (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delete - We do not have articles on bus crashes. I fail to see why this is any more notable. Not enough media coverage either. I really do not understand why there are single articles on these minor incidents. It would be much better if there was a monthly or yearly article to document in reasonable detail each crash. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This accident is notable for these reasons; It is the first major accident suffered by Wind Jet (and therefore the worst/most significant). The accident closed the airport for almost two days. Should the aircraft be declared a hull-loss, it will also be the first in-service hull-loss accident for the A319 (another A319 was written off in a maintenance accident in 2003). Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Wikiprojects notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closer should note that Mjroots is the article creator, and that this definition of notability is completely of his own making, it has no support in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and does not even have support of the Aviation project. The factors he describes here are not even worthy of their own article according to WP:AIRCRASH, the Aviation Project's own notability essay. He has also completely failed to show how any of these facts are considered worthy of notice by external sources, rather than in his own personal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, MickMacNee, my definition of notability is V x many RSs = N. There is no "rule" that sources have to be non-specialist, or from English Language publishers that I am aware of. AFAIK, all sources used in the article are reliable. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You call that a definition? I call it a WP:VAGUEWAVE. For the purposes of Afd it's completely meaningless, unless you can demonstrate with some actual words and some actual evidence from the actual article, that you appreciate the concepts behind the linked pages and how they apply here, and even better, why you think EVENT is completely ignorable, as if it was written in invisible ink, instead of being the appropriate interpretation of 'V * RS' in this case. So far, you've completely failed to do that. As a notability 'rule', it could be applied to justify inclusion of anything and everything on Google News right now. If you did actually take the time to review and understand the linked pages behind your defintion, you would see that yes, they do actually explain how just relying on specialist sources is not objective evidence of notability. The specialist sources used in this article write lengthy reports on the most trivial of incidents, that would never ever get a Wikipedia article, so pointing to them and waving your rule around is hardly objective evidence in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • From WP:EVENT - WP:GEOSCOPE, the accident has received coverage at least at national level. WP:INDEPTH, the coverage has been in depth. WP:DIVERSE, the coverage has been diverse. WP:BREAKING, It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer - I delayed creating the article as it was not immediately clear how badly damaged the aircraft was. My opinion is that it is likely to be declared a write-off, but even if it isn't, this is still a significant accident. I haven't mentioned the other sections under WP:EVENT as the position is either "we don't know yet" or "that doesn't apply here". Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I and other people have already pointed out with detailed explanations, the coverage is not in depth, and it is not diverse. The depth of coverage is simple news reports, which do not cover the incident in anything other than in a completely routine news reporting manner. The (lack of) diversity of coverage comprises just those news reports, and specialist aviation sources. And as already explained at tiresome length, for air accident current events, this is not impartial evidence of notability or significance. Even if you link to a section in EVENT using a shortcut, if all you are doing is saying 'it meets this', without demonstrating you know how or why, then this is still a pointless VAGUEWAVE. You only delayed writing the article until it met your personal standard of notability for being a 'serious crash', and now you are trying to bolt on definitions of coverage which it does not meet, and looks like it never will. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • My final words on this AfD: MickMacNee, you have a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and need to stop flogging the WP:DEADHORSE. Even when I attempt to show that it does meet WP:EVENT, you dismiss the idea. I've every confidence that the closing editor will fully evaluate all comments and having done so, make the right decision re this AfD. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are quite correct, I don't like poor or invalid Afd arguments, and getting a proper expression of an actual case for keeping this article out of you does often feel like beating a dead horse. If anyone doubts that your points from the RS*V 'definition' and beyond are not completely wavey, then just go and pick any random item from Google News and apply them to whatever random junk you found. I guarantee you won't find a delete in the pile. Even if you don't know when you are waving Mjroots, I'm sure the closer will. If not, he should know where it's going, if he does not convincingly break it down for all the non-surfers in here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that we don't get articles about disastrous bus crashes means we need those, not that we should delete articles about serious aviation incidents. __meco (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that is a remotely realistic stance? See here for an indication as to whether articles on serious bus crashes are needed or not, it's an Afd on the most serious bus crashes in the UK in recent memory, and it's not heading for a keep so far. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the airline's article. The problem with this being a stand-alone article is that all the coverage comes either from industry-specific sources or from the Italian press. If it had sources from around the world it may be worth keeping, but I don't think it passes WP:EVENT without it. That said, some of the content should be included at the airline's article and the title retained as a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note article also has sources from USA/Canada and Ireland. Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, not sure how I missed that. The trouble is that it isn't really significant coverage, at only 100 words. I can't see any US coverage, and the Irish stuff won't open (probably a problem at my end). The only other international source I could find was this, but that's also very short. I'm forced to conclude that the majority of the interest in this has been limited to national and industry-based sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The fact that the Italian press has given cover to this accident for the lasts 5 days should be already a good reason to make this accident worthy of a page on wikipedia. About US coverage, here are two more articles about "Flight 243", here1 and here2.--Sal73x (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:EVENT generally requires either long-lasting coverage (which five days isn't) and/or substantial international coverage or impact, plus "diversity of sources". The two sources you've linked to are indeed from the USA, but one's an industry-specific magazine (so not diverse) and the second is 40 words in a blog (so not significant, and probably not even reliable). What we really need is something like CNN or the New York Times, but I couldn't find anything of that calibre. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kafziel. Edward321 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - complies with the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH in that it is "Airline - First, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline" - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but no, this is completely wrong, and should be totally ignored by the closer. What the essay actually says is: "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline". MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, I misread that essay and so will stick to guidelines instead of essays - Keep - complies with WP:N in that sufficient reliable third-party references establish notability and the incident is serious enough to have a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Complies with WP:N' is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE, and completely ignores the fact that N is a presumption, not a right. And you can hardly claim with any credibility that the incident is serious enough to have a stand-alone article, when defining exactly that, is the actual purpose behind the AIRCRASH essay. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well constructed article which also good references. Just because no one died don't make it not notable. Bjmullan (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And being well constructed and having good references doesn't make it notable either. Again to the closer, I did not nominate this for deletion because nobody died, so kindly ignore any and all insinuations of this sort, they are completely irrelevant. The nomination rationale is WP:EVENT, and voters should be adressing it directly, or otherwise giving proper reasons why this should be kept, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article covers a well know event in Italy User:Lucifero4
  • Merge. As the event is too recent for its significance to become clear, it should be merged into Wind Jet as a new section until its status is clear. WP:BREAKING recommends that "editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." Jimmy Pitt talk 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A serious aviation accident that could have easily been much worse and I like many readers will want to know what the cause was. This is not a 'vote' BTW but a personal opinion formed after some time on WP and experience at AfD. Surpasses the WP:SIGCOV requirements for an article by some margin in my view. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)It doesn't take a separate article for Wikipedia to be still able to serve that purpose. MickMacNee (talk)
  • The suggestion that the accident may be due to windshear might get the accident some sort of long term notability, otherwise I would be tempted to merge with the airline.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no requirement that air crashes need to be fatal in order for them to be notable. Air crashes of this nature are invariably investigated very thoroughly, far more thoroughly than bus crashes. Landing short of the runway is unusual, very perilous, and not a simple routine "snag". For comparison, a similar accident is British Airways Flight 38 which did not bring about any fatalities either. Note coverage in more than news sources, e.g. [1], so this is not a NOT#NEWS case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, some notes for the closer on this editor's keep rationale, to make sure we are all on the same page on this Afd, and avoid a DRV.
    There is no requirement that air crashes need to be fatal in order for them to be notable.
    This is not the reason for deletion, this is completely irrelevant. The relevant criteria is EVENT, nothing more, nothing less.
    Air crashes of this nature are invariably investigated very thoroughly, far more thoroughly than bus crashes.
    Why is this relevant? All aircrashes are investigated very thoroughly, even ones that the most inclusionist of inclusionists would agree are not notable. This is completely irrelevant to this Afd.
    Landing short of the runway is unusual, very perilous, and not a simple routine "snag".
    So? Does this statement reference any guideline about whether we consider such incidents notable or not? No, it does not. Short landings might be rare, but they are common enough for them not to be considered automatically notable. If anybody disagrees, please by all means, provide actual proof that they are. The only available topic specific resource on how serious an incident must be to have an article is the Aviation Project's essay WP:AIRCRASH, and that does not mandate creating this article.
    For comparison, a similar accident is British Airways Flight 38 which did not bring about any fatalities either.
    So? Other crap exists - does the voter provide any evidence that this is a case where we can validly make an Other Stuff argument? Not in the slightest The BA38 article meets EVENT, because that article contains evidence of lasting significance and historical importance. This is because the cause was a design flaw, which led to a design change. The only comparison between the two incidents is that nobody died and it was pretty serious - nobody in their right mind can surely believe this is what makes a valid Other Stuff argument. If they do, speak up now.
    Note coverage in more than news sources, e.g. [2], so this is not a NOT#NEWS case.
    Why are we noting it? As has already been stated, the fact that the Aviation Herald has written about this incident is completely irrelevant. If anybody cares to peruse that site, they cover many more incidents than would ever ever get their own Wikipedia article. It is irrelevant.
    So, in short, what are we left with here with this vote? A failure to address the nomination, and a failure to give any other policy backed reason for keeping the article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per all the other Keep entries - no need to repat the same points over and over and over and over. BilCat (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep: the national and international coverage (in the Clare Herald, Canadian Press and the aviation press in general) more than meet WP:Event. Additionally, this accident (not incident as erroneously referred to above) is almost identical to the B-777 British Airways Flight 38 accident at London Heathrow Airport in 2008, where only by the GofG did every single passenger on board not die, but there was not a single fatality.
For your future reference, aviation authorities classify near events such as loss of separation or severe turbulence causing non-serious injuries as an 'incident'. An aircraft crash landing that causes serious injuries or structural damage is an 'accident'. When the landing gear collapsed on this particular aircraft, the wing spar structures, wing box and fuel compartments were undoubtedly severely damaged, and the Airbus will likely be a hull-loss, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, can the closer please note the simple argument by assertion being used here, as to whether this 'clearly' meets wp:event or not. If there was any substance to this idea, there would surely be more explanation forthcoming, with actual reference to both the content of the sources and the guideline, not just this simple assertion. And I say again, how is an engine issue even remotely related to a wind sheear event? For the purposes of EVENT, and the Aviation Project's own essay, it is not. And the essay very clearly states this incident is not worthy of an article. And all this talk of survival by the 'grace of god' is simply examining the issue from pure news values, and there is zero actual hard evidence being offered up here that reliable sources treat this as relevant to the accident's lasting notability at all. We know some editors clearly do, but that's another matter entirely. The Clare Herald for example doesn't take a blind bit of notice of this aspect if it - it carried the story from a finance perspective, because Windjet was leasing the Irish registered plane. There is absolutely nothing significant or historically notable about that fact. The wire coverage is similarly devoid of any depth of treatment of this, or infact any other, aspect of this accident. It is entirely routine wire reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to long-term effects of the crash from the investigation being carried out, brings it beyond a single WP:EVENT, as well as being more than a WP:NOTNEWS case. C628 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you keep making this same point in every Afd? Every single air accident/incident prompts an official investigation. This is the law in every country. So unless you are arguing here for total inclusion of all aviation incidents no matter how trivial, which would be beyond the wildest dreams of the most inclusionist of editors surely, then for the purposes of this Afd, this is completely irrelevant. And if you are implying that the investigation is going to bring up some evidence of lasting effects or significance, this is of course simply an invalid vote, per WP:CRYSTAL. And once again for the benefit of the closer, can we please see some actual hard evidence for this simple assertion that this is more than a NOT#NEWS case. I'm certainly not seeing it, and it's not been added to the article in the grand total of the 16 edits it has received in the 5 days since the accident. Infact, I don't see any news coverage beyond 2 days after the event [3], which is exactly what you would expect in such an obvious case of basic and routine news reporting only. MickMacNee (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it reflects my interpretation of policy regarding this. C628 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your interpretation is clearly wrong then. To keep an article on every single air accident or incident that gets investigated would be a very clear and very obvious violation of WP:NOT. And because that is a policy, there is no possible interpretation of any guideline, not GNG, not EVENT, or anything else, that would allow NOT to be ignored in such a way. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MickMacNee said it in one. Petebutt (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced, and as has been said before, no deaths does not mean not notable. Sure it will never be FA material, but it seems good enough in my opinion. Also: MickMacNee: Your beheavior in this AfD is completely unacceptable. You have been uncivil in your responses and badgered anyone with a contradictory view. This is not how discussions should take place. You can post counter arguments, but don't go after the posters. Sven Manguard Talk 02:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable and reliable sources seem to show a fair amount of notability. Kafziel sums my thoughts up nicely. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than a news story with no real notability. WP:NOTNEWS used to be a policy once. Resolute 04:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the reasons given by Alzarian, as a first choice; delete, for the reasons and rebuttals by Mick MacNee as a second. A routine air incident with no evidence of enduring notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. The sources listed are very nearly routine, and the coverage shows no indication of being "long-lasting." A paragraph or so on the company's main page should suffice, unless some unique factor of the airport is in play, in which case it could go there as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transfer it to WikiNews. This incident is banal, and inconsequential, and quite lacking in encyclopaedic notability. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ordinary news item. Currently and unlikely to be of historical significance. Coverage is not wide or in-depth enough to pass EVENT; no widespread international coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes it has got a flurry of coverage at the time of the incident, but it doesn't seem to have gone beyond that (no coverage in the last few days that I can see). There is simply no evidence that this is of any lasting significance. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting impact or importance demonstrated. Many of the keep calls are garden variety WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:HARMLESS, and should be discounted accordingly. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Historical notability is not existent, thus also fails WP:EVENT, for those saying keep and wait a few months to assess historical context I would argue that it would be more appropriate to delete and wait. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search returns about a dozen Enlgish-language plus another hundred non-English results from reliable sources, so it's notable. The article itself also has about a dozen references, so it's cited properly and therefere verifiable. What's the issue? Oh wait, "enduring" or "historical" notability? Why does that sound familiar? Like some sort of logical fallacy that I've heard of before? Oh, because it is, it's called "Raising the bar," or "Moving the goalpost." If it's not "enduringly" notable, we're free to revisit the issue in as many months or as few days as we like. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my understanding is that WP:EVENT has been a guideline for over a year, and the mere fact that something gets hundreds of citations doesn't make it notable. For example--are those hundreds of results actually different stories, or are they the same story being replicated because of the use of a shared wire service? Measuring notability isn't about counting. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EVENT
  • "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..." The story has received international coverage.
  • "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." So, as to whether or not there is enduring or historical notability, the guidelines appear to suggest that waiting to see how things unfold isn't an unreasonable position to take. Wikipedia is not crystal ball and neither are its editors.
  • "Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source" The independent sources for the Enlish language stories are the Canadian Press, AFP, Thomson Reuters, Air Transport Intelligence news, and ITAR-TASS. So there are multiple indpendent sources. Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the idea that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" means we should err on the side of not including a topic until it's proven to be notable, not vice-versa. I have to say that, in a certain way, I honestly don't understand current-event AfDs. We have another site--Wikinews--which is specifically made to handle these types of stories. Why do they need a Wikipedia article before its clear that the event will be notable? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument now boils down to: even though you don't dispute that the event has received international coverage from multiple independent sources it's not a notable event because enough time hasn't elapsed to be proven to have "enduring notability" even though the guideline you first referenced clearly states that just because an event is recent doesn't mean it's not notable? So you just pick and choose the parts of guidelines you yourself reference? Mtiffany71 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that you're also skipping over parts of the guideline. Note that it doesn't say "Events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread international coverage." It says "if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered..." (my emphasis). To me, it's absolutely and perfectly obvious that this story has neither national nor international "widespread impact". Yes, it got significant coverage in Italy for 4 days, and some international coverage in addition to that. But the event was literally as follows: an airplane landed badly, injuring about 20 people (none very seriously), and shut down the airport for about 2 days. No one was accused of negligence, malfeasance, terrorism, or anything other than being the victim of difficult weather. How can that possible satisfy any commonplace notion of "widespread impact"? How can that meet even a commonplace idea of notability, much less Wikipedia's far stricter notability guideline? Many many many incidents get international press coverage. Should we have articles (I mean separate articles, not inclusion in a bigger article) about a celebrity breakup, about when Sports Star X hits a photographer who's getting to close, about this year's commemoration of a historical event? All of these things get as much or more coverage, even internationally, as this event did, and all of them flat out fail notability. Again, just because something gets coverage does not inherently make it notable. You need a stronger argument than "can be sourced, even a lot" to establish notability. Maybe this discussion is going beyond the bounds of this particular AfD, so maybe I should take it somewhere else, but to me the quality of the encyclopedia suffers if we don't carefully distinguish between newsworthy and notable.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, no offense, but I don't have to care about what you find to be "absolutely and perfectly obvious." But since you're so perceptive, let me just ask, seeing as how you seem to know everything about this particular event that needs to be known, how is it that you're so sure that this crash wasn't caused by a manufacturing defect that is inherent to every single one of four thousand plus planes in the Airbus A320 family that are in service today? I'd just like to know. Is it 'cause you're psychic or just so much smarter than everyone else? 'Cause the point that I keep making and you so conveniently keep NOT addressing, is that we don't know whether or not this is a one-off event, or the first event among many, like what happened with the de Havilland Comet, and only time will tell. Probably is a one-off event, and I do hope so - I don't want to see more people get hurt, but it might not be; and it is well covered (even if you say it isn't), with multiple reliable sources (even if you say there aren't) of international scope (even if you say it isn't -- facts being stubborn things and all), so the only thing harmed by waiting, apparently, is your delicate immediatist sensibilities. So show me the guideline which states that I'm required to defer to your approach to editing at the expense of my own and I'll gladly and humbly change my recommendation. In the meantime... Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with air crashes is usually something like this - Accident gets a wide amount of initial reporting. Within 30 days or so, an initial report is released, then it generally all goes quiet for many months until a final report is released. This can be two years or more after the accident. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By Mtiffany71's (what I think is backwards) interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, if I understand it correctly, as soon as someone puts up a new article on a news subject, and that subject is covered by some minimum number of international sources, it has to stay up on Wikipedia indefinitely until we can conclusively say it didn't pass the test of time. That seems to potentially be very harmful to the project, but obviously, that's my opinion. And no, I don't know that the crash wasn't caused by a manufacturing defect--but I do know that none of the sources we cited say or suggest that it was (so far, they're guessing not so unusual wind-shear problems). If the reliable sources did assert some sort of bigger problem (with the aircraft, the pilots, the airports, the company, etc.), then that would be another claim to notability, and might sway my opinion. In any event, I think we're both clear that this is an intractable problem based on two different interpretations of policy and guidelines, so I guess I'll let it rest and leave it in the hands of others and the closing admin, whatever that decision might be. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are incidents that are obviously notable at first glance, and those that are obviously not. They are easy to spot. Unfortunately, there are other incidents that fall into te gray area in between, in which it is difficult to know at the time they happen if they will prove to be notable or not. It's easy to know which ones are the gray ones, because they're the ones in which the discussions go on and on for days. There are those who think that all the gray-area incidents should be kept until they are proven non-notable, and they base that view on policies and guidelines. Then there are those who believe that these incidents should not have articles until their notability is proven unequivocally, and they also base that on policies and guidelines.

But those aren't the only choses available to us. There is a way, within reason, to determine which incidents were likely to be notable, and which were not. It was the closest thing to a crystal ball that we can have. It isn't perfect, but it's only a filter to help us gauge likely notability. Once one has been involved with a number of AFDs, it becomes easier to gauge which incidents will be notable, and which won't. Only hindsight is 20/20, and we sometimes do misjudge, but those misjudgments help us improve our "prognosticating". One shouldn't assume all incidents are going to be non-notable anymore that one should assume they will all be notable. But one can guess, within reason, which are likely to be, and which aren't, though there will still be borderline incidents for which notability will still be hard to predict. But with the right filters, at least one can reduce to the number to something more manageable, and that way, we don't have to argue for days on end every time an aviation accident and incident happens. Or we can be intractable every time. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are those who think that all the gray-area incidents should be kept until they are proven non-notable, and they base that view on policies and guidelines." - which policy or guideline allows articles to be kept around until they are proven to be non-notable? Forgetting how long that can take to definitvely prove for air accidents, this standpoint rather naively ignores WP:NTEMP. I have absolutely no doubt that if this article were kept as a sort of 'borderline case' (which is debatable when looking at the way this is being argued), and then it were put to Afd say, two years later once the official report is out and all concrete consequences are known without doubt, then it probaby wouldn't matter one bit if there had actually been absolutely nothing about this crash that was historically significant, you would frankly not be able to move in that 2nd Afd for 'Keep - Notability is not temporary', or 'Keep - it was already kept once because it was notable' type votes, once again, completely ignoring the deletion rationale, which would of course, be EVENT. That is why you won't ever find a guideline or policy anywhere that allows this sort of deferred judgement at Afd over whether to keep something or not, that allows articles of questionable value to be kept hanging around for later determination whether they belong here or not at the time. Your main point on whether it is notable now or not simply seems to be that because people argue about this idea, it must be in question. This is false. The people who are arguing that it is, despite their personal theories, vague wave protestations, and even cherry picking of single sentences of EVENT while ignoring the rest of it, really do not have any policy, guideline on their side, and can only ever rely on vote-stacked Afd decisions like the way this one was going. And I think you and anybody else can see from the way the tide has turned in here after this Afd came to wider notice at ANI, that the wider community view of these accidents and their notability, outside the Aviation regulars and people turning up to 'find out more' and then of course voting keep, is not so persuasive as you want to claim. This is because things like EVENT are written with wide community input, from all topics, and all viewpoints on inclusionism. And this is why I think we will apparently never ever see someone who supports these articles put this supposed Afd consensus into an actual topic specific Guideline so that we don't have to argue this every time. The closest Wikipedia has ever got to trying to filter these types of accidents based on just common sense, or even a sixth sense, and avoid pointless repetetive argumentation at Afd, is the essay WP:AIRCRASH. And that essay quite simply does not say this accident is one of the ones that should be considered immediately notable. 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT were designed to protect against. I'd call it disaster-porn, but it wasnt even a disaster. A plane landed short of a runway. No one was hurt until they were evacuating. This is deserving of coverage in an encyclopedia... how? -- ۩ Mask 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've withdrawn the nomination and this obviously meets WP:SNOW. Since nobody else seems to be showing up to close it, I'm going to IAR and do it myself. I don't think anything productive will come from keeping it going, and this way the article has a better chance at WP:DYK. No reason the author should be penalized for this train wreck of an AfD. Thanks to all who worked on improving it. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William James Wanless[edit]

William James Wanless (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)

Apparent hagiography that does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lines such as "He gave sight to 13,000 blinds" [sic] and "He began With a vision in his mind" cast some doubt on the neutrality of the author, and there doesn't seem to be in depth coverage in reliable third-party resources. It's possible that this may be improved, but it's been a couple of days and it doesn't seem to be getting much better. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the same . I have made necessary changes to the article. Kindly have a look. -- . Shlok talk . 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has been cleaned up significantly and has several relaible sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sir William Wanless was an enormously influential and notable figure. I will clean up the article and add references when I have time (which won't be this week). --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Silly nomination that could have been handled by a cleanup tag or a few quick edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can show me how this meets WP:BIO (or maybe WP:ACADEMIC?), rather than just saying it's "silly" and that he is "enormously notable". As far as I can tell, none of his accomplishments are particularly noteworthy. A delegate to the 1910 World Missionary Conference? Judging from the pic in that article, there were an awful lot of those. President of the Missionary Medical Association of India? Is that a notable organization? Is it the same as the Christian Medical Association of India? I don't know. Is 75,000 surgeries a lot? Does that somehow satisfy the notability criteria? Not as far as I can see. And, yes, the British Medical Journal wrote a nice obituary for him, but that's not really the best source to prove what a "prolific" writer he was; how about citing some of the actual stuff he wrote, so we can judge for ourselves how prolific he was? This is not just a matter of clean-up; as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to assert notability at all, at least as far our guidelines go. But, again, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to speedy keep. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly because the GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article uses multiple independent obituaries and other sources. You argument isn't over significant coverage in reliable sources, but about whether he deserved the coverage that he received, which is silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I never said anything about anybody "deserving" an article. And I generally agree with you about significant coverage in reliable sources trumping all else. I'm not here to argue with you, so can you leave off the name calling and just show me this significant coverage? Obituaries do not constitute significant coverage; if I die tomorrow, I will get an obit in the Los Angeles times, a very well-known and reliable source, but it won't get me a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to work on the article to improve it, and have done what I can so far, but I can't manufacture sources. It's by no means "silly" to ask for some. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "none of his accomplishments are particularly noteworthy", which is arguing that he didn't deserved the coverage that he received, an argument I find silly. While you may get a paid funeral notice in the paper, the equivalent of taking out an ad, you are not getting an obituary there. You may hope you get one, but unlikely, unless you are planning some mass murder-suicide, but I do admire your ego. Your also using a variation of the strawman fallacy. By knocking the LA Times, and arguing everyone gets an obit there, and ignoring his two other obituaries, including multiple articles in the New York Times. Finally, there was no name calling, if I had said "you are silly" that would have been an example of mild name calling, I called the nomination silly. Nominations aren't people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. Calling something "silly" is exactly the sort of example used at WP:CIVIL, section 1 ("Direct rudeness"), letter d. (They're not calling the person "rambling crap", they're calling the content "rambling crap". A six-year-old might try to make a distinction, but adults like you and I and everyone else on Wikipedia know better.) I don't have to put up with personal attacks just because I dared to nominate some random article for deletion. I didn't do this to piss you off, so there's no need for personal remarks. Next time, leave them out.
As for the actual matter at hand - a source alone does not immediately equal notability. It has to be a source indicating some notable thing, and I don't see how any of those things in the lead paragraph indicate notability. I think I explained that pretty well. I didn't say they definitely don't - I said as far as I can tell, they don't, and I asked a bunch of questions. Pretty reasonable questions, I'd say. How many other 1910 World Missionary Conference delegates have articles here? Are there any? Do we even know? At any rate, I think it's safe to say there aren't any bios here whose sole claim to fame is attending that conference, so it's reasonable to conclude that that alone doesn't make Dr. Wanless notable, either. There are an awful lot of conferences in this world; why does his attendance of this particular conference matter? That's not a rhetorical question. Neither was my question about the Missionary Medical Association of India. I've never heard of it, I don't know what it is, and it doesn't have an article here, so it's not necessarily significant that he was president of it. From the sources (or lack thereof), it was impossible to say. As for the 75,000 surgeries thing, that turned out to have been fraudulently cited and has since been removed (by you) after I raised the question and pointed out the flaw. Needless to say, that doesn't seem very silly to me at all.
Actually that is all that matters: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're preaching to the choir. I already said I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is no exact definition of "significant coverage". You say it's an obituary. I say it ain't. That's why we have these discussions - to see what everybody else says (or, as was the case here, to find better coverage and render the argument moot). Kafziel Complaint Department 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, there are now some sources that better prove notability. As I hoped from the beginning (and stated in my nomination), the page is improved and I'm all for keeping it. If anyone had bothered to do that a bit sooner, instead of just arguing semantics and making personal remarks, we could have closed this. But now we have another delete vote even if I withdraw mine, so it can no longer be speedied. Assuming everything remains status quo, it will probably SNOW close soon enough. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't !voting on the state of the article at any given time, we are !voting on the subject and their notability independent of the state of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Articles for Deletion, not Subjects for Deletion. Obviously we don't delete articles for minor problems like bad spelling and grammar (or this one would still be in big trouble) but an article about a potentially notable subject can absolutely be deleted if sufficient sources can't be provided. Happens all the time. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can read WP:before which says: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." or learn how to use the Internets, so you can perform some due diligence before you nominate. Or just say, hmmm, I wonder if an obituary in the New York Times and an obituary in the LA Times, and a knighthood may constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're still going with the whole personal attacks thing? Is that the situation? Kafziel Complaint Department 19:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete starting a missionary hospital is in no way notable. many such hospitals exist all over the world run by physicians of dubious competence. He is not notable professionally. clearly fails WP:BIO by miles.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion is always welcome, however, the GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That is the only rule that matters and trumps all others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Wikireader41 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't tell it from the article right now, and I don't have time to rewrite it this week, but I'll try to at least redo the lead paragraph to show his notability. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call him "the Albert Schweizer of India". He turned the once-small village of Miraj into the medical powerhouse of India. By the time he retired, the clinic he started had become a 250-bed hospital [4]; the Wanless Hospital (still named after him 100 years later) is now a 550 bed teaching hospital. [5]) He founded the first missionary medical school in India, in 1897.[6] Also still in existence are the Wanless Chest Hospital and the Mary Wanless Hospital. With a legacy like that - major hospitals founded by him and named for him, even the neighborhood of Miraj known as Wanlesswadi (how many people get a neighborhood of a city named after them?) - he almost defines notability. You wouldn't expect to find his writings at Google Scholar since he retired in 1928; he fills the much more basic requirement of WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not a Just a neighborhood of Miraj but it is a place where the Wanless Chest Hospital is located and also recognized by the Government of India (Pin code of Wanlesswadi, Maharashtra is 416414.) And One more thing ,He himself doesn’t gave the name Wanless wadi but the citizens of this part of India have gave this Name to honor and remember Kaisar-i-Hind Dr. Sir William James Wanless as “ wanless-Wadi” that is Wanless town.-- . Shlok talk . 15:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - His name to Railway station- Also to the be noted that Indian railway has a station called ‘Wanlesswadi’ on Miraj-Sangli Route opened on 1st April 1907. And the official gazettee of goverment of India described Wanlesswadi as “famous for its medical institutions”maharashtra.gov-- . Shlok talk . 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As you asked “Is 75,000 surgeries a lot?” ( see above)if you think that 75,000 are not lot, please enlighten me about your notability criteria of a surgeon by number of surgeries. Also as The British Medical Journal. Described that he does 4000 to 6000 surgery in a year and he was working for almost 40 years. So The clime of 75000 surgeries by the web cite www.wanlessweb.org seems to me as possible. -- . Shlok talk . 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't know whether 75,000 is a lot by today's standards, let alone whether it's a lot by 1891 standards. And what was considered a "surgery" anyway? It's all very vague. But to answer your question, there is no standard of notability based on number of surgeries performed, no matter how high it is. More importantly, the BMJ source does not say he performed all those surgeries; in fact, it explicitly says that he did not perform all of them. They were performed at his hospital, but it does not give an exact number of operations he performed himself. I do not dispute that it is possible; I was not the one who removed the claim from the article, I just asked for a different source. If there is a reliable third-party source (not wanlessweb.org) that can back up that claim, it could certainly be included. Still, it would be good to explain how 75,000 compares to the average 19th century surgeon's career. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no standard of notability based on number of surgeries performed, then it should have been tagged as , (citation needed) . not as AFD.-- . Shlok talk . 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two have nothing to do with each other. I did tag the statement as citation needed (another editor later deleted the whole thing) but that wasn't the only problem with the article. I didn't even mention it in my nomination here. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You Nominated for “He gave sight to 13,000 blinds” but to this nomination also you should have been tagged as , [citation needed], not as AFD, Kindly clarify. .. As of now the article have a statement " sight for 12,000 people " with references from reliable third-party resources : British Government.-- . Shlok talk . 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I absolutely did not nominate for that reason. I listed that as an example of poorly sourced, not very neutral-sounding claims, but the reason the article was nominated was that it did not appear to meet WP:BIO. That is the only reason. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I'm telling you, but it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant. Can we make a case of Speedy Keep as well as DYK…? -- . Shlok talk . 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because another editor has voted to delete. Someone may close it under WP:SNOW (but none of us should). Kafziel Complaint Department 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, to clarify: What I mean by "no standard of notability" is that we don't have a guideline for notability of doctors. Even if he had performed 1,000,000 surgeries, that doesn't mean anything on its own. Number of surgeries simply does not matter when determining whether someone is notable or not. What matters is significant coverage in reliable sources. If an article has some evidence that its subject is notable, and just needs some more, that would be cause to use a {{refimprove}} tag. But if an article has no evidence that its subject is notable, that's a case for AfD. (And if an article doesn't even try to claim that its subject is notable, it can be deleted immediately without discussion.) This one seemed to assert notability in some way, so I didn't delete it outright, but it didn't seem to offer any actual evidence, so after waiting a couple of days I brought it to AfD. It's nothing personal. That's how it works. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the information above about his enduring accomplishments which IMO satisfy WP:GNG. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite apart from obviously passing the general notability guideline the subject also passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 with a knighthood. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this was discussed at length at this failed proposal and there was no consensus that a very low honor like O.B.E. (one of the lowest, in fact) automatically confers notability. I argued for it myself, but it didn't fly. There are more than 100,000 O.B.E.s, so a lot of folks at Wikiproject Royalty don't consider it to be a "significant award" under WP:BIO. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now you are taking this Personally. Don’t take it Plz. Regarding "100,000 O.B.E.s are there" citation is needed.. -- . Shlok talk . 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What?? What's personal about anything I said? If you want a cite, read Order of the British Empire and knight bachelor. It's right there in the lead section of each. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about an OBE being automatically notable? He had a fucking knighthood. For a start the 100,000 figure is for MBEs, members of the Order of the British Empire, rather than OBEs, who are officers of the Order of the British Empire. There is a still higher level , CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), and then we come to the yet higher level of KBEs, such as Wanless, who was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, far higher that an OBE, and even further higher than an MBE, of which there are about 100,000. Check out [7] for the full scoop. The discussion that you linked is about inherited titles, not honours awarded for personal achievements. Quite frankly, I'm appalled that anyone trusted with the position of administrator would persist in incompetently wikilawyering through this discussion rather than accepting that this nomination of an article that clearly established notability at the time of nomination, was a clear, disruptive, mistake and getting on with building this encyclopedia, and allowing others to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only appalling thing I can see is the absolutely astounding level of rudeness coming from everyone. If this guy is such a pillar of the Empire, why is he just now getting an article? Everybody just relax, for crying out loud, and let's stop acting like he was the second coming of Christ.
Now, if you can point me to a guideline that specifically says a knighthood immediately confers notability, all you have to do is link to it. I'd be happy to see it, because I've wanted one for a long time. I'm ever so sorry I used the wrong abbreviation (amazingly enough, an in-depth knowledge of British chivalry is not a requirement for adminship) but obviously I was not talking about Officers of the British Empire, because he wasn't one. You obviously knew what I meant, and my point remains: He was a knight bachelor—the lowest kind of knighthood, according to that article—and a member of the Order of the British Empire—the lowest and most popular order, according to that article. Not that it even matters, because I've already said numerous times that I'm 100% fine with keeping the article now. If I could withdraw the nom I would, but it would make no difference. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said that "it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant". Can we the stop discussion and Remove the tag.? -- . Shlok talk . 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Kafziel Complaint Department 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hamilton[edit]

Ryan Hamilton (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:ATH, never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hamilton if he had made the Eagles team, or any NFL team. However since he did not make the team he does not need a WP page. I started the page I don’t have anything invested in it, a page can be started if he has does something worthy of it. Delete it.

MDSanker (Talk to me) 01:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trebol Clan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Producers (Trebol Clan album)[edit]

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

Album fails WP:NALBUMS with no reliable sources showing up on Google. Derild4921☼ 23:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Duck universe. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Duckburg[edit]

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

A search for references did not find sufficient WP:RS content to support this article as written, Fails WP:N and WP:V. The prod was removed with a link to a Wikipedia article used as a reference (later removed per WP:RS). A search for usage of "Fort Duckburg" in Wikipedia did not suggest a redirect to me. Jeepday (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Arthur's Mountain Mission[edit]

Agent Arthur's Mountain Mission (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)

Doesn't appear to have enough widespread coverage to establish notability. Most of the facts of the article are sourced to a series of private emails hosted on a blog. Korruski (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:BEFORE, WP:SK#2 and WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Lucy Jordan[edit]

The Ballad of Lucy Jordan (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 song. Absolutely no sources found; tagged for sources since January 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep A Google Books search [9] contradicts the nominator's claim of a non-notable song. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, speedy close. Once again, we have a completely uninformed nomination of a major song by a major songwriter, possibly the worst since the Dead Flowers AFD. WP:NSONGS says that "that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable"; when that holds, as here, it's a waste of other editors' time to advance a nomination without any rational explanation of a claim of non-notability, especially when there's no effort made to determine if sources are available. There's more than enough coverage of the song in the reviews and related coverage of the the 1970s Marianne Faithfull album alone, print coverage that can't be readily ound online. The Google Books search results are just the tip of an iceberg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, all I hear is "Blah blah blah I'm gonna gripe at Hammer again because I hate him bawwwwwwwwww." If this song's so freaking notable, then why the hell was nobody arsed to find any sources for over three years, leaving this absolutely pitiful nanostub that barely even tries to be an article? Funny how you lazy bums never spring into action unless something gets thrown at AFD. If nothing else, maybe I'm actually improving the wiki by AFDing things that turn out to be notable — otherwise, you'd never get off your lazy butts and do the grunt work, and we'd just have more unsourced nanostubs clogging everything up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dotty O'Dell[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Winning the "Miss Photogenic" title via a local camera club and winning two other titles via a local fair is non-notable, even if it was reported by two sources.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she is a non-notable model. I couldn't find any sources, which discuss him in detail. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep O'Dell is one of a tradition of models photographed by the Glendale Valley Camera Club, which is still active photographing models. O'Dell is mentioned in 2 references by a leading source, the L.A. Times. Armbrust, your post about not being able to find references to her is not valid. A quick search of the internet is insufficient. I have more databases to draw from as I work at an academic institution. Also, O'Dell was a model of note in the late 1950s, winning additional titles aside from the one bestowed on her by the Glendale club.Robert (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Merely being mentioned in the LA Times does not confirm notability. There needs to be more in-depth coverage, to explain why this person merits a WP page. If Robert can provide such references, I'd be willing to re-consider, but right now there's nothing to suggest that this is a notable person. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Before the Dawn (band) now that a merge has already taken place. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4:17 am[edit]

4:17 am (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)

Music album that doesn't state why it is notable Battleaxe9872 وکیپیڈیا 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must beg to differ. A google search for "4:17 am Before the Dawn" will bring up numerous results, including one for Amazon, reviews, and Before the Dawn's myspace page. Before the Dawn may not be notable within all music, but they are a fairly notable band within the melodic death metal scene, and I've seen plenty of other melodic death metal band articles with no question on their notability, including bands and albums less popular than this one. Zadion (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient RS to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there are other articles about the album and the band itself, including reviews and album information. Someone has already inserted multiple references from sites such as Metal Storm (among others) for this album. I created the album articles with intention as them being stubs for more information to be added to them by someone else, or myself when I have the time to look up more about them. In addition, as Before the Dawn's album Soundscape of Silence has already had an article on Wikipedia for months while it has little more than a track listing and release date, I assumed this means it constituted as a notable album. If it did, why wouldn't the rest of the full-length albums by the same band? Zadion (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band; sources are mostly fansites and not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or if need be, redirect. Before this is deleted, I have tried to add several sources just now, and at least a few must be reliable. I know full well that fan sites are not reliable, but I wonder, When can they be used? Bearian (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Before the Dawn (band) unless some wants to merge some of the information over but I don't see anything worth merging. I found a decent review for their next album, perhaps the author could give that one a try. However, expanding and improving the parent article would probably be of most benefit to the encyclopedia. J04n(talk page) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, I will do so, because I think there is some information that can flesh out the main article. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As another aside, I added Category:Heavy metal albums by Finnish artists instead. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have merged all of the substantive information, so a redirect is now ready. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Default action for this is to merge I think. A redirect wouldn't make sense because you use that for ambiguous articles or terms that refer to the same thing. An album does not refer to the band, directly. So a merge is more appropriate. Yankeefan233 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aberdeen#Economy. If there is anything else to be merged, the history is there. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail in Aberdeen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Retail in Aberdeen (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)

Previously deleted on the grounds that WP:NOTTRAVEL. Db-repost denied by DGG because the article looks different, but the consensus in the last AfD was that the topic was not notable. There is only one other "Retail in ..." page on Wikipedia, itself questionable. Also, page is unsourced synthesis/original research. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What nonsense. There is no synthetic position being advanced here - the topic is simply a straightforward account of retailing in this ancient town. I immediately find a great wealth of historical information which is so abundant that it is hard to know where to start. I have added a couple of details to the article as a sample. This is quite unsuitable for Wikitravel which is, in any case, a rival commercial project which we should not promote at our own expense. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments made in the previous discussion still seem relevant. Most of the article is unreferenced, it includes speculation about future developments, and lists commercial establishments that are not of themselves notable. --Deskford (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we might simply keep the bits that are referenced and discard the rest. Or we might add references to support the contributions. Our editing policy requires that we make some effort to keep the good bits rather than trashing the whole thing indiscriminately. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC
  • Good point, though I'm not sure the "good bits" would be enough to sustain an article in their own right. Better to merge them into Aberdeen#Economy as AllyD (talk · contribs) suggests above. --Deskford (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel, I don't see how Snotty's comment is combative? What it is however, is WP:VAGUEWAVE (see comment below) —CodeHydro 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timings indicated that neither Abductive not Snotty have done much more than glance at the article. Their positions seem to be based upon prejudice and the previous version rather than a proper consideration of the topic. I put a rescue tag on the article because I wanted some editors here who would actually look at the sources like Annals of Aberdeen - a quite detailed account of retailing activity two hundred years ago which is rich in historical detail. Snotty shows up immediately to vote against... Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did more than glance. I note that you have addressed the problem of WP:SYNTHESIS, but are instead proposing using 200 hundred years of primary sources to "rescue" the page. If you could provide secondary sources on the topic of Retail in Aberdeen, I would be more than willing to take a new look. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annals of Aberdeen is not a primary source: it is a history of the town over some seven hundred years. Other sources commend it as an excellent work and, as we are able to read it all and it is out of copyright, it seems an ideal source for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NOTTRAVEL and the old AfD consensus are not applicable. Read the policy and you'll see it's basically an extension of WP:NOTDIR, telling people not to add every single store/hotel and their phone numbers and addresses in the city to the article; this article hardly describes any individual stores at all, and those few it mentions briefly are examples to help the reader understand without going into unnecessary detail. Moreover, the consensus at the previous AfD is moot since, according to the reviewing administrator DGG's comment when removing the G4 tag, this article is "totally different from previously deleted article." The fact that WP:NOTTRAVEL applied to the previous article but not this one shows that we're dealing with something of a different nature. As for me, I'd need time to check the sources before I say keep or not, though my impression is that this is probably worth keeping —CodeHydro 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename / Keep The name is not great, but it clearly is differentiated from "Aberdeen Economy" (which deals with how Aberdeen makes money from fishing, textiles and oil, and has nought to do with the markets in Aberdeen). It ought to possibly be renamed to be more specific than it is (maybe "Aberdeen market history and current"?) or the like - but that sort of argument should be on the article talk page. Colonel Warden is right on this one. Collect (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serious referencing issues -- as in lack of. Also, intro sentence "Retail in Aberdeen takes place in shops, markets and other retailing facilities" leaves me scratching my head asking, "How the F is that notable? Aren't those the exact same sort of places that retails takes place in, oh, I don't know, everywhere else on Earth?" Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: "Shopping Centres" section is basically a guide to the areas shopping malls. We're not a travel guide or a brochure. And the section "Future developments" is pretty much self-explanatory why that's gotta go, as we're not a crystal ball. That leaves the section dealing with the city's history as re retailing and I just don't see how that qualifies as notable: every city has had shops and markets throughout their histories and I don't see a reasonable argument for "History of retail of Des Moines, Iowa" as being notable so I don't see how Aberdeen qualifies. Bruges, Belgium, perhaps. Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aberdeen#Economy: Some aspects of the retail sector of any large city are notable, and are usually found in either the locality article or articles for notable shopping malls, etc. I see this as simply an organization and content quality issue, and if "There is only one other 'Retail in ...' page on Wikipedia" I don't see a pressing need to start spinning off articles like this.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew (non-admin closure) Derild4921☼ 18:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander technique[edit]

Alexander technique (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'm hesitant to AfD this, but the article is, simply put, borderline gibberish and utterly riddled with peacock terms. There's much talk, but virtually no real content whatsoever with regards to the actual "technique" itself, and would seem to require a complete rewrite to make any form of encyclopedic sense. Someone on the talk page summed it up perfectly around 8-9 months ago:

Came looking for a definition of Alexander Technique. Read the whole article. Could not find any precise, specific, clear definition with details of the technique's methodology, principles and explanation of core concepts. The article seems written by some member of a sect, really. If there is any logic to it, it is only self-sustaining logic, i.e. a system composed of interlinked concepts, with no function other than to defend itself. Here's a example from the article:

"Global concepts such as "Psycho-physical Unity" and "Use" describe how thinking strategies and attention work together during preparation for action. They connote the general sequence of how intention joins together with execution to directly affect the perception of events and the outcome of intended results."

And ? How are those concepts used in applying Alexander Technique ? What is their influence on it ? How is the technique actually *used* ? Either Alexander Technique is an obvious sham, either the presented concepts in the article are of such abstraction that the article is utterly useless for anyone but a practitioner of the technique. Either way, the article needs a complete rewrite. 206.248.191.158 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Delta Trine Συζήτηση 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep: This probably the most bizarre AFD i have ever seen. Unlike most alternative therapies, there are actually some rigourous bits of research supporting its effectiveness. It is a notable, well established and well known alternative therapy and fully deserves being an article. I disagree that the article is fundamentally in a bad state but even if it was, that is no grounds for an AFD.--Penbat (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I was reticent to bring it to AfD, but the way I see it, it's in a fundamentally poor state and has been, without change, for many many months if not years. For that reason, perhaps this mess should be removed until someone writes a coherent and meaningful article on the technique. As it stands, virtually no concrete information is provided on it, instead it's just a collection of shifty and evasive rubbish. I'm not sure why you felt the need to prefix your entry with extremely strong, though... Delta Trine Συζήτηση 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If 206.248.191.158 felt so strongly about problems with the article, instead of just making a vague mega-whinge, he should have been much more specific in his comments, including giving examples, and actually done some work to improve it.--Penbat (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... instead of making uncivil comments towards other editors, perhaps you should accept that not every editor here has the time to fundamentally rewrite articles, or in this broken case write one from scratch. A simple read through one or two paragraphs of the article would be enough for most reasonable people to form their own conclusions, rather than having every little detail handed to them on a platter. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I am not reading your argument right you want it deleted because it is badly written? WP:UGLY. Besides that this is definitely notable with plenty of sources out there. [10] [11] Derild4921☼ 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just badly written, it says virtually nothing despite having voluminous amounts of text. If there's a better method for dealing with this ("rewrite it" isn't helpful and not my area of involvement) then I'll gladly just self-close this nomination. But if you can't see that it goes way beyond simply not being pretty, then wow. I never said it was non-notable, however, but the article most certainly does not make it clear why it's notable or even what the technique actually involves! Delta Trine Συζήτηση 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>I can see that it is clearly very badly written, but that is just not a reason for deletion. Of course in this case it may be possible to WP:IAR if you wish. In response to notability, I never meant to suggest that you felt it was NN, just that notability wouldn't be a reason for deletion. Derild4921☼ 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do you mean IAR with regards to it? I mean, it's simply been so long in the same atrocious state that I doubt it's going to be fixed up anytime soon, and fixing it up would probably require all but starting from scratch on it. So while I'm not a deletionist by any means, is there really any good reason to keep the thing floating on Wikipedia when it provides little to no informational service? Of course, I defer to your experience here and am all ears. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there is no "valid" reason to delete right now in accordance to Wikipedia policies. However, if you strongly feel on your position that the article is just too badly written, you may use IAR as a reason to delete as you are ignoring WP:UGLY. Derild4921☼ 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i dont agree that it is "clearly very badly written" or even badly written. Room for improvement - yes - but that applies to many Wiki articles. Anyway the place for this discussion is the talk page and this AFD is a joke. --Penbat (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Penbat... what, just what? Not a single person deigned to respond to previously-raised concerns on the talk page, so I brought the matter the only other place I knew of; here. As for not seeing what's wrong with the article, I've explained it perfectly well. The article is nothing but hot air and peacock terms. Not a single coherent or logical definition of the subject matter is ever given. The quotation I provided says it all, and that's pretty much all that can be said about it, I guess. I find it strange that this garbage is being defended, but I guess if that turns out to be the consensus after more discussion, hopefully involving less dismissal and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS variations, I'll defer to it. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derild4921, WP:IAR does not apply to WP:UGLY because Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a guideline (and therefore opinion and nothing like an accepted rule). --195.14.196.124 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Ah I understand, thanks for the explanation. Derild4921☼ 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that the article falls perilously close to being covered under WP:NONSENSE, but anyway, I shall just wait for other users' input. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? While there may be a lot of information needing and information needing to be clarified the article does not meet any of the two requirements. Derild4921☼ 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to fall under the second point, due to its extensive use of leading/distraction fallacy, insomuch as dressing up trivial statements to make it seem like something important is being said or described. Derailment, as is linked to in that page, essentially. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mu view is the article is badly written in terms of sourcing and also in comprehesiveness, but does not need to be deleted. Can yo provide examples where the text patent nonsense? Derild4921☼ 23:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to give specific, isolated examples, because the entire article is comprised of loosely-connected and often mutually-irrelevant statements and vague observations. My main concern with it is that there is actually no grounding definition of the Alexander technique, nothing is here to identify it as a coherent structure, and that's where for me the entire article is reduced to a nonsensical and vague rambling. Perhaps that's a flaw in the "technique" itself; I wouldn't be surprised if it were, given its pseudo-medicinal status, but surely an encyclopedic article on it should be either calling it out on this or actually describing what it is, not reading like a vague handbook written by its proponents? Delta Trine Συζήτηση 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly supported by notable WP:RS references in the article. However, there is Alexander technique jargon, peacock tems and unsupported material that needs work. IMO the proper way to address this is to change the wording to clearly supported material from RS and tag the other issues in the article that editors object to. Ward20 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I prefer starting from crap over starting from nothing. --Kvng (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the consensus so far, and I'll just let this run its course now, but a final point: everyone says they would do this that or the other, but who is going to rewrite this? I strongly suspect that much admonishment will continue here, but when all is said and done, everyone will walk away and nothing will be done about the article. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 16:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination Since one editor with some clue as to what the article is trying to say has actually bothered to offer to improve the article, I'm retracting this nomination and would appreciate it if someone closed the AfD. Thanks. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of iCarly episodes. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly: iSaved Your Life[edit]

ICarly: iSaved Your Life (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)

Confession0791 talk 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-- iSaved Your Life, unlike the other notable iCarly episodes deserving of their own pages, this one's not a TV movie. There's no rationale for it having its own page, even with an extended edition. There's also already enough information on the List of iCarly episodes page to justify deletion, as opposed to merging. Thurinym (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of iCarly episodes. No reason why we redirect it. Derild4921☼ 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources. If we redirect it, then the fanboys/girls will undo the redirect ad nauseam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of Nick's hour-long "movies" reduced down to a regular episode (yes, it aired on a school holiday, but only for only a half-hour, so there's no specialness to be found). Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No reason to delete when a non-notable episode can be merged into a notable show. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There is no reason that a non-notable episode deserves a page. First, it is not a TV movie. Second, it doesn't have sources to back the info up. And third, It is just like any other regular episode. Does notability mean nothing to anyone? It matters the significance, not the value. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.71.184 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant spam. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topgrading[edit]

Topgrading (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)

Blatant advertisement for a book with no demonstration of its importance or notability. Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the consensus is certainly not unanimous, it is quite clear. Those arguing to delete point to a lack of reliable sources confirming the details of the album. Some links have been put forward in this AfD (as yet, the article is still sourced entirely to an online forum) but it has not been established that those links constitute reliable sources for the purposes of the relevant notability and inclusion standards. Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Credo (The Human League album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response See WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Media franchise. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metaseries[edit]

Metaseries (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 is nothing but original research attempting to redefine a media franchise. There are no reliable sources to verify any of the claimed made in the article. Originally prodded for original research and verifiability, but the prod was disputed. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion narrowly escaped a "delete" consensus. However, although the sources cited in the article do have a fringe-y and/or ideologically partisan feel to them, I can't find a consensus for deletion in this discussion in the absence of a clear agreement among editors that they are unreliable. If the sourcing situation does not improve reasonably soon, a new nomination might come to a different conclusion.  Sandstein  16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Quran code[edit]

Cracking the Quran code (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 on a book does not support the book's notability. The three references are not what I would call reliable sources (one is just a copy-paste of the Google Books listing), the external link is useless, and the ISBN number does not show up in any libraries. That and the author has been pushing a POV on Israel and Judaism related articles. I can safely say that Wikipedia does not need an article on this particular publication.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi is very notable in general [12] and in books [13], on whom the book is based.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, delete. DS (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and per nom. Creator may have a conflict of interest (making this possibly spam), as his user page is essentially a duplicate of this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry 'Stonemason89' but your activities does support a certain bias against the Jewish people, here [14] and here [15] Your "vote" is irrelevant.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not comment on the editor. Comment on the content. No one's "'vote' is irrelevant", unless they only have 6 edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's fair game by Stonemason89...

    User: I.. is obviously extremely biased in regards to I-P conflict issues, as evidenced by the ranting, alarmist content of his user page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[16]

    Dallas hero1989 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a brand new book, and it seems to be rather unimportant. Someday in the future, the book may become notable. Also, I don't see many secondary sources referring to the book. If the topic of the book is really significant, there should be other sources discussing the topic, and the material could be put into the Qu'ran article. --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shiva (Visnu) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete particularly the "isbn does not show up in any library." That, plus the total lack of independent in depth treatment of this likely self-published book does it for me.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like self promotion, Sadads (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "self"? are you claiming that the author posted it? that's ludicrous.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ret Prof: I notice you seem to vote "Keep" on many, many AfDs, typically with 1-line explanations. I was wondering if you could take some time here to elaborate on why you think this specific book meets WP notability requirements? --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RS101's "argument" is frankly pathetic. It consists of a google search on Sheikh Palazzi (not on the book. And not that google searches establish anything but if one puts "Sheik Palazzi" in quotes, as one should, you get under 6,000 hits, which is miniscule) and a review on Arutz Sheeva, a propoganda outlet for the settler movement. So nary a reliable source there.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable. Can recreate later if its gets Reliable third party coverage. Probably could have been speedy deleted as it does not make any assertion of notability.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a strange case. Nominator is right, the book isn't accessible in the libraries and I can't find an entry on WorldCat. On the other hand, there are quite substantial reviews/interviews published by IsraelNationalNews.com (Arutz Sheva), weeklyblitz.net (Weekly Blitz). I'm not sure if the religious websites opentheword.org and jesus.ch (in German) count as reliable sources, but in my opinion it is possible to compile an informative article about this book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the book isn't notable, why should we cover it at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NBOOK, #1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. I think the book meets this criterion, as it was noted by various newspapers/websites mentioned above. The book is new, its absence in libraries isn't surprising. It is a borderline case, of course, but I think it is worthy of inclusion. It's just my opinion. I'm not familiar with the complicated political context. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What sources are you refering to? Arutz Sheeva (AKA "Israel National News") isn't a reliable source nor is www.jesus.ch, nor is www.opentheword.org (those two are christian proselytizing organizations, the first is a propaganda outlet for the settler movement in Israel). www.weeklyblitz.net is run by a self-declared "Muslim zionist" and has rather strong views (read its about page) that will disgualify it as a reliable, independent source as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've noted that, Bali. The sources may be biased and unbalanced, but the book attracted their attention, that's a verifiable fact. We will delete the article because the coverage is biased... Israel National News may be a propaganda outlet, but it's Israel's fourth most widely read newspaper (at least according to Wikipedia). The newspaper surely represents an important point of view in Israel. Should we delete all the refs from our articles? That would be bias. I've no interest other than encyclopedic. In my opinion it is possible to write an informative article, link the sources and let the readers make their own opinion. I admit, I know very little about the conflict and perhaps I'm naive, but this AfD looks rather like a battle of personal political standpoints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you assert Arutz Sheeva is a reliable source for establishing notability for this article. It's pointless to argue the difference between newspapers that strive for accuracy and balance and propaganda outlets so i won't. What either reliable independent sources do you have to offer that elevate this fringe book -- unnoticed by any middle of the road publication or journal -- to notability in the wikipedia sense?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have said all in my previous comments. I'll respect any result of this discussion without much excitement. People's opinions differ and it is always better to have more arguments. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I am with Vejvančický. But of course Arutz Sheva is not only about reliablity but notoriety as well. Salamaat (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) — Salamaat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

extended content collapsed for readability that should be take to WP:RSN

Here's what another user posted:

Acceptance and reliability of 'Arutz Sheva'

Endorsements

The National Review has recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news.[Dave Kopel, Follow the Leader, National Review ]

Books

Israel National News is widely cited in books.The compendium: a critical analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict, July 2000-July 2002 . Author George D. Hanus. Publisher Gravitas Media, 2002, ISBN 0972291393, 9780972291392, p. 7, p. 239 , Al-Naqba (the catastrophe). Author Barbara A. Goldscheider. Frog Books, 2005, p. 252 [19], The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival. Author Aaron Klein. Publisher WND Books, 2009, p. 214 [20], Female terrorism and militancy: agency, utility, and organization p. 65, Cindy D. Ness, Political Science 2008 ][The new Iranian leadership: Ahmadinejad, terrorism, nuclear ambition, and the Middle East. Praeger Security International Series. Authors Yonah Alexander, Milton M. Hoenig. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. p 276 [21], Rushing Ahead to Armageddon . Christopher M Jones. Xulon Press, 2010, p. 50, Artistic Adaptations: Approaches and Positions‎ p. 123. Ferial J. Ghazoul, Art, 2008 [22], A Diary of Four Years of Terrorism and Anti-Semitism, p. 388. Robert R Friedmann, Political Science, Universe, 2005 ISBN 9780595793013 [23], Where's My Miracle?‎ p. 90, Morey Schwartz, Religion - 2010. Based on the article by Baruch Gordon, "Kabbalist Urges Jews to Israel Ahead of Upcoming Disasters," Israel National News, September 23, 2005 [24], John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, highly critical of Israel, have also quoted IsraelNationalNews.com. The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy, John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, 2007 p. 440

Media

Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, are The Guardian [25] The Washington Post,[26] The Washington Times[27][28][29] and Foxnews [30][31][32] Salamaat (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I have not read the book, but have read the article, I must say this is either one of two things. 1) a WP:COATRACK or 2)a non-notable fringe theory. Both earn deletes. Sven Manguard Talk 04:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Politics of North Korea. Whether or not there is anything to merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in North Korea[edit]

List of political parties in North Korea (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 sure what happened with TW, but recreating this AfD manually. The "list" contains 3 elements and will always contain 3 elements as long as the DPRK's current constitution remains in effect. All of the information on this page currently is (or easily can) be on Politics of North Korea. Also it has some serious sourcing and POV issues. -Selket Talk 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While that's a valid comment on the AfD nom, it's not a reason for keeping the article. And no merge is necessary: the information is already in the destination article. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that would have been an easy merge. --Kvng (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would have been an easy Redirect. But you still haven't explained the grounds for your !vote to keep. "Merge destination identified" is neither helpful nor a valid reason. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After putting up some merge banners and seeking consensus on the article's talk page, I would expect to redirect or merge or have a plan for a viable article. Selket (talk · contribs) skipped a step or two by bring this straight to AfD. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any content to be merged I would have done that first. The problem with this article is that it is completely redundant with Politics of North Korea. There already is a viable article it's just at another location. -Selket Talk 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close And again, this is not Articles for Merging. Can no one figure that out? NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Night watchman state[edit]

Night watchman state (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 be a clone of Minarchism A short section there would suffice rather than an entire article mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't bring things to AFD where an administrator hitting the delete button is not the outcome that you want. The article merger process for duplicate articles does not involve deletion and AFD at any point. And even a cursory amount of research turns up this concept discussed under this very name by Eduard Meyer, Samuel Edward Finer, and Wilhelm von Humboldt. Clearly either merger or an outright standalone article is the right answer here, and AFD and deletion are not. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early close for the AfD on procedure. Merger request seems to be the actual request made here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Don't look at our crotches while we synchronize our watches. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. G. Quintel[edit]

J. G. Quintel (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)

Creator of the very notable (and AWESOME) Regular Show and storyboarder for Flapjack and Camp Lazlo. However, I can find absolutely NO verifiable information on him besides that he exists; notability is not inherited, and the only source listed is IMDb. BLP-prod overwritten without comment; redirects to Regular Show undone repeatedly by an editor with a vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gennum's Snowbush IP Group[edit]

Gennum's Snowbush IP Group (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)

Likely fails WP:CORP. Parent company page deleted as a G11. Also written like an advertisement with insufficient sourcing available to correct that. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio; WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. The explanation is on the homepage of the site it was copied from:

ZombieWorldNews.com is a fictitious news site. It is real world narration,

encouraging reader input to affect the developing news reports. ZWN has been tracking the Necro-Mortosis Undead plague as the story evolves in 'real time' since late 2006 to the present day.

Through editorials and reader participation we are exploring the impact such an event would have on humankind. The reports, events and characters are fictional,

it's intention is for fun and entertainment purposes only.

JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necro mortosis[edit]

Necro mortosis (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 virus is not verifiable with reliable sources. may be a hoax. prod was removed without comment. PinkBull 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Hoax. Some quotes (BTW, Necro Mortosis, or Death within Death, has several pages online describing it as the Zombie virus):
    1. "There is no known antidote at this point (Beware internet scams claiming to sell cures or inhibitors)" Duh; viruses don't have antidotes. And an internet scam warning?
    2. "Only infected people will reanimate upon death." Uh huh -- BenTels (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's little need to do research on this one. The article as written states outright that this is a virus that causes people to come back from the dead. Either this is fiction dressed as fact, or it is a hoax article. It's unencyclopaedic either way. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I looked anyway. This is part of an elaborate hoax spread across the WWW, that comes with its own fictional news network and fake corporate WWW sites. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyright infringement of http://www.zombieworldnews.com/archives/science/world_health_authority/wha_home.htm. -Pmedema (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Hamas terror campaign[edit]

2010 Hamas terror campaign (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:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. This article takes the statements of an Israeli security official that Hamas has begun what he calls "terrorist attacks" and presents that as a fact. It then combines what the creator of the article feels is part of that "terror campaign". The sources for the existence of this supposed campaign are either Israeli government officials or partisan organizations. The actual reliable sources on each of the attacks that the article combines do not actually say they are part of any "terror campaign". Nableezy 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-sourced article about a widely-covered campaign of terrorist violence sponsored by the government of Gaza.AMuseo (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sigh. Another attempt to delete any article related to Hamas activity. We have nominations for the individual acts and now we have a nomination for the entire scheme. Pretty soon, terrorism itself will be nominated for deletion. The recent extreme jump in terror activity was noted by numerous sources. The allegation may stem from Israel intelligence reports, but its coverage is clearly significant and undoubtedly meets WP:GNG. Any POV concerns or article name concerns should be taken up at the talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEWP, and fix up. The nom's apparent rationale, that the existence of a campaign is only the assessment of Israeli security officials and scholars, is false. Hamas itself has declared a campaign of attacks against Israel with the stated aim of derailing the current Middle East peace talks, in which "all options are open" (i.e. attacks targeting civilians): [35]. In the title, "Hamas" should be changed to "Palestinian", since the agent of the campaign is a broad coalition of Palestinian groups (see the source). Also, if there is a significant POV that this campaign is not a terror campaign, the word "terror" in the title should be changed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the article is in rough shape, but it's being worked on by a legitimate editor, is actually cited, and is about an event that is still in progress. I would support a rename to make it more neutral, but I would not delete it. Coincidentally, this looks like an edit war in the making, so I would advise both Nableezy and AMuseo move away from the page for a while. Sven Manguard Talk 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is not about "an event", it is about several events that have been synthesized together into one "campaign" on the basis of an Israeli security officials say-so. And I have no intention of editing this article, I corrected one blatant falsehood and that is about all I intend to do besides argue for its deletion. nableezy - 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, an edit war ending in ArbCom action and topic bans may well be just what Wikipedia needs here. This wikiwar is getting tiresome. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
  • Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont write clearly bogus comments. A clear argument for deletion is given in the nomination. That you either do not understand or do not agree with that argument does not make it not an argument for deletion. nableezy - 02:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more clear: the litmus test is the article sources. I quote: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. There are a lot of arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. The nomination makes no proper argument for deletion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is a blatant falsehood. An article being a POV-pushing SYNTHesized OR essay is a "proper" reason for deletion. Please do not continue to write things that are not true. nableezy - 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nab, I guess topic is not accurate, I'd go with "Hamas reaction ...". Nothing is artificially synthesized, sources note that it is in context of current round of peace talks, this is Hamas reaction. sources put under "a topic". I guess you disagree, but that's ok. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV essay which attempts to link a number of likely unrelated events as part of a "terror campaign." Tendentious "Original Research" at its worst. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Except, of course, that the article has reliable sources such as the editorial staff of the Washington Post who call this a deliberate "campaign" by Hamas to disrupt the peace process.AMuseo (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AMuseo and the Washington Post. Hamas regularly refers to its own resistance efforts. --Shuki (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AMuseo. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My initial reaction was to !vote delete. However, the sources do tie the attacks with the peace process[36][37][38][39] and/or make it clear that it is some sort of campaign involving multiple attacks[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Since we all know in the I-P area of Wikipedia that some people are supporters of one side or the other, I will just come out and say it: Both supporters of Hamas (or at least violent resistance) and Israel should be approving of such an article for POV reasons.
More policy and guideline based: The name needs to be changed. "Terror" is one way to describe it but not the only way. No, "terror campaign" is not always used as the nominator points out. So retitle it something similar to "Hamas attacks during the 2010 peace talks" (of course something more clever and less wordy). I was thinking that merging the article into another would work but it would then be the perfect candidate to be spun out into an independent article. The wave of attacks meets the general notability guideline and probably the events one. Numerous sources putting the attacks together or relating it to the peace process. It is ongoing (just started though) independent coverage from reputable international sources. It is safe to assume that there will be some lasting impact but that is something we will have to wait and see about. Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the concerns raised in the nomination seem valid. Here's another Washington Post ref: Hamas retains deadly reach in West Bank: "Hamas has pledged to follow up on the attacks, which appeared timed to the relaunch in Washington of direct peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." And attacks do seem to have continued since then. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the MAIN ongoing news stories in Israel presently. Though it may come from one-sided sources, this is not a reason to delete, only to modify as need be. But it does come from reliable sources. Linda Olive (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:N and WP:V. WP:NPOV is not a reason to delete anyway. article can and should be improved--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is mentioned several times at WP:NOT which is reasoning provided at WP:DEL so NPOV could be a viable reason. However, any neutrality concerns in this article (namely the title) are easily fixed.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't 'originality', or synthesis, one of the reasons this article was nominated for deletion? I can see no particular rationale for an article on '2010 Hamas terror' in any case. Is there any evidence that Hamas plan their actions on a yearly basis? Why do their actions (or alleged actions) need to be broken down in this arbitrary way? Cannot the article be merged with other articles on Hamas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at some of the sources if you have the chance. It is the "campaign" or wave of attacks based on disrupting the peace stuff and PA.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename!; obviously something is going on, in which innocent people are harmed, but using the word terror in the title is the problem. It attributes blame. That's dangerous and simplistic. And it attracts the attention of people who feel uncomfortable with the word. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) tells us to avoid the word terrorist. That logically applies to the word terror as well. Yes, report what has happened. Even write the certain people are calling it a terror campaign (so long as we say who). But don't fall into the trap of repeating the loaded language of one side in the article title. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment on the talk page where this is already being discussed? Smartse (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article since it is notable, then consider Renaming in line with the reasonable observation of HiLo48. Marokwitz (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable topic, properly sourced article, i don't see an issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there's our basic issue. It IS an issue to use the word terror. Several editors have said so. Wikipedia policies say it is. Anyone saying it's not is simply ignoring others' comments (very rude), ignoring policy, and hence showing obvious POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have no problem with the article being renamed/reworded if the word terror is an issue; but this is an AfD discussion, not a renaming/content discussion. i didn't read the entire novel of commentary, just reviewed the article and offered an opinion. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexys Becerra[edit]

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

Only notability asserted is through some minor roles with notable things, and notability is not inherited. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. The article lists appearances in a number of major films, but imdb and other sources make no mention of her. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while willing to accept that she may have neen in the films listed in the article, that fact that IMDB does not include participation could only mean her roles were so exceedingly minor as to not even merit an "uncredited" at IMDB. All I could find there was her work as a prosthetics technician and one named role in the film Saving Ronald Regan (2006).[47] So she fails WP:ENT. We have one 1994 news article from San Diego Union which speaks of her applying a prosthetic to herself when attending a Sci-Fi convention in San Diego,[48] and a 2007 article in Printweek stating that she is the organiser of the London Harry Potter Meetup Group.[49] So she fails WP:GNG as well. And unless they win some major awards, make-up artists have a tough time showing themselves as notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per MQ Schmidt. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep alternate version and move to Brett Salisbury /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Jon Salisbury[edit]

Brett Jon Salisbury (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 about possibly barely notable college athlete that is pure puffery and spam about his current business. While citations are provided, they do not resolve as useful references Esprqii (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are absolute and are not puffery. The Consumer Digest Report proves it. Also the guy was Ex Communicated from LDS church. How is this puffery? The references are from every college attended. He was also the starting quarterback the university of oregon which qualifies him as a starting quarterback. The person also has a book that is published for heath and wellness. Do not remove. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wayne State links are broken. The consumer digest report website looks like a promo website for the book. The only link that works shows he was the 72nd best high school athlete from North San Diego County. Looks like he played, or maybe even started, a game or two for the Ducks in 1991 before Danny O'Neil took over and Salisbury transferred. All the business about his NFL Europe career and modeling career are completely uncited. This article has been created and deleted before. --Esprqii (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. --Esprqii (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Wayne State links are no longer broken. The consumer digest report has been around since 1971. Don Clayton is a Editor in Chief and is a Berekely graduate with no agenda. Salisbury was an excommunicated BYU mormon who started 5 games for the Oregon Ducks. He was hurt and transferred at the end of the year to Wayne state college where holds 10 Divison II NCAA records. He played in the same league as Kevin Craft plays in now. If you google brett salisbury the pics of him in GQ are solidified. When Esprqii explains that Salisbury only started 1 or 2 games is not true as proven with the new links below. It also states that salisbury EFAF is an affiliate of NFL europe. Article doesn't state he played in NFL europe. The facts that salisbury started 5 games for the oregon ducks and he is an author of the transform diet which finished 6th last year with publishing company indeed qualifies him as notable. The reason as I check salisbury was deleted was the fact that nobody proved he was a football player in college and his book was still not published at the time. Both of which now are proven. I have been a season ducks fan for over 30 years. Salisbury was hyped up to be the next NFL great. He didn't make as we had all hoped at oregon but he did start the last five games after a ruptured hernia. but he did start five games. Thank you again all links below work are based on facts. OregonDucksFan57 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]
Reply: You say that the Consumer Digest Report has been around since 1971, but there is no evidence of that. Certainly in that time, the website has not hired an editor, and suspiciously, of the "top 10 diet books of 2011" the first 9 receive brief reviews and #1 gets a glowing endorsement, and the fewest typos. Not only that but book #2 tells you that you should really read book #1. I can't find anything to establish that Consumer Digest Report is what you say it is. Moreover, Salisbury started just one game for the Ducks and didn't do such a hot job. He did play in five games though. He may well be notable enough for Wikipedia as a football player, but the article as written seems as if it were written to promote his book, much like the Consumer Digest Report website. --Esprqii (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whois shows that consumerdigestreport.com is registered to hitfarm.com and provides no contact info. hitfarm.com looks like a spam or seo domain provider. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only can say what I read. Under Better Business Bureau the consumer digest report has been around since 1971. It may have been a publication like all others as a newspaper. I read the consumer digest report. Number one should get a glowing review should it not? However this isnt the concern either. Salisbury Did for a fact start against UCLA, Cal Berkely, Oregon State, New Mexico State and came in off the bench against USC to do a good job. Book finished number 6 and number 1 diet book as stated. Again, the fact that he has a published book and is a notable figure as a quarterback in college you have to keep. I would ask you to help in this cause. I don't find anywhere that promotes the book, only an opinion of what other people believe. I like that we both can help make wikipedia stronger. I think we have solved this and I would ask you to remove from delete as you admitted and see that he is notable based on your own admission that he is a start collegiate player at all levels. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I see an error Esprqil. I am just stating the facts. The article you refer to salisbury's only start was an article written before the UCLA game. This is the second game where salisbury starts against Tommy Madox at UCLA. He still had 3 games after this article where he starts. You must read the entire artice to keep all facts straight. Again Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing from speedy deletion Esprqil. I believe that is fair and truly just. A lot of time has been spent on this guy as I have now seen from the past. I hope you now can make a case that he is notable. I will try myself now to re write from an unbiased source. I look and read the article and it is very unbiased. I again appreciate you bringing this to light and will make us all a better source finder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like he started three games in 1991: Cal, UCLA, and Oregon State, and then left for Division II. Oh, and it wasn't me who removed it from speedy deletion. I think this is the right process and we need to let others weigh in. While I have written many articles about college football players, I have never tried to pump them up like this article, which looks more like someone trying to sell his book. Really, stuff like having a .408 batting average in high school and being the 72nd best high school athlete in San Diego doesn't establish notability, nor, sadly, does the Helsinki Giants career. Minor league NFL teams don't cut it to establish notability. That's not to say they couldn't be in the article, but so far, the best claim to fame is the Oregon and Wayne State career. I'd refocus the article on that. Convert the external links in the article to actual citations so we know what is being cited. Tone down the high school batting average (uncited) and the modeling career (uncited). Why not mention that he is the brother of Sean Salisbury? Find another citation for why the book is so great. It seems much more like someone trying to push his own book than a neutral, encyclopedic article.
Let's see what others say. --Esprqii (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes complete sense. Thank you. On just a side note. The Internatally acclaimed Radio Talk show host Sallie Felton is a great source that proves all these sources. Look into Sean Salisbury, his brother. Where are the sources that cite his batting average, etc? I found all the sources on google under news with a filter that takes off time restraints. Over 7000 of those, including his batting average and entire college career. What's even more interesting is that Kevin Craft was coached by Brett as a youngster which Craft now plays in the same league as Salisbury did years ago. I guess as we dig further there is a paper trail that leads to notable. Again, Thank you for the advice, I will do my best to research and add. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Only sources about athletic career cited in article are trivial mentions of stats. External links section is out of control and borders on advertising. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) see below[reply]
    • Keep The sources are not trivial. They needed to be stated indepth due to Esprqli wanting to see the results. If you look at the external links now, half the sources are about modeling career and transform diet book. The article written states salisbury was excommunicated and his play at oregon was "less than par" I find it hard to believe this is advertising. It infact humiliates Salisbury and how why he wrote the health and wellness book. His division II stats are still untouched in Division II play. OregonDucksFan57 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57 — OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reply Please read WP:Athlete and WP:RS. Per WP:Athlete for college athletes, the minimum standard here is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." A single 300 word article in a local paper doesn't count. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the ambush? why not correct the wikipedia notable person and make it clean? Now that we know who Salisbury is, take the external links and use the sources to clean it up? The wikipedia experts can easily help re write this if needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources meet reliable sourcing guidelines that also establish notability. Since the subject is not notable, no need to bother to clean up. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am laughing outloud. How is the person not notable? That is funny. Started as a division I quarterback, is a published author who's book was number 6 last year, and was a top male model with over 50 radio shows last year alone. I suppose his brother Sean is not notable either? LOL 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)The Hot Spot[reply]

Question, How is Kevin Craft any more notable? Seriously? I think you pick and choose your battles. a little help Esprqii? You even now admit that Salisbury is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and somebody please re-write this thing! I hate to break it to the naysayers, but this subject is obviously notable for the widespread coverage achieved from the book. That said, in my opinion his participation and coverage from being an NCAA athlete would probably be enough to meet the general notability guideline. There is the manner of the style of the article--it's poorly written and is more of an advertisment than anything else. If that is not promptly changed, then we'll need to delete it or blank it or something until it can be re-tooled to be an effective and appropriate article. But the article itself needs to stay--the content just needs re-worked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: How does this article meet wikipedia's college athlete criteria? According to that page the lowest standard for a college athlete is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" and I'm just not seeing that sort of coverage here. As for the General Notability regarding the book, the only coverage has been on radio shows which are themselves non-notable (which is kinda how I see the definition of a reliable source, the source for notability itself should be notable) and a website that my technical analysis shows to be advertisement, not a reliable 3rd party source (consumerdigestreport.com). I'm not trying to be critical, I'm relatively new to AfD (and wikipedia) and trying to learn. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content was reworked. I believe it flows better and now sounds unbiased. 65.160.209.194 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Wife of Oregon Ducks Fan 57 (My husband is now 58 but has trouble seeing) Directed to Salisbystars: 1. Her STARTED 5 games in the pac-10, played a tremendous game against University of Southern California On ESPN. Was being touted after game as a possible heisman candidate. He played against UCLA on ABC nationally televised game that he almost pulled out at end of game. Again, touted highly. He played the last games of the season very mediocore as did Kevin Craft who you still have up on wikipedia? Why? and no problems with his performance? Craft maybe the worse Junior College all american quarterback to start at UCLA. Salisbury was the national passing champion, 1st team all american at 2 different colleges. He was nominated for the Harlon Hill and took runner up. Harlon hill is division II verison of the heisman trophy. Still holds 10 NCAA records including 377 yards per game. Now the book. The book finished last year number 6 on the bestseller list. This is listed in the links as you will see. Again last year, the book FINISHED 6TH ON THE BEST SELLER LIST! Forget consumer digest report, the guy has a published book that was a best seller and is project to go number one this year with the revision. Radio or shows or not, it finished number 6!! you can't deny that.[reply] 

Why are you after this guy so bad? The modeling career...He is a top male model in the World. Modelwatch.com listed him as the top 50 models in the 90's. You can see and read that on both radio shows where they pull information from their resources.

He has played in two movies as an actor. He is one of only 6 authors to ever come out with a line of powder, bars etc in the World after writing a book. From football to being an author for health a wellness he is more than notable. By the way, his brother happens to be Sean Salisbury. So what are you talking about Sailsbystars? Seriously? What is your grudge? Let it go. Again do me a favor and answer me this question. Why is Kevin Craft who had no college career hardly at UCLA even on wikipedia? why? answer me that? Salisbury is considered the top 5 nutritonist according to the October issue of ms. Fitness magazine. This also cannot be denied. Come on Sailsbystars...You need a better angle. You are new and it shows. Top model, author and starting college football player who was an all american a palomar college then at wayne state and almost won harlon hill, then played in same league as craft EFAF. This is a no brainer. Why fight it? As for the Consumer Digest report, it's a subsidary of Consumer Digest so your "3rd party friend" is lost. They have been around since the 1950's. The Consumer Digest Report was started in 1971. Do your homework. Go look at all the college players on wikipedia, it's not even an argument. Let it go. Thanks 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)College Football analyst[reply]

And if you go to the discussion page on Kevin Craft read this. He was able to stay on after almost a speedy delete: Here is what was said. Maybe you will learn from this Sailsbystars:

Thank you to Rodhullandemu for speedy decline request. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC) SPEEDY DELETE, KEVIN CRAFT IS NOT A NOTABLE PERSON. REMOVE HIM. IN ONLY HIS SECOND GAME AS A STARTING AT UCLA. THE QUARTERBACK HE MUST BE REMOVED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminate4949 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Good or bad, he is the quarterback for a major division I football team. Notable person is not limited to those who have done good in his field. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Kevin Craft was the UCLA Bruins, a major division I school, starting quarterback who had a bad year. There's no reason to delete the article and rewrite history. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk)

Please read the guidelines for reliable sources for wikipedia. Most of your sources don't qualify, and the ones that do have the least information about the subject. Consumerdigestreport.com does not count at all. While there may be a real Consumer Digest Report related to Consumer Digest, that website is not it. WHOIS records clearly indicate it does not belong to the same company. The other quarterbacks that you cite have information obtained from reliable sources acknowledging notability. You say he was covered by ESPN? Prove it!. You say he was touted highly? Prove it! You make a lot of claims about the notability of the subject, but don't have the reliable sources to back it up. That is why I stand by my delete vote. Although I will admit the writing of the article has vastly improved, the sources cited fail to establish notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See for example, the two articles in the national newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, on the Kevin Craft article for examples of the types of reliable sources the article needs. [50][51]. Find something similar for this article and it can stay. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with major re-write from reliable sources. Doing the google news search on Brett Salisbury instead of Brett Jon Salisbury returns numerous news articles from the late 80's early 90s.[52] Example [53]. Subject appears to be notable, just the article creator is in need of guidance. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please help our husband and I rewrite this, you obviously know what it takes. The sources we found were solid, but maybe you have more? We appreciate your help and can you help so this can be taken care of? Thank you again. Bill and Jessie Rackcliff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We re wrote the external links and changed everything we can. Any help would be great as so much effort has been put into this. Please help us! Thank you 65.160.209.194 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]

Comment If this article is kept, it should be cut down to what can be verified through reliable sources. There appears to be nothing to substantiate his excommunication, Heisman Trophy vote, all-team Europe career for a minor league NFL franchise, tutoring of Kevin Craft, male model superstar 2002 award, "top 10" status of his diet book on any reliable third party reference, etc. This article as it stands is pure puffery--even the alleged excommunication and imperfection written about his Oregon career appears to be designed as "balance" to the article.
Also of concern is the single purpose account which seems determined to shoehorn Salisbury into Wikipedia with the obvious purpose of promoting his book, while stating to be a near-sighted middle-aged couple new to Wikipedia. However, this article is almost identical to the one deleted a year ago but which still lives on in Wikipedia mirror sites available at an Google search. I also note that the editors chose a different name for the article, using the never-used-anywhere-else middle name to attract less attention.
Nonetheless, I have written numerous articles about college football players that have similar notability, so I do believe Salisbury meets WP:ATHLETE. I have written an alternative to the existing article in my user space that I think would be more acceptable to the community, though, I suspect, not to Mr. Salisbury's promoters:
I would be willing to provide the citations to that alternative and post in the main space. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We just read the proposed alternative article, sounds very good what you wrote. However he finished playing in 1996 not 1995. Secondly he went back to play with the Prague panthers in 2006 nearly 10 years later but basically was used as a coach. As for the promoters of salisbury? we don't care, we just wanted to write just and fair article to someone we have followed. Anything you propose and install now is again greatly appreciated. Thank you
That is fantastic. We have a friend who is an IT gentleman and who understands wikipedia. Please see changes he made. We believe it looks good and meets wikipedia standards, however your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.65.160.209.194 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]
Finally we did a google search on the name brett salisbury. The second line item is Brett Salisbury Deleted from Wikipedia. Can you remove that? We are hoping we can put this article to rest! I know you have spent a lot of time on this as has my husband and I. I am 63 and my husband is 58. We are wore out and have not worked this hard in the last 10 years! HA! Thank you again Mr. Esprqii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Mr. Esprqii the information on your new proposed article is that salisbury actual modeled during his playing days. He was not retired just an FYI. We learned this by listening to 4 different radio interviews on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletei've been trying to find references, anything, to support this article for the better part of an hour. the only sources to be found on the internet about this individual are regarding his college football career; and these do not necessarily imply notability of the subject, only confirm that he played college football. the article itself is full of POV commentary about the subject, hardly any of which is supported by the given references. for instance, the section discussing the subjects modeling career claims he "was given the title, male super model in April 2002 by model-max.com", a quick search reveals no supporting evidence. i am not syaing this claim is a lie, but it definetly isn't supported by the references. ultimately, the gist of this bio appears to be to build up the athletic character of the individual to lend credibility to the diet program. "the transform diet" has zero reliable sources, this was the most reliably independent source i could find, it is a review by a website that only accepts submissions for review from independent publishers. in addition, this article was brought to my attention by the main IP editor of the article (presumably the IP of the original author) when the user contested my removal of spam links from the glen high school article by contacting me on my talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after reading other users reason for "keep", i would like to say i am not dead set on delete. if the college football section can be spruced up with some references and the POV content revamped this would help. but the stuff about the diet program needs to go, this is pure promotional content. the given reference doesn't appear to qualify as a WP:RS, i searched google for "the consumer digest report" and looked through the first 500 links, this page was not in them; although this wikipedia article came up #107. a google news search turns up absoloutly nothing on the topic. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attn wookieInheat, you need to do your homework. Google Brett Salisbury, not Brett Jon Salisbury. "Doing the google news search on Brett Salisbury instead of Brett Jon Salisbury returns numerous news articles from the late 80's early 90s.[54] Example [55]. Subject appears to be notable, just the article creator is in need of guidance."

Also, ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article

I would be willing to provide the citations to that alternative and post in the main space. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) [reply]
WookieInHeat, if you read every external link, at bottom of Brett Jon Salisbury the author of the transform diet is substantiated. In fact his book is number 6 on the best seller list for 2010. Please see external links. The only one in question is the consumer digest report. The rest are news articles and even the schools he played for. click each external link and do your homework. The battle from above from every wikipedia went from not notable to Keep. It's because they were typing in Brett Jon Salisbury not Brett Salisbury. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
first, the press release used as a reference for the "january's #6 best seller" claim is a user generated repost of an email received from the website selling the authors book. iuniverse.com is a website for self publishing and selling books, and pr.com is a website for business promotion, primarily via user generated "press releases". the pr.com reference is not a WP:RS, nor does an email received from a self publishing website indicate WP:NOTE. like i said, i am not totally opposed to keeping the article, but the male model and football sections need to be properly referenced (at least somewhat) and wirtten from a NPOV and the self promotion of the diet program needs to be removed completely. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in response to your latest comment on my talk page. no i have not been using the key words "Brett Jon Salisbury" for my google searches. if you view my google links above, all use simply "Brett Salisbury", as you instruct to use. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favor. This should answer whether the person Brett Jon Salisbury is notable. Go to Kevin Craft prove to all of us how is more notable than Salisbury. Again, Salisbury is a published author, a ex starting quarterback in the pac 10, and a divison II harlon hill finalist. Please explain how Kevin Craft is truly a more notable person. As you look at the discussion of craft, after two games as a quarterback for UCLA he was already on wikipedia as notable. Again two games. He was to be taken off as not credible. However the all time greatest quote came from wikipedia staff, the quote is "Even after crafts two games, he is a quarterback who played in the Pac-10. Whether he played well or not, you still cannot re-write history." Take that in and of itself and you cannot deny Salisbury. Also craft played in the same league after Salisbury in the EFAF. The difference is Salisbury has a book that is for sale on amazon, barnes and noble and borders. Craft has no resume after a college very mediocre if not worse quarterback who was dropped his senior year as the starting quarterback. Salisbury finished the season the starter for the University of Oregon. He also holds 10 NCAA records still held today. Craft doesn't hold one. Make that a viable argument and you have a case. The diet program isnt even mentioned. Here again is the proposed new wikipedia article. All of it fact and shows a complete unbiased. Please read this: ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article Also check out Esprqii experience covering college athletes. We are all conviced (3 seperate wikipedia contributors that this article is a Keep. Prove this new rewritten article by Esprqii false. We would love to see it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the kevin craft article is irrelevant to my concerns, that article is not being used to promote kevin's current business. again, i am not opposed to keeping the article in regards to football and modeling, they can be works in progress that can be rewritten from a NPOV. however, the promotion of the diet program needs to be removed; this is the only thing preventing me from changing to "keep". WookieInHeat (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and how does the new article which will be used promoting any business? ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article This is the article which will be used as I mentioned earlier. There is no promotion in this article written by Esprqii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BREAK Hey, let's slow down a bit here... looks to me like the consensus is that the article is to be kept, at least at this point. Of course that could change through discussion, etc... but what we're leaning toward is a consensus of change/re-write and keep. These are all editing or content issues and not deletion issues. I propose that we keep this under WP:SNOW and focus on making the content better and transfer the remainder of this discussion to the article talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment think this got lost in the long list of comments, just wanted to reiterate that i believe the "transform diet" should be entirely removed from the article. the press release used as a reference for the "january's #6 best seller" claim is a user generated repost of an email received from the website selling the authors book. iuniverse.com is a website for self publishing and selling books, and pr.com is a website for business promotion, primarily via user generated "press releases". the pr.com reference is not a WP:RS, nor does an email received from a self publishing website indicate WP:NOTE. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Transform Diet website is pretty self-serving and totally unreliable, it seems pretty clear that Salisbury did write a real book. I think it's OK to use the website as a reference for that as it establishes his current status. --Esprqii (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if his book was published by a reputable publisher and had an ISBN number, i would agree with you. but seeing as brett is not an "established expert" in the field of dieting, his self-published book fails the notability guidelines and appears to be promotional in nature. in the words of a wiki policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books ... are largely not acceptable." now if there was a third party reliable source which discussed brett's self-published book, things might be different. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
further reading about wikipedia policy on the notability of books. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is meant to apply to the notability of books themselves. I agree that the book itself is not notable and therefore is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. However, in terms of Salisbury's article, it seems to me that it is worth mentioning what he is doing now. If the only thing he had ever done is self-publish some diet and exercise books, then he would not be notable. The general consensus here seems to be that if he is notable, it is due to his college football career, and we have some reliable sources to establish that. If we want to reword it to say something like, "Since his retirement from football, Salisbury has self-published a book about diet and nutrition," cite his website, and leave it at that, that's fine with me. I just think it's useful to include what he is doing now in the article. But this is all stuff we can work on once this AfD closes, if the article is kept/moved. --Esprqii (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Going to have to step in here to give my opinion. 1st a notable self published book is interesting, especially Salisbury's. Take a look at this.

Now in the beginning i noticed almost every expert on here seemed to call this person not notable then switched their mind due to college football. But this "self published book" is making some serious headway and this next thing read it. It's the top 100 Downloaded bestseller list in the united states. From Stephen King to the self published Celestine Prohpecy author WHO BY THE WAY IS A SELF PUBLISHED AUTHOR WHO YOU PUT ON THIS LIST AS NOTABLE so the argument self published authors are not notable is hogwash. Read this: Salisbury's Transform Diet is 52 on the list out of 350,000 books. This is notable. Self published or not, it's in fact more than notable. Show me another author on this list who has done this other than the self published Celestine prophecy author. Here is the list from a 3rd party NO AGENDA except pure statistics on the book. http://www.ebookmall.com/best-sellers/new-releases-ebooks.htm EBookMall has been around since 1999. If you don't know who EBookMall is your a moron. Have you heard of Amazon? Are they notable? LOL Come On People!! You can read about that and how reputable they are. If I read that Salisbury "may have written a book"? Your kidding right? As for his "self serving website? How is that possible? His products are real. Order them on the products tab. He has a REAL protein powder, a real transform bar, and a very real book. As for the book not having a reputable publishing company? It's IUniverse who is owned by Barnes and Noble. In fact is AUTHOR HOUSE and you people have IUniverse the "not notable company" as notable on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUniverse So you really need to keep your facts straight. There are way too many contradictions. From Amy Fisher to Heidi Fleiss are both notable and have published their books through IUniverse the self publishing company. SO not only is IUniverse who you the wikipedia experts put as a NOTABLE company who salisbury is with he now has the 52 best selling book in the world as an E book. I would have to say that's NOTABLE. As for the ISDN number not being their that Wookie reported, again, NOT TRUE. Salisbury is not a self prescribed expert but has a degree in Nutriton and is a Certified Sports Nutritionist. Not sure how that doesn't make him an expert. Again, the facts are not straight from what i read through this entire comment section. CERTIFIED with the AMFNA and GREG LADD is a dun and Bradstreet cetified company since 1995 from New York. Your facts above WOOKIE are not accurate. And look at the abs diet or zone diet or south beach diet websites...ALL SELFSERVING and of course! The transform diet website is nothing more than a place to order the book have 3 paragraphs of the author and buy his products that he created. Do we know who else did this same thing and isnt certifed who you have as notable? Mr. Bill Phillips. Why is he who never did anything but form a company and write a book he notable? Again, you have to keep it consistent and the facts straight. Lastly, the WOOKIE "report" tells us that there is no ISBN number for the Transform Diet? Once again a major blunder. Here it is... *http://www.TransformDiet.com - book is confirmed by publishing company (Iuniverse); ISBN 0-595-51569-X; eBook ISBN 0-595-61947-9;Hardcover ISBN 0-595-50497-3. So please get the facts straight. As for the author not being a model? LOL really? Have you read GQ lately? You might want to try that. He is with Elite in Atlanta call them. They will confirm it. He is also being listed as the top 25 models ever by Vogue. http://www.Top25malemodelsever.com please no more nonsense. This is a so overtalked about. Salisbury by the way is number 15 on the list on Topmale models ever. So is he a self serving self published author or a college football player/ top selling author and top model? Get your facts straight people. Really! and get the proper people to do the proper research.

The top of the page all says not notable then to notable? Your losing crediblity with this community. You need to follow through. As for the PR report that IUniverse put out. His book was 6th for all of last year. That is notable. It's also from IUniverse and you can see who to contact for proof. I also would ask why a guy like Michael Flinn is not on wikipedia. He is the hugo boss model who was in every male model GQ from 1986 to 1992 yet because it was pre world wide web days YOU DONT BELIEVE HE WAS A MODEL? LOL Salisbury fell into the pre internet days with modeling and as did flinn. Take a look at Flynn he needs to be on wikipedia. He is not. UNBELIEVABLE: You don't believe unless you see proof through internet? Ridiculous. Heres some proof about the greatest male model ever not on your wikipedia site because you cant find pics. Try this: This is Model Metro are they not notable enough for you? LOL http://www.malemodelretro.info/2009/04/michael-flinn-mr-hugo-boss.html There are 5 pics all from Hugo Boss campaigns and covers of GQ. But somehow because writers are not writing about Flinn because he now doesnt work in the world wide web days is not notable because of lack of stories? Seriously, please get your facts straight and quit looking for what you consider reputable and proof. How many people can continue to talk about these two people and doubt their credibility. They both are on the cover of GQ and a simple look at Salisbury's website or sally feltons proves this. THANK YOU. But do your homework and quit naysaying. It's getting silly who you find reputable and who isnt. Kevin Craft notable? why? What a joke. And if you say "it doesnt matter about these others like craft or Flinn then why bother caring to even write another article about anyone including Salisbury? Maybe WOOKIE should take Sean Salisbury off the list of notable. Where are his "facts"? Annoying people. Just get this done and move on. The debate is over!! 65.160.210.32 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)City People[reply]

  • Comment I understand the frustration that is brewing here. This AFD should have been closed days ago. Please be patient, I'm sure someone will come along and close this as keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a comment that the non-stop promotion of this article from the single purpose anonymous user--supposedly a kindly middle-aged couple--should be taken with a large grain of salt. Even the link above does nothing to provide a reliable source of Salisbury's modeling career. I would like to see the anon user move on from this single-minded focus, read up on the five pillars of Wikipedia and work toward becoming a full-fledged Wikipedia contributor. --Esprqii (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald...THANK YOU. salisbury is a KEEP and Michael Flinn needs to have an article on wikipedia. The AFD?...Close this thing. It's OVERKILL and has been proven. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alternate version. Jesus tapdancing Christ. Vodello (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seeing as this has turned into a content discussion rather then a deletion discussion, may i suggest that we move the conversation to the article's talk page. it appears there is consensus to keep the alternate version, all we need to decide is if we are going to keep the current title or the alternate title. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are again sorry for coming accross bold. With the help of our grandson he simply corrected not promoted WookieInHeat. Mistakes were made in her comments and were simply corrected. The "grain of salt comment"? We would only say had we not been so adament about the beginning comments of puffery made at the top to a notable person was in fact made and proved by us. I think that deserves a little more credit. Please re-read this entire discussion. We are through contributing and only want to see the just in something. And finally the comment about the top 25 male models ever by Vogue magazine is proof for all 25 models. The list is accurate and complete. How many website or radio interviews does someone need before "proof" is met? That's all we were wondering. Thank you again. We close with no more thoughts about this topic and we put it to rest. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. !votes from SPAs discounted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Kim[edit]

Hector Kim (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)

challenged speedy--perhaps it does make some claim to notability , but the references seem very dubious to establish that. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - notability seems to rely primarily on the National Registry of Who's Who, a list that appears only to have existed circa 1999-2000 (apparently before running into trademark conflict with the publishers of Who's Who in America) and which may have been a pay-for-inclusion listing. The one article cited is a 3-paragraph piece which reads like a press release, promoting a book self-published through CreateSpace. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i went through a thorough review of all the articles sources last night and found nothing that qualified as a WP:RS. nominated the article for speedy delete as pre db-a7, article was deleted and recreated today. article cites no reliable third party sources and seems to be simply a vessel for promotion of authors website/blog and self-published books on amazon. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of the sources appears to qualify as a WP:RS but none of the others do. Non-notable person. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove AfD and Keep The section where the article mentions National Registry of Who's Who, which I personaly doubt was a pay-for-inclusion list, was removed. I did more research on Mr. Kim and found a few local (Los Angeles) newspaper articles that support his notibility. Two of them are now linked in the article. They are in Korean language. I wasn't sure if I should use a google-translator URL for them. I also made a few minor changes so that the artcle does not read much like a press release. My writing still needs a lot of work, which is one of the reasons why I started "wiki-ing". As a starter, an article about someone whom I have been a big fan of but is not seen on Wikipedia would be a good choice, I thought. Mr. Kim's accomplishments are verified through secondary sources like IMDB and newspaper articles. AfD certainly is not an appropriate action of the article. WangGun (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google translate, I see no mention for Hector in either of those two Korean articles. I do see mentions of Saramnet, but this is not an article on Saramnet, and these mentions would not even qualify Saramnet as notable (in each case, it is merely a single item in a list of things that exist; no separate attention is paid to sarament.) As for the Who's Who, it shows sign of being a Who's Who scam -- WorldCat finds zero copies in libraries, which is not a sign of a reliable reference work. In some cases, these deals will put in a first listing for free, as bait for selling books, "lifetime memberships", plaques, etc., but in any case this is not a noted reference work and does not serve to prove notability. IMDB is both user-editable and not a source of claim of notability, as presence requires merely a credit rather than notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Mr. Kim and his accomplishments. And, the issue here is notability if you have not noticed. The links to the newspaper articles were added as a means to verify his accomplishments as the CEO of SaramNet were indeed significant and noted in a published manner. As to your haste assumption on the credibility of the Who's Who listing, which by the way is not even in the article any more as noted above, my search attempt returns ten results in the United States, which then makes "The National Registry of Who's Who" a very reliable reference work accordingly to your logic. Your claim only suggests that either you did not want it to be found or your search skills are largely limited. Your response shows a sign of anxiety. Additionally, IMDB listing is a representative source of notability for professionals in the movie industries around the world. Try adding yourself as the director of Titanic. Let me know if it is "user-editable" as you falsely claim. In any case, I see no valid claim anywhere in your response. Please do not add to this conversation unless you are genuinely interested in making a contribution. WangGun (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you are new to Wikipedia, and may not be familiar with its policies. I'm going to recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on notability. For example, you will find there that establishing it requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Those Korean-language articles do not address the subject, Hector Kim, directly at all. No, being in ten libraries does not make something a very reliable reference source, it makes it quite scarce, compared to a real reference book. As for the use of IMDb to ascribe notability, that is specifically barred in some of the notability guidelines ("Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database.") and falls outside the general guidelines for what denotes notability. And if you're unaware of where IMDb gets their data from, you may want to review how you too can add information to IMDb. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i just wanted to apologize to WanGun, i realize you have taken some offense to people suggesting mr.kim is not notable and recommending your article for deletion. contributions by new users are very much appreciated, we are not trying to discourage you from becoming a wikipedian. please don't take peoples objective analysis of your articles notablity as a personal slight, wikipedia just has very strict rules defining what is and is not acceptable for inclusing in the encyclopedia, particularly regarding biographies of living persons. ultimately though, everyones constructive contributions to the wikipedia project are fully appreciated, even slightly misguided contributions. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that he "made films" is dubiously supported; the IMDb listing is simply for an "H. Kim", and even that only has one film editing credit, for an erotic film noted mainly as a step in the decline of a former child star. There is also a TV editing credit, but following through to the show's IMDb listing, it lists H. Kim as working on "unknown episodes". --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and edit - i removed "author" and replaced "filmmaker" with "videographer" in his title. to me he's only notable as an editor (who edited a tv show i grew up watching) and photographer (who shoots celebrities like this year's miss thailand). just checked imdb and it says "Alternate Names: Hector H. Kim | Hector Kim." more of an edit case than of delete.58.143.119.36 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For many ethnic Koreans with an overseas background like myself, Hector Kim is not only a notable person but also an inspiring one. I had been an everyday visitor to Saramnet Overseas Korean community during my college years, and later became a fan of Hector's travel photography that he's been sharing online. Hector became one of the first Asian American online stars when he ran Saramnet. Although Hector doesn't seem to blog as much any more, he was one of the first-generation bloggers who had thousands of followers even before we knew of the word, blogger. I even purchased his book Photomazing Thailand, which I'm learning a lot from. I would like to see more information added to this article in the future. I agree with the person above that the article should be kept and edited. 122.202.144.148 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Salama[edit]

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

A very meritorious person, but probably not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another bio where there are borderline references, but I do not think they show any actual notability. I speedied, but was requested to reconsider, so I'm sending this here for a decision. (The references were not present at the first AfD.) DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Judging by the cited sources, Salama is only newsworthy by association with Mark Bingham, not independently notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO, none, but one, of the references is about the subject. The one that is, is only his status with the California Bar. There is not even a claim of significance or notability in the article.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is an off-topic puff-piece about a non-notable person -Drdisque (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a notability sentence and cited it with an online reference (reference number one). Please let me know if that changes your positions. You guys work fast! Thank you all for your input and integrity to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexylamb69 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but the changes don't persuade me to change my opinion. Much as I agree with the comments about what an admirable person he seems to be, simply saying that he is "noted for" something doesn't establish "notability" in the fairly narrow sense in which Wikipedia uses the term. I see a lot of articles, here and on new pages patrol, where the subject seems a thoroughly admirable individual who undoubtedly deserves more widespread recognition, but that's not Wikipedia's function. Believe me, I take no pleasure from !voting 'Delete' in situations such as this -- there are a lot of pages that I'd love to see disappear first, but the harsh fact is that, whatever our individual opinions, they do meet the community's consensus regarding notability, and this article still doesn't. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is no longer an orphan.Sexylamb69 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added in more secondary sources re notability.Sexylamb69 (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, the issues are none of the references are actually about Mr. Salama or of anything he is directly responsible for. One of the references you posted was in fact just a rehash of another that was already in the article. Being a candidate in a local election does not meet notability either. WP:BIO and WP:Politician are the policies you will need to look at for a chance of inclusion.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mr. Salama sounds like a person we would all like to have as a friend and confidant. However, under our current Notability guideline requirements or any of the sub-guidelines headings listed under Wikipedia:Notability (people) Mr. Salama fails the primary requirements
    • 1 The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
    • 2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

At this point Mr. Salama has obtained neither that I could find in my research. Though the article contains references, they are either blogs – special interest website – or local coverage. Sorry to say, this does not meet our criteria for inclusion. ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you all for your input to date. Salama was just interviewed by the local newspaper - The Marin Independent Journal - for his candidacy for office, and there will be an article written about him in the countywide newspaper in the next two weeks, possibly sooner. Once this comes out, I can add it to this wiki. There are also debates all next week, the results of which are expected to be online. Once they are, I will seek your approval under politician, 3. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."" Thank you. Sexylamb69 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other." Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Editorial decisions such as merging should be discussed on the talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball players who played for Penn State[edit]

Major League Baseball players who played for Penn State (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)

Unneeded listcruft. Create a category if absolutely needed, but this list is not. Note: previously a no consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Leaguers Who Played for Penn State. Grsz11 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better served at Penn State Nittany Lions, Arizona State Sun Devils baseball, and Rice Owls baseball than at separate pages. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Hit Bull, win steak, no reason why it should be deleted, nor any reason why it should be kept. Secret account 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Muboshgu as per a merge target. The Rice University list is already (in a much better form) at Rice Owls baseball#Former players, and that the Arizona State list would be more logical an addition, in similar form, to Arizona State Sun Devils baseball. There doesn't seem to be an article about the Penn State baseball team; maybe someone who spent a few years at State College PA will be drawn to the discussion by the mere spotting of the name of the alma mater, and have a suggestion. Mandsford 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss possible merge as suggested by Muboshgu. One thing is clear, the list is not indiscriminate; how can a list of major league baseball players be indiscriminate, since we accept that every one of them u is notable by our standards? A list of anyone who ever played for Penn State, might more reasonably be considered indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Seems to be leaning towards a merge right now, but I think some more discussion on the merge targets will be helpful. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be a category not an article. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the suggestions by Hit Bull, Win Steak. Vodello (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.W.A. (New World Agenda)[edit]

N.W.A. (New World Agenda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article fails notability criteria for albums. And as this album will be released in Februrary 2011 it fails also WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust Talk Contribs 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should not be deleted because it fits guidelines more than other albums here that have not been nominated for deletion. Take Detox for example. Not a single released, nor a release date in sight and it is still a huge article. 50 Cent's latest album also has had no singles and is still a huge article. We should not delete it because not only does it have two official singles, but two official remixes and two official music videos. I say we leave it. - broomtherapper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. No tracklist, cover or release date = no article. Also Broom uses that exact argument on every album he likes that gets nominated for deletion. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This article appears to meet these criterion. And yes, Broomtherapper (talk · contribs) should stop using WP:OTHERCRAP. --Kvng (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW. A hunter shoots a bear![edit]

NSFW. A hunter shoots a bear! (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)

New Youtube advert. No indication of WP:Notability. A small amount of google hits and not a lot huge number of views. noq (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that this might be "the first video, on YouTube, with an interactive typebox to allow users to select which video segment to see next" a good enough reason for an article to be notable? If we can prove it. TiriPon (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Your or my belief that something is the first, the biggest, the worst, the best, or whatever does not constitute a strong argument for its notability, in the sense Wikipedia sees notability: WP:N. I agree that it is innovative and clever, but "I like it" is not a good argument for keeping the article. Look for significant coverage of the video/viral ad campaign in reliable and independent secondary sources, such as coverage in media blogs which are themselves considered reliable sources. If a YouTube gets coverage in newspapers or news programs, that is better substantiation of notability than your opinion or mine as to how important or revolutionary it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete per all. Not encyclopedic in any way whatsoever. Yousou (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A complete absence of Wikipedia requirements for notability. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to cite supposed claims of notability (or what little claims there were). Fails WP:N completely. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonexistant assertion of notability, borderline advertisement. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently notable since this is covered in several major non-English online sources like in Het Nieuwsblad [56], Affari Italiani [57], Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger [58] and de:Werben & Verkaufen [59]. More than enough to build a proper article. – sgeureka t•c 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 28[reply]
Per request on my talk page. I closed this as delete, a valid close in this case, but the requestor would like the sources above discussed. Courcelles 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a youtube guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem to meet WP:WEB#1 quite nicely. Could you explain why you feel it doesn't? Hobit (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Checking out what google.de finds these two weeks later, I've also found coverage by Contagious Magazine [60], in an article called "Die besten interaktiven Virals" by de:Werben & Verkaufen [61], a short online blurb in de:Horizont (Zeitschrift) [62], and in Rheinische Post [63]. A press release (in German) says the clip is available in German now. I probably could have dug up more coverage if I had gone farther than the ninth google.de page or if I used google.com. – sgeureka t•c 07:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although English sources appear nonexistent, there are articles in at least two Belgian newspapers (Het Nieuwsblad [64] and De Standaard [65]. a search on google news also shows an article in La Vanguardia [66] in addition to sources already presented above. All together I think the subject meets notability criteria as presented in wp:WEB or wp:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources, especially Contagious Magazine and Het Nieuwsblad look to be more than enough for WP:N or WP:WEB#1. Hobit (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any sources that show that it is still talked about - they all seem to be from around the time it was released and seem "15 minutes of fame". noq (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ephemeral advertising campaign. Multiple outcomes based on choices made sounds like a rip-off of Myst and dozens of games before and after that — it's hard to see this ad campaign as having any sort of historical importance. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did "historical importance" become a criteria for inclusion on wikipedia? This meets wp:gng, so it should be included. Yoenit (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the first appearance of it's kind. Maybe doesn't seem notable, but obviously it'll be followed by others, and we'd like to remember how it started. Its one of the small things, that can change the everydays. Arcsinx (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has it been shown to be the "first of its kind"? noq (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
some of the sources make that claim. My own experiences say otherwise, but... Hobit (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Yoenit (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 28[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2010 Hamas terror campaign. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 West Bank shooting[edit]

September 2010 West Bank shooting (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)

More suitable for wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS; no evidence of lasting notability (since the event occured today). Another similar article by the same creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) and one by a different creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Can you please retract or clarify your statement that "other similar articles of the same creator have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently"? One similar article of mine, June 2010 West Bank shooting was recently deleted and then relisted following a DRV. I'm not aware of another similar article of mine that was deleted recently. Thanks. (And BTW, how is this at all relevant?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clarified GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article on the June 2010 West Bank shooting has not been deleted. Rather, was nominated for deletion twice (one AFD, and a review) and each time the article was kept. Now it has been nominated a third time for deletion. There are currently no fewer then 13 terrorism-related articles nominated for deletion.Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism. No fewer than 7 of them area about Hamas-sponosred terrorist attacks.AMuseo (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it was deleted, as a result of its first AfD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting), and was then restored and relisted at a later date, as information became available later. As I have noted here, the same action is likely to be appropriate here; in a few weeks, it should be much clearer whether or not this subject has the enduring notability required to pass WP:NOTNEWS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it's now been deleted again, in fact. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "No evidence of lasting notability"? It happened today. It makes zero sense to nominate an article for deletion the day it is created, especially on NOTNEWS grounds. There is no way of knowing whether the incident will have lasting notability the day it happens. Indeed, as the incidents were intended to derail peace efforts its international ramifications and consequent notability are quite probable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Probably going to be notable" doesn't cut it, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Clearly the article is notable... for the moment. But per WP:NOTNEWS, it's not appropriate unless there is enduring notability. It's far too soon to determine whether or not there will be enduring notability. Write the article on wikinews and come back when this can be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second, you're the one predicting (i.e. crystalballing) and I'm the one telling you not to predict. The incident has clearly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You are surmising that the coverage will die down and the story will become unnotable. However, you have no evidence of that. Your entire deletion rationale rests on your crystalballing theory. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My entire deletion rationale rests on established policy: wikipedia is not a news site, it's not a crystal ball, and an article about a news event needs more than just notability: it needs enduring notability which cannot be established the day that the event occurs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it is impossible to prove enduring notability on the day of the incident just like it is impossible to prove the lack of enduring notability on the day of the incident. I am not trying to prove the former but you are trying to prove the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. I am not trying to "prove it won't be notable", nor is that necessary. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, speculation as to whether or not it will be notable in future is not relevant to wikipedia, and a news event which happened today has no evidence of enduring notability, which is a requirement for its inclusion due to WP:NOTNEWS. As I said below, please consider reading and understanding this policy, as you have not addressed the concerns that since this event happened yesterday, it lacks any evidence of enduring notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make an argument and then insist that I view your argument the way you want to frame it. You are the one making predictions that this incident will not have enduing notability. I am not making any sort of prediction. All I am saying is that at this time it has met the notability requirements of WP:GNG. It may turn out not to be notable and it may turn out to be notable. I don't know and I don't have to predict that it will remain notable. We can ascertain its notability at a later time. One thing we cannot be doing is nominating articles on subjects that have received significant coverage in secondary sources on the day they were created on the premise that they will lose notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't have time to read another WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT response ignoring my argument and trying to undermine it by pretending I'm saying something which I'm not; I trust the closing admin to recognise WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that there still has been no counter-argument for WP:NOTNEWS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this discussion seems to be going nowhere, with both of us accusing each other of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'll let the closing admin adress the strenght of the arguments being made on both sides. I'll let you have the last word below if you like. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. These articles belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for deletion above is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which is intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[67] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[68]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[69] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [70] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."AMuseo (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no systemic bias; I saw this article, saw that there's as yet no evidence that it will have enduring notability, and rightly suggested (and would have done no matter where the shooting had occured) that per WP:NOTNEWS, it is too early to be made into an encyclopaedic article: it's only just happened. It's perfectly suitable, however, for wikinews. All of the keep arguments I've seen so far are dealing merely with its notability: I have no question that it is currently notable. But the correct application of WP:NOTNEWS is as it states: we consider the enduring notability of news, and that can't be established so soon after the event occured. By all means userfy this article, but it can't be encyclopaedic until its enduring notability has been established. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and has been a subject of continuing media coverage. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing media coverage?!?!? You are aware this happened hours ago, correct? nableezy - 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, true that new stories pop up at regular intervals on news google, in fact, I can see in my rystal ball that there will be a story in exactly eight days about the baby's brit and his name.AMuseo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't exist to report what you predict will happen in the future. You can't establish a trend this soon after an event. It is entirely possible that there will be some level of coverage about this for a couple of weeks, and then it'll be out of the news. This should be recreated if and when it is shown to have enduring notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Newsworthy but not historically notable incident. Wikipedia is not your source for breaking news, nor is every shot fired in the interminable Israeli-Palestinian Civil War worthy of an article. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Where is it written that an article must be historically notable to be WP:Notable? I have looked at the guidelines pretty carefully,[71] and events that get wide (national or international) coverage and have some significance beyond a local community (such as a political impact) are WP:notable. Requiring "Historically notable" is an original claim .
If the lasting effect cannot be determined on the day of the attack, why would you call for it to be deleted on the day of the attack? Surely we should err on the safe side and keep the article pending clarification of its lasting effect. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start the article as a userspace draft or in WP:AFC. My point is these are do not belong on Wikipedia until notability is determined, essentially what policy says. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the keep !votes are referring solely to notability: I suggest reading WP:NOTNEWS carefully and considering whether or not its notability the day after the event is really sufficient for it to be kept. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS policy, there is zero indication of any "enduring notability" with regard to this event - take it to WikiNews. I also agree with Giftiger wunsch when he points out above that most of the keep !votes are not addressing the reason for this nom. Codf1977 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable article about something that is nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign, or Keep if there is no consensus to merge. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign it is a better idea to have one article, discussing all of these attacks, rather than many different articles, repeating the same thing, this also makes it less like news. Smartse (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS or merge as suggested above. Several people were shot in various US cities today, per press reports, , and those are also the stuff of Wikinews rather than permanent individual encyclopedia articles. Edison (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for rushing to create an article about a minor incident such as this. It would better to wait and see whether the incident acquires enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? Why not to 2010 Hamas terror campaign?AMuseo (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify. I believe that this article should be kept per WP:Event. What I quesiton is the reasoning used by editors who want to delete it, rather than merge it. Why do they want the useful, valid information collected here to disappear?AMuseo (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and the other recent shooting articles into one article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need an article for every incident that is news worthy. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010.--Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note I want to add a practical/mechanical reason for keeping articles like this. When notable incidents occur, it is easy to write a well-sourced, accurate article. This is because major newspapers cover the story. On the other hand, if you wait a few weeks and try to write such an article, it becomes very difficult because the news sources disappear behind walls and you have to "pay per view" for each article. Most of us don't have unlimited funds. Therefore, it makes sense to keep well-sourced articles like this. Looking back in a couple of years after emotions have cooled, notability will be easier to determine. But once the information is deleted, it will be very hard to recreate.AMuseo (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with AMuseo. It does no harm keeping articles like this, especially if they are properly sourced. If, in the fullness of time, the incident fails to meet the 'enduring notability' criterion, it can be deleted, or merged with into a larger article documenting the timeline of terrorist incidents as they relate to whatever conflict -- Israeli/Palestinian, US v pretty-much-anyone, etc -- they are part of.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 2010 Hamas terror campaign WookieInHeat (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign (still needs a new title over there). Right now it is not clear if it is emphasizing breaking news but it is fresh enough that I am assuming it is. The article can always be split of the subsection over there grows with ongoing coverage in the future.
Side note: See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE for some related info, AMuseo.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfast Networks[edit]

Steadfast Networks (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 not a noteworthy company and does not meet encyclopedic standards for being listed here. One author contributed everything to the article and if they were really interested in keeping a SteadFast Networks article about SteadFast Networks they would surely of listed the recent happenings at SteadFast Networks.

It appears this article was created merely to point out that Steadfast hosts 'hate sites' and therefore is an article based purely on bias.Woods01 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I didn't create it for the hate site list (their response to the article puts that into context very well), I just didn't have much time to look up more sources. I specifically made sure that it hit the requirements for a notability and created it, thinking that someone else would improve it or I would find time to add more noteworthy information. It isn't my fault that nobody else has added anything. You say that it doesn't fit encyclopedic standards but don't cite any notability guidelines (the relevant one being WP:CORP, which this passes) --Nick Catalano  contrib talk 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My afd reason was backed up by Nick's keep. Nick's keep cited no reasons to keep the article.

It does not meet WP:CORP, godaddy would meet that. The only reason this company would be notable in this regard is once again the hosting of hate sites.

It's a few man company which explains nobody else being involved with it's article. Nothing in the article is missing from steadfasts own website other than the hate sites.

I understand you want to keep it because you made it but it doesn't meet the standards for being here nor is anyone else contributing because there is nothing to add.

My not citing WP policy in the afd goes without saying.Woods01 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this company. The hosting of the hate sites doesn't seem to have attracted all that much notice. The only coverage of substance appears from DataCenterKnowledge.com but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is DataCenterKnowledge and Inc Magazine in addition to the Tribune. There are 3 secondary sources that I would consider noteworthy. There is also PingZine Magazine, but that is a smaller magazine that I know Steadfast advertises in, so I decided to keep that source out. My goal was to provide multiple secondary sources, which I did. --Nick Catalano  contrib talk 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the Inc stuff to be coverage of any significance. Ping's article reads like press release rehash. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It easily meets GNG. Significant and reliable coverage by the Tribune and DataCenter Knowledge. I based the article around the article for Dreamhost, which has had multiple articles for deletion and passed each time. And Steadfast is no smaller than Dreamhost was when that article was first created in 2005. --Nick Catalano  contrib talk 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 28[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anonymus (band). Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stress (album)[edit]

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

Article on an album with nothing but a track listing. No evidence of notability. Article on the band (Anonymus (band) is a stub almost as short as this one. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What I said about Stress also applies the same to the following:

Ni vu, ni connu Instinct (Anonymus album) Daemonium (album) L'Académie du Massacre Chapter Chaos Begins Dondegroovily (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 28[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 28[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:RS and is not notable. I'm thinking that the parent article of the band itself, Anonymus (band), should be put up for Afd as well because I really don't see the notability or the reliable sourcing required for inclusion! - Pmedema (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of other album articles similar to this one that should also be cleaned up: Ni vu, ni connu, Instinct (Anonymus album), L'Académie du Massacre, Chapter Chaos Begins. --Kvng (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Merge banners are already in place. Submitter needs to explain why merge is not an acceptable resolution (See WP:BEFORE #4). --Kvng (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? If I saw the track list in the band's article, I was consider deleting it. The only thing to merge isn't even notable anyway. Also, Pmedema above stated the opinion that the band itself shouldn't even have an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a pretty simple merge ;) --Kvng (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect To the band page. That is what Kvng is hinting at. As long as the band has an article on wiki the titles of individual albums are good redirects. Whether it should be on wiki at all is a separate discussion. Yoenit (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:MUSIC, not per WP:HAMMER. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Sky Ferreira album)[edit]

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

Not notable, can be iced until more information is available. Fixer23 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a clear breach of Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law making it a very easy decision. Per WP:NALBUMS, also, DELETE, no holds-barred! =) Seriously though the page is built on the singles released but we all know that often singles released are omitted from an album when they underperform therefore an article on said mentioned content is unrequired. Additionally pages called TBA are never created. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons every other prematurely-created pop music album or song article is created. - eo (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xxoffann[edit]

Xxoffann (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)

Unsourced BLP that makes only a very vague and unsupportable claim ("one of the most famous and talented disc jockeys currently active in Maldives") as to notability. PROD removed by User:121.45.55.169 without comment. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States of India[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article promoting a non-notable (and somewhat off-the-wall) political idea - fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SOAP andy (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Ndigwe[edit]

Emmanuel Ndigwe (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 is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (never at a level higher than the regionalized Romanian second division) and there is no indication it would pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Carolina's 3rd congressional district. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Weber[edit]

Craig Weber (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)

Primarily promotional weakly referenced BLP that fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTABILITY Deconstructhis (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Redirect to North Carolina's 3rd congressional district as according to WP:POLITICIAN "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." No reason to deviate from the general rule here. JASpencer (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why was this not done as a merge originally. AfD is overkill according to the quoted rule. JASpencer (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination has been withdrawn and there are no delete !votes. This is a non-admin closure based on clear consensus that the article is on a notable subject, and although it needs work, the work can be done. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England[edit]

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

The Page is full of Synthesis and is not directly sourced reliably. Prime Examples are the use of HMRC advice areas and the Environment Agency catchment areas as sources to justify the "boundary" of the Northern England. None of the references refer directly to a "Northern England" they either refer to the North-West, North-East, or Yorkshire and the Humber English local administrative regions which do not constitute a "Northern England" under any of the references. The only part of the article which is adequately sourced is the "Flag of Northern England" this alone though does not warrant an entire article based mainly on synthesis to be created. Parts of the article can be hived off to where they belong in articles on the English administrative regions and the historic counties. This article is though not the place for them and is pure synthesis to create a fictional point of view based on perceptions and prejudices within English society. Wales and Scotland are definable due to historic and well defined boundaries; this article shown no such boundaries exists. Lucy-marie (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article as they are related to the original article and suffer from the same irreversible problems which are found in the original article.

Southern England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
English Midlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. I'll admit the articles could use some serious improvement, but these are absolutely viable topics. And where did you get the idea that none of the references mention "Northern England"? The titles of two of them are Looking North: Northern England and the National Imagination and Thinking Northern: Textures of Identity in the North of England. the wub "?!" 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The sources do not refer to a specific geographic location for a "Northern England" as a specific geogrphic definiton does not exit. Simply stating "Northern England" in the source dosen't make the article reliably sourced as their definitons of "Northern England" could be and will be wildly diiferent.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an area for these topics cannot be precisely defined does not mean that they should be deleted. Bottom line is there are many many reliable sources about these topics, and as such they are notable. If you perceive problems with them then the solution is through editing, not deletion.
  • Keep. The articles are in a very ropey state, but I don't see how you can seriously doubt that they're legitimate topics. There are many, many geographic terms that are imprecise—nobody can even agree on what constitutes Europe, let alone the Deep South or the Anglosphere, but one can't seriously dispute that the north of England (and the south, and the midlands) have distinctive characteristics and are commonly used concepts, even if people mean different things by the terms. These articles are no less valid than North Africa, Central Europe or Southwestern United States. – iridescent 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely exists as a concept - see this lecture series. PamD (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict)- Iridescent has provided some good examples, especially as those articles also state that the areas are more or less informally defined. Those articles are however very well sourced. I'm sure that sources can be found for the three English articles - here's one for starters: HERE is one for starters. --Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I don't think this nomination stands any chance of success. I'd have speedily closed it already but the nominator, to their credit, did post on the article's talk page but didn't get a reply and so does merit a decent answer. The reason that we should keep this and the similar articles is that the topic is notable. Entire books have been written about it such as Looking north: northern England and the national imagination. The article's imperfections are no reason to delete as our editing policy states clearly that we welcome articles of all quality and should seek to improve them further. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And the concept that Scotland has "historical boundaries" as an argument makes little sense here - the Scottish boundaries were malleable depending on who won the last war <g>. Wales' boundaries were 'defined' only by conquest as well. Collect (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each of these articles is based on an agglomeration of some of the standard regions. The Midlands consists of the East Midlands and West Midlands; the North is from there to the Scottish border. The precise location of the border was disputed in medieval times, but has been fixed for over 400 years, and approximately fixed for 300-400 more. Southern England is perhaps slightly more nebulous. The Northern England article needs a lot of work, but that is no reason to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that 'the north' or 'the south' are somewhat vague terminology, but that does not matter because there are numerous reliable sources discussing it. Any vagueness could (and probably should) be discussed in the article. Quantpole (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - Please consider this nomination withdrawn as there is clearly a broad based concensus to improve this article and to justify the content.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watkyn Bassett[edit]

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

A previous AfD for a large number of articles about P. G. Wodehouse characters, including Watkyn Bassett, resulted in no concensus to delete all the articles but the suggestion by the closing administrator that the articles be renominated individually. This is the individual renomination for Watkyn Bassett, a character who fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A character who is notable enough to be referenced to illustrate points in the opening paragraph of a CCC Money article ([72]), in a book of essays on the Roman World ([73]) and in another on poetry, class, and ideology in the 1930s ([74]). And that a reviewer of the Loeb edition of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura can allude to the character without further explanation (The Classical Review, vol 27 no 2 (1977), p 180) argues that the character is notable. I also found a reference in The Cambrian Law Review (Safety First: The Selection of Metropolitan Police Magistrates, 1950-1961, vol 57, 1996), where Bassett is described as a "mildly fictionalised" version of 20th magistrates, but it's a pay-site so I can't assess its relevance. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources Jimmy Pitt has uncovered--needless to say, these should be added to the article in question! Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the corresponding character list of {{Lists of P. G. Wodehouse characters}}. I reason per WP:SPLIT, there is no reason to have a character stub article around for years (i.e. that no-one is willing to expand/re-write so that it satisfies wikipedia policies and guidelines), even if the character has some notability. Better cover a character neatly in a character list and allow a natural growth, instead of continuing to keep a stub-mess around. – sgeureka t•c 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the sources cited here. .I note that sgeuereka admits notability, but wants to delete because it has not yet been expanded. That's an argument contrary to well-established policy: There is no deadline on improvement, and stubs can last as long as necessary--even permanently. That';s
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close and redirect to Warren Woods Tower High School. Nominator has suggested merge/redirect, plus I have found no sources indicating that the school has notability independent of its current, merged incarnation. I have no prejudice to this article being restored if reliable sources can be found to establish that it has independent notability. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Woods High School[edit]

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

The article presents information on a former high school (Warren Woods High School), prior to emerging with Tower High School, to form what is now known as Warren Woods Tower High School. The article was previously redirected to the new school, however, the author removed the redirect and reinstated the article. Maintenance tags were placed on the article and removed by the author. A merge was suggested and removed by the author. The lede paragraph would be an excellent addition to the Warren Woods Tower High School article. There is not enough information available through reliable sources to support a standalone article. I am recommending a merge/redirect. Cindamuse (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megaphone desktop tool[edit]

Megaphone desktop tool (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 piece of software or website. The organization that runs it (GIYUS) is also not notable. Most references to either Megaphone Desktop or GIYUS seem to be from radical anti-Israel and anti-Semetic websites, with the exception of a few mentions in the pro-Israel website, Honest Reporting.Yserbius (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions to nom: Could you expand on "radical anti-Israel websites" being non RS? Thus written it reads like OR. And if some source is "anti-Semitic", why is it still in the article? To me, not a base for AfD, more like an edit, isn't it? Then, when these sources are so poor, why did you remove other sources like GIYUS-about us, JPost, and The Register here? -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Questions: I noticed Megaphone popping up in discussions about the Israel/Palestinian conflict, always by users calling Israel supporters "Megaphoners". I check Israeli news websites regularly so it intrigued me that I never heard of it. A simple Google search showed that virtually the only hits were either forums like Yahoo Answers and conspiracy sites like Stormfront.org and Electronic Intifada. These sites are very much non-RS as they can take a small, not very notable idea or person and make them seem important. They have been pushing Megaphone as a reason why there is support for Israel on the web, despite there being little to no evidence of its usage. Yserbius (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Wait, you are referring to non RS that are not used in the article. That says (you say) Wikipedia does it right. Here is no argument for deletion at all.
2. Then, elsewhere (I linked to) you deleted Megaphone and good sources like JPost, The Review, and just left The Sunday Times reference, in a vacuum. However, here in your nominating post and later in this answer again, you state that you cannot find a reasonable hit using Google.
3. Together: you delete RS elsewhere, and fifteen minutes later you write here you can't find a RS (and I'll skip the OR for now). Since you contradict your own statement, your nom's rationale is empty & idle. -DePiep (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I apologize. I'm still new to Wikipedia, as you may be able to tell from my profile. The problem is that of the RS's in the article only four actually mention Megaphone by name, the JPost article (which the link was broken) two Guardian articles and one from the Register. The rest refer to Israels efforts to increase positive standing in Internet communities, which is relevant, but only tangentically, as there is still no RS that Megaphone is even endorsed by Israel, let alone run by them.
2. I mentioned that I could not find a reliable source before I saw the fixed JPost link. I still could not find anything useful via Google. I deleted the JPost because the link was broken and I did not see anything by the Review, can you please point out to me what citation that was? There was a few other refs that I removed because they were very much non-RS.
3. I should have been a little more careful with editing that article. Basically, the problem was that the article implied that Megaphone is Israels #1 Internet weapon, when in reality it's a barely noticeable website. The citations provided over there were either irrelevant or broken, so I simply removed all references to Megaphone and left it as a simple paragraph about Israels well known and well reported brigade to ramp up support online.
My Conclusions: Yes, there exists a tool called 'Megaphone Desktop Tool' and it is mentioned once or twice in reliable sources. It's usage and effectiveness, though, is very exaggerated thanks in part to anti-Israel websites. Also, it has nothing to do with the Israeli government, only one or two forgettable pro-Israel organizations. Although Israel does have an Internet campaign, Megaphone has nothing to do with it. It is a silly website, made in the spare time of a few small time Israel supporters and is rarely updated (you can check the list feed yourself, it's updated less than twice a month and never with sites that involve voting). I recently found out about Wikis deletion policies, and was looking at the list of deleted articles, (specifically, those about software and websites) and this looked like a prime example of something that should not have its own article. If I am wrong, please feel free to chime in, but despite everything, I still feel that this entire article needs to be migrated to a paragraph or two in Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Media_and_public_discourse. Yserbius (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JPost article above makes it clear that the tool is endorsed by Israel's Foreign Ministry. To reiterate, my suggestion is that the topic be more about Internet propaganda than about this specific tool. It is the use and endorsement (by the Israeli government) of the tool that makes it notable. — HowardBGolden (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HBG's reply should do. But after your "apology" (please, stop explaining yourself. I have read your texts. And your so called conclusion, non sequitur, is: back to the same old personalized OR), after this, you still tried to push your POV again in here (I reverted, having read and referencing to your contributions here). Oh, so you are "new" here? Please state that this is your first account.
HBG, I'm sorry I had to disturb your closing argument. Closing it was. Y's edit did it. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a note at Y's talk page. re newness and this AfD within 40 edits. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JPost link was broken, thanks for fixing it. For something to be notable as an example of propaganda, there must be a reliable source that it's actually a notable tool. So far, the fact that there has been only cursory mentions about this tool, mostly by detractors, seems to imply that it is not widely used, if it is used at all. There are zero reliable sources that this is even endorsed by any major agency associated with Israel. GIYUS is practically non-existant and WUJS can hardly be considered an agency with any power. I could also start up a website that promotes vote-bombing a random controversial topic, but that does not make it notable. The mention of it on the WUJS wiki page is enough, there doesn't need to be a wiki page just for Megaphone. Yserbius (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re renaming: indeed the construction "Megaphone (some disambiguation term)" is preferred per WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB. The current word "desktop" is not very to the dab-point, as it is also web based. May I propose "Megaphone (software)"? Anyway, such a renaming is not an argument re this AfD. -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Yserbius: The JPost link was not only broken, it was also deleted by you based on OR in a bigger sweep (link again). Your "mostly by detractors" is personalised, very sloppy, and does not respond to the four RS HWB mentions. Did you check them? The whole reply reads like OR. Could you please start pointing to arguments? -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom's arguments are OR intertwined with POV. Also, nom is contradicting their argument by behaving different (about 180 degrees) in other edit (i.e. deleting RSs on the same topic, links above). After two discussions, above, nom has not come to an improved argument. I myself cannot find a criteria for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as a piece of political software endorsed by a government. Also spawned Collactive, a commercial version of the technology. --John Nagle (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The software is not notable in an engineering sense, but the social use of it certainly is, & there are sources to show it. That it has many sources mainly from "detractors" does not show it is not notable --quite the contrary. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CERT Coordination Center[edit]

CERT Coordination Center (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 computer group. GrapedApe (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is a Drug (album)[edit]

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

No real information since early 2010 with release date undetermined, other future album articles have been deleted with much more. Fixer23 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article shouldn't be deleted as it is already confirmed. --Abcassionchan 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcassionchan (talk • contribs)
That's not a reason to keep it. There is virtually no information here. Fixer23 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Album has been repeatedly pushed back for over a year, no release date, no track listing, no cover art. No article. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; likely to remain unreleased. Nothing confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wood[edit]

Jordan Wood (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 tagged as unreferenced BLP since January 2008. Ms Wood has an IMDb entry, but I can't find anything further apart from directory entries for her. All the initially promising looking references were about (Elijah) Jordan Wood. Article would appear to fail the basic criteria for notability. Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to keep the content. A discussion on the article's talk page may be held to determine how to proceed with the merge. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Villeneuve-Loubet mass grave[edit]

Villeneuve-Loubet mass grave (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 documents the discovery of 14 dead Germans from WWII. Given the scale of European deaths from violence in the past 100 years, this discovery is not notable. Compare the 210 mass graves filled with a total of 30,000 to 225,000 corpses to be found at Bykivnia, Ukraine. This page should be deleted under WP:NPT#NEWS. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the notability is in that the discovery was made more than forty years after World War II ended (2006), not in the number of people killed. Still, I would agree that it was just a 2006 news story. Mandsford 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, there should be some type of article about World War II casualties discovered long after the war has ended. It's difficult to envision what the title would be, and certainly it's not limited to Second World War. One could probably write a long article about bombs dropped during WW2 that killed people in the years since 1945. Mandsford 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:N and its WP:GNG. I found more coverage, some of which was 2 years after the initial modern discovery. [76][77] Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of topics pass our standards, then we can have thousands of articles. Just because another grave site has more bodies is not a valid reason to delete this article.--Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not pass WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:NOT is a Policy, but WP:N is only a Guideline. A few local news stories about the process of exhuming the remains are still just news. Abductive (reasoning) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. It's of historic value and originates from events from over half a century ago, not just an event and the coverage of the discovery alone spans at least two years, not just "one event." As you are getting all WikiLawyering on us, WP:NOTPAPER is also policy, not a guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your slippery slope fallacy prediction of articles on dud bombs is noted, but has nothing to do with the notability of this article. Your opinion that this is a "minor find" is noted too, but your personal opinion has nothing to do with the significant coverage lent do this topic. There's too much topic-specific content is this article to be merged into those different topic articles.--Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet. I feel this would be an excellent compromise between the notability of the discovery and the coverage it has recieved. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet as per Bahamut13. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The relevant parts can be merged to another article as suggested above. Anotherclown (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet as above Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOT NEWS is indeed a policy, but it needs to be interpreted. One of the differences between policy and guideline is that a guideline can be detailed, but a policy is necessarily in such broad terms that it leaves a wide range fro interpretation--in that sense, it's even more adaptable. (I make the analogy to the US constitution, which is certainly basic policy , but has been subject to such a wide range of interpretations as to permit or restrict almost anything, except for the most obvious cases.) I consider that this policy here is meant to include things like local robberies and fires and zoning discussions. Something of this magnitude from WWII does not fall under it. that there are even bigger similar events does not make this one non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A grave containing 14 Germans who appear to have been killed in fighting is also hardly of any significance to the war - it appears to be a minor battlefield graveyard that was forgotten about until it was re-found. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sisira Jayasuriya[edit]

Sisira Jayasuriya (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:BIO and WP:PROF. no significant indepth coverage [78]. has written many articles but nothing to make WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an experienced editor and have read WP:BEFORE many a time. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator should also read WP:Prof, which explains academic notability. Nominator's last two BLP AfDs concern two Sri Lankans. Nominator should be careful not to give any perception of ethnic bias. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe should assume good faith, I nominate a large variety of articles not just Sri Lankans, I find your accusation offensive. nominating articles is not attacking subject of article, it is questioning notability. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as promotional. There seems to be a consensus in favour of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 28 September 2010

NEMO (software)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N. I tried looking for sources, but when I Googled "Normalization Engine for Matching Organizations", only 4 links showed up, and 2 were from Wikipedia. The other two were the Sourceforge download page, and a bio for the software's developer, who also seems to be the one who created this article. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - My CSD was removed (probably by the creator) and should have been replaced. I can see no claim to notability, purely promotional material. --Triwbe (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - And I added the Speedy Delete notice back in to this article. --Joker264 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Promotial article with simply no notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of comments LibStar (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Nalliah[edit]

Danny Nalliah (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)

nominating for WP:ONEVENT. he only really gets coverage for one event. [80]. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correcting nomination, I think he fails WP:BIO. yes there are referenced events, but as below, getting coverage for outrageous comments on bushfires does not necessarily add to his notabilty. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What? I'm seeing three referenced events right there: the major vilification court case; the Senate candidacy and subsequent commentary; and the bushfire criticisms. All are sourced to reliable sources. This AfD nom doesn't make much sense to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so he makes a few outrageous comments on bushfires...I don't think that adds to his notability. And most failed political candidates do not get articles. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we get to have opinions about his remarks. They were reported in reliable sources - that really is the end of it, as regards notability at least. "failed political candidates"? The article isn't here because of his candidacy. His candidacy is a notable aspect of the individual who is the subject of the article. It received reliable coverage. He has been a recurring figure in Australian politico-religious life, if often because of his reportedly bizarre or extreme claims. Incidentally, I suggest you read the full text at WP:ONEVENT - it appears ("what is one event?") to imply that it does not provide a reason for deletion in the current case. I really would have thought this was a no-brainer at AfD, but let's see what others say. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Danny Nalliah. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scot[edit]

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

as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you need to chose one of delete or redirect as both are not possible. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Delete then Redirect is a specific option at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that. not sure if Frickeg means that though? LibStar (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically just stating that I have no particular preference between the two options. I'm fairly sure such prevarication is allowed. Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Varsity Girls[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The next big thing, but not yet. Cited sources amount to local coverage only. No charted hits, not national tour, no record label deal. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approve Seeing these girls have been featured on major stations, have performed at major venues, and are working with groups such as Walmart and Nickelodeon seems to validate the creators case for not having this page deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.249.247 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — 71.192.249.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Walmart and Nickelodeon!!! I must say that the mere fact that these girls are CURRENTLY working with Walmart and Nickelodeon, and have performed at venues including Fenway Park and Gillette Stadium, and have a single currently getting spins on major stations proves that the initial challenge to this page is both unwarranted and improperly flagged. Walmart is the largest corporation/retailer in the world and doesn't throw their name behind just anything, rather brands, celebrities etc that meet their demographic and corporate values. I would recommend the user who flagged this account visit their website which I just found through a simple google search, www.varsitygirlsmusic.com. Let's give these girls our support. There have been many boy bands and these girls seem to represent all of us parents are comfortable having our kids follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.249.247 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appearing at the local Walmart hardly makes for notability. It's not like they have signed an exclusive distribution deal with Walmart corporate. And there is nothing in the article or references that mentions Nickelodeon. Appearing at a stadium to sing the National Anthem is nice, but it still doesn't qualify under WP:MUSIC. It's not like they had their own concert at those venues. And getting your music on the local radio station doesn't make it either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above Call For Delete False Varsity Girls HAVE released their first single, "Be You" on August 17th on Itunes, Amazon and every other digital music retailer. In fact their release party was hosted by The Hard Rock Cafe In Boston. Single has over 25,000 downloads to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.249.247 (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where are the sources for it? Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources or not, please read the criteria of WP:MUSIC and tell me how this group meets any of the criteria. Releasing a single is easy. If that single makes one of the national charts, that will be something notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again I will point to WP:MUSIC and ask how this group meets any of the criteria listed there. None of the coverage provided is significant. Basically, announcements that they will be appearing at this local venue or that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They've been in existance for less than a year, have a very small musical output to date, and have not attracted any serious or significant coverage outside of local news. --Korruski (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Let's give these girls our support." Sorry, that's not what we're here for. Group doesn't seem to meet any of the requirements of WP:MUSIC, so delete until such time as they do..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They don't seem to have met any of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, so, as Chris above me says, delete until they meet them. (Also, note how the bit about them selling 25,000 copies is (a) unsourced and (b) missing from the article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. No album, and their one and only single supposedly sold 25,000 copies--even if we assume this unsourced claim is true, it's still nowhere close to a hit: it takes 500,000 downloads to get a certified gold single, for comparison's sake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and seems like the current equivalent of local bar bands in my area which will never get a record deal, except they're pop in this case. The local play on WFHN in Fall River seems like one of those "yeah, we serve our local community by throwing this in our playlist a few times a week, what of it?" offhand things, Wal-Mart will bring in anybody on the weekend to shop that doesn't cause a Bieberesque riot, and really, collaborating with Brooke Hogan, the guy from 98 Degrees nobody cares about and a non-factor Making the Band winner is considered "notable"? Was Ma$e not available? Really, these ladies have a long road to notability yet to go. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Goodbye Tour[edit]

Wave Goodbye Tour (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 concert tour that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG Nouse4aname (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs to be referenced but the tour passes notability, as evidenced here, here, here and here. (Freak.scenery (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources above. Lugnuts (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This has been listed for 21 days so a call has to be made and it looks like I drew the short straw. My reading of the consensus is that he doesn't quite make it as musician but he may be notable as a "yo-yo"er depending on one's opinion on whether or not the coverage in sources is significant or trivial. Since the first section on his music career is completely unsourced, the most prudent thing to do is delete this for now per WP:BLP. I will userfy or incubate this on request if someone wants to work on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ringca[edit]

Jack Ringca (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)

Fixing broken nomination by IP. Rationale by 64.69.210.40 (talk · contribs) is "Unknown person, not notable in any way, source links are all broken or do not point to subject in question." For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fixed the link to the Duncan site. All the links now work. The value of their content is a separate issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage provided or found to demonstrate that Ringca is notable for activity independent of the band (see WP:MUSICBIO). Unable to locate reliable independent sources for his yo-yoing -- Duncan would claim that anyone promoting their products is significant, so this minor coverage is of no help. Most of the links provided either do not mention Ringca at all or mention him in passing. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not for any notability as a musician, but for his notability as a national yo-yo champion. I've added citations to articles in the Winston-Salem Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, Orlando Sentinel, and The New York Times which have at least brief mentions of his yo-yo work, and the first two confirm his status as a national champion in 2005. If kept, the article should likely be re-organized to emphasize his yo-yo work rather than his music. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't see any indication that his "national championship" is notable, so I'm back to the sources. From what you've added, I need more. The only source with a link is, IMO, trivial coverage of him. I couldn't find the other articles as I don't have Lexus Nexus access at home. The titles do not make a strong case. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; I recognize we might have differences of opinion about what is trivial or non-trivial. I'd characterize all of these, including the linked one you reviewed, as brief but non-trivial mentions. They're not just directory listings of appearances, for example. If there was just a single one of them, I'd be arguing delete, but with this many I say we've entered the range of WP:N notability. Multiple newspapers have chosen to quote him, to discuss his work representing Duncan yo-yos, and/or note him as a national champion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion he fails WP:ATHLETE too, as the only source i can see, does no mention that he is a professional yo-yo player and the "USA National Yo-Yo Championship" is not the highest amateur level, as the World Yo-Yo Contest. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eldebrock[edit]

Eldebrock (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)

Completely unremarkable band. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any band can drive across the county and play in bars, in it of itself, that does not constitute notability. 2 says you, says two 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while disputed, the consensus is that a documented tour does, in fact, confer notability for a band: The band "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Bearian (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no coverage at all of a national tour, let alone coverage in a reliable source. The article in the "Battlefords News Optimist", which describes itself as a "community newspaper", simply says "This year, the band received a piece of awful news: Del Bannerman’s uncle, who was set to be the tour bus driver, was diagnosed with cancer". There is no other mention of a "tour". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Phillips[edit]

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

Was on a top rating soap opera for a couple of months, but has no significant coverage in any reliable sources that I can find. Am also nominating the character he played, as I'm struggling to think why anyone would write over 700 words on a fictional character that was on a show for only two months. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Database Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marvel Database Project (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 has been nominated for deletion twice now... and both times has it been deleted. While I'll admit, some Wikia wikis do deserve an article, I do not think this one is notable enough to have its own article, unlike with WoWWiki or Lostpedia. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the previous AfDs were quite a long time ago, the notability of this Wikia site does not seem to have changed. I found only one or two sources in which this project received some passing mentions, and no more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments in favor of keep are well thought out, rationale, and have put forth multiple reliable secondary and independent sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Lal[edit]

Ananda Lal (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:PROF Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Perhaps the nominator could expand on their deletion rationale, indicating efforts made to find sources and to establish notability? As the author of several books including The Oxford Companion to India Theatre (which was reviewed in Comparative Drama), I would suggest that the subject is likely to be notable. They are described here as "one of Kolkata’s most prominent theatrepersons", and this confirms that they were a professor and head of the English department at Jadavpore University.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs extensive cleanup. Then let's see what we have left VASterling (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether the subject is likely to be notable or not, is not up for debate. The article is not supported by the most basic of requirements for BLP: reliable, verifiable sources. If none can be found, the page must be deleted. The indianexpress.com source (Michig) only fleeting mentions the subject - it's not about him.--Kudpung (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is not reliable or verifiable about the Indian Express, dnaindia.com and Comparative Drama. Granted we don't have much in the way of significant coverage at present, but surely these establish that the subject is notable, and can satisfy WP:V with some trimming to the article?--Michig (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's not that difficult to get a book published by OUP, and it does not a notable person make. Was the book at a least a roaring best seller and altered the way one sixth of the world's population think? --Kudpung (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Notability must be documented; here it is not.[reply]
This isn't a case of "getting a boiok published" by the OUP, but of being chosen to edit a general reference work on a wide-ranging subject. You can read about the impact of the book and its author here ("the publishing event of the year") and here ("a Professor of English who may go down in history as Indian theatre's greatest protector"). Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The academic review you cite is behind a paywall - but you knew that. The Hindu ref is OK (why didn't you insert it in the article? - don't worry, it's done.) The article in The Telegraph carries a very thin mention of Lal and a subjective comment about him, and does not stand up in the court of BLP; it's exactly the kind of source we don't want to use for BLPs. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr Lal is a very prominent academic - that's not the issue here; the issue is proving the most likely very accurate claims made in the Wikipedia article - 'Verifiability not truth..blah..bla', and I see no reason to make an exception, and open a possible floodgate of WP:OTHERSTUFF claims. --Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a recognized authority on Indian culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete-Poorly referenced article and non notable person.There has to be reliable souces to establish notability.The article lacks that.This article should be deleted without any further delay.Doesn't adhere to wiki policy of Biography of living persons.Non notable non significant.The comments above by other editors Phil bridger, Kudpung also indicate at the non notability of the subject.--Poet009 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor of a major reference work of international stature like an Oxford Companion is notable , even if they did nothing else significant. The work has additional reviews, including a 3 p review in The drama review : TDR from MIT Press. WorldCat. She also prepared a concise version Theatres of India : a concise companion from OUP. And there's a good deal more--in addition to the works cited in the article, see [But there is more, in addition to the work cited in the article, see the author listing in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayna Corporation[edit]

Ayna Corporation (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)

Much of the content here appears to have been copyrighted by Aelfakih (talk · contribs) and although User:Quarl's amendments to the page have been commendable, most of it is still unencyclopedic and does not address the previous declined prod which had been removed on the basis of turning into a redirect but later reverted to its pre-prod state with little to no improvements. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crespin Adanguidi[edit]

Crespin Adanguidi (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:PERP. simply being a murderer is not enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDon't see where this subject is anything more than a passing news story; not enough outside of the standard news cycle to get past the WP:NOTNEWS issue; something showing lasting historical importance such as books about him, or discussions outside of news reports of his crime and/or trial would be helpful, but as it stands now, I don't see where this subject merits an article. --Jayron32 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a run-of-the-mill criminal; no sign of any notability as the only major coverage is from news sources at the time of the crimes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Anti-Violence Project[edit]

Kansas City Anti-Violence Project (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)

[82] G-news hits indicate borderline notability, Article had multiple tags since Oct 2007 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muskegon Film Festival[edit]

Muskegon Film Festival (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)

Can only find a handful of sources, seems to Fail GNG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Chertoff[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Benjamin Chertoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Contributor to a few Popular Mechanics articles, but otherwise simply a 'freelance journalist.' Few or none of the sources are actually *about* him, they are just programs where he was a guest, or articles he contributed to. -Bonus Onus (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion A quick run-through of page sources and a brief Google search of this unfamiliar subject establishes sufficiently documented notability as far as I can see. Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Seems his work is controversial enough to have spawned conspiracy theories. Lambanog (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He does seem to have generated press about him, as well as press by him VASterling (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Juniper Networks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Networks Technical Certification Program[edit]

Juniper Networks Technical Certification Program (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 certification program Tikiwont (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit heavily and merge with Juniper Networks. The fact that they run this program is important to understanding the company, but I don't see it as deserving of its own article currently. --Korruski (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full spectral imaging[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements, appears to deal with a single person's work on a new topic that has not attracted much attention. A13ean (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the phrase "full spectral imaging" is often used in a general way to refer to various imaging spectroscopy techniques, and not in the specific way described in the article. A13ean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - scholar Ghits from more than one author. Perfectly good start. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that the paper described as the first discussion of this topic has, according to Google Scholar, attracted a grand total of two citations in six years, both in papers whose main subject is hyperspectral imaging. Juxtapositions of the words "full" "spectral" and "imaging" are not necessarily references to the subject of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean.... Bearian (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekindling the Reformation[edit]

Rekindling the Reformation (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 am concerned that this article is promotional and that the creator AD-learn may have a connection to one of references, a commercial site AD TV. Wintonian (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: fix the article so it is in a neutral point of view and merge to Walter Veith as that is where it should be. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article lacks notability due to a lack of references to reliable third party sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If on a winter's night a traveler. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmeria (Calvino)[edit]

Cimmeria (Calvino) (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 love Calvino, but Cimmeria is not notable. There don't appear to be references attesting notability outside of the book itself, and though it's been a while since I read this particular work of Calvino, I don't remember it being especially important even in the book. Roscelese (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jahe Wangi[edit]

Jahe Wangi (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)

Spam, corresponding article was deleted from Indonesian Wikipedia for not meeting general notability guidelines. --ZhongHan (Email) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siri Gamage[edit]

Siri Gamage (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:PROF and WP:BIO. no indepth coverage [83]. gscholar doesn't reveal anything more than run of the mill academic. considering that article was started by user of same name, WP:AUTOBIO applies here too. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paris–Dakar Bike Race. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priit Salumäe[edit]

Priit Salumäe (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:ATHLETE. Salumäe should be notable for winning the 2006 Paris–Dakar Bike Race, but this is not a professional event and not a top amateur event. The article does not mention that he won or started in other races, and I found no source (not even unreliable) that mentions other races for Salamäe. I don't speak Estonian, so I could have missed some in that language. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first link shows just 659 google results. My own name gives more than 2000 results about my person, but that does not make me notable for wikipedia. The second link was written by Rob van der Geest, the owner of the company who organised the race. It is promotion for his own race. The third result says "The majority of the riders do not compete.", which makes clear that Salumäe's result is not really important. The fourth result is "provided by Bike Dreams", and Bike Dreams is the company that organises the Paris-Dakar cycling race, so again it is promotion for their own race.
Salumäe is only known for winning the Paris-Dakar race, so I would say WP:BLP1E applies here. (The Paris-Dakar race has its own AFD discussion, independent from this. This does not prove that the race is not notable, but I forgot to mention it here earlier.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion he is notable and it is needed in WikiProject Estonia also. Although adding more info would be good.
By searching him from Google, you can find 3,630 results. (15 result for my person, and it is hardly believable that you have 2,000? Lots of same-named people?). Anyway, these results doesn't matter. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salumäe fails WP:ATHLETE. He can still be notable for wikipedia, if reliable secondary sources about him can be found. I looked for them, but could not find them. Honestly. The sources given above are, as I showed above, either published by the race organiser (not independent), or show that Salumäe's result is not important. If you have better sources that do show he is notable, please show them. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ATH doesn't apply because if we are to consider Paris-Dakar as a competitive race (debatable) then it's certainly not at the highest level and Salumäe doesn't seem to have attempted to compete is anything of WP:ATH standard. That said, there isn't sufficient reliable third part sources presented or seemingly available to keep. SeveroTC 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I had not intended to hit the relist button on this one. However, a little more input would be helpful. If another admin thinks there is enough here to make a call then be my guest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE is clear on this one: the race is not on the highest level, and far as we can find, it is the only race he participated in, so no 'automatic' notability for being an athlete. It can only be demonstrated to be notable by showing reliable sources about his notability, and no sources have been found for this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all The consensus was that none of these products were shown to be notable. Mandsford 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Argonaut loudspeaker[edit]

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

A rather ad-like article of a rather typical loudspeaker. Maybe it was reviewed in "HiFi Magazine" once. ospalh (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I've nominated these other Misson speakers along with the Argonaut as they are similar product pages:[reply]

Mission 707 loudspeaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mission 737 Renaissance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mission Leading Edge Loudspeaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mission Freedom loudspeaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ospalh (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) And this redirect...[reply]

Mission Freedom Loudspeaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ospalh (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. These loudspeakers were not influential or notable. That they existed is clear, but they are not discussed enough in reliable sources to make them stand out. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of them are notable—Chris!c/t 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Reviews are what show notability for products, & most or all of these have not only reviews, but multiple review. And some of these, e.g. . Mission Freeman, have awards as well. IThe review sources are good RSs for this type of product, and they are substantial enough. At the very least, merge further to Mission electronics, currently a redirect to the company that combined it and multiple others. WP keeps product information, and all these are informative, not promotional, and reasonable for the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also, a rebuttal to DGG: if there are ten reviews of a television camera and no one uses it, is it notable only from the ten reviews or not notable at all? Raymie (t • c) 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong but the fact that you or me use anything does not attest to notability in any way. As for TV cameras, I doubt that anyone still uses the Iconoscope, but it does not diminish its notability. As for the topic subject - delete. These articles have no future. Reviews attest to some notability but these articles have no chances of advancing even to B-class. Sorry, it's all the same in audio world. It's either sales chaff, or "non-reliable" testimonies of the real experts, - no sound (pun) wikipedia-grade sources. East of Borschov 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm talking more about current products, not things like the Iconoscope. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:N, Notability is not popularity.; If there are multiple 3rd party RS substantial articles about something and it has sold a minuscule number of items, it is still notable. Even more, if it has been notable in the past, it is still notable. We're an encyclopedia , not a product review site. Product review sites discuss currently available products Encyclopedias are written as permanent record of the past and the present.
      • The low possibility of expanding an article does not warrant deletion. We keep stubs. We want high quality comprehensive detailed articles, but not all the articles will be, any more than they have ever been in any print encyclopedia . Even Diderot's Encyclopedie back in the 18th century has many one-sentence articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Croatia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability just like Turks in the Czech Republic and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in Luxembourg I couldn't find any identifying reliable sources to verify its notability and importance. And if this article were notable and important, articles such as Romanians in Croatia (475), Bulgarians in Croatia (331), Austrians in Croatia (247) would be opened. Maybe we can find similar article ? in Template:Turkish people by country. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by Maybe we can find similar article ? in Template:Turkish people by country?
We can find similar non-notable and unimportant articles in Template:Turkish people by country. Takabeg (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find it ironic that Takabeg is looking at the population of certain groups to judge their notability; especially since in the Kurdish diaspora article you have used a totally unreliable source (Joshua project) and have created red links e.g. Kurds in Japan, Kurds in Portugal! Turco85 (Talk) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it ironic ? In Turks in Egypt datum of the Joshua project is used. Anyway we must discuss on Turks in Croatia. Takabeg (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore it's not. These "unreached people groups" websites are totally unreliable sources for ethnography. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Turks or Kurds or whatever. Just because some other guy uses it in an article he wrote doesn't mean you "get to use it" too. cab (call) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current 300 number is already covered in Demographics of Croatia. The rest feels a bit like reading the telephone book. I'd suggest delete without prejudice - if something worthwhile (e.g. mainstream press coverage) can be found that refers to Turks in Croatia specifically, the article could be undeleted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nominator gives no reasons for deletion. I can not see what's wrong with it, other than weakness in citations. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE Although sources are limited it is a traditional area of Turkish settelment. AfD is not for cleanup and finding citations. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Deutch-Turkce-English Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. No indication that this will become notable, as it is not about individuals, it is about numbers. Sven Manguard Talk 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the article doesn't say why the turkish population is notable. You're probably never going to get RS talking about it. Plus, like Papa LW said, the number is already set out in here. Nolelover 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mere fact that some Turkish people live in Croatia is not notable by WP's standards, nor is it important by "common sense". Borock (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I think it's great that Croatian people are proud of their country, patriotism is (generally) a good thing. However consider that its population is only about 4 million people. In the USA this would be like one of the smaller states, or one of the larger metropolitan areas. There are probably over 300 Turks living in Chicago or South Carolina. Should we have articles on them too? Borock (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Papa Lima Whisky. It's certainly possible to write a good article about a small ethnic minority in a small region, like Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska --- but in the case of Turks in Croatia I see no evidence of sources which can be used to develop this article. Being a traditional area of Ottoman control does not necessarily mean that Turkish settlement rose to a good size, let alone that scholars have chosen to write about such settlement. If someone can find sources later, then go ahead and ask for a WP:REFUND; until then, don't go around creating a "Turks in Fooland" article for every single line entry in a population table of the Turkish diaspora. cab (call) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Selket Talk 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Association of Aerospace Students[edit]

European Association of Aerospace Students (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:ORG. unreferenced article full of cruft. only 3 gnews hits [88]. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 28 September 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/ 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article does not cite, and I can't find, multiple reliable sources covering this group in any depth. There is this and this by the European Commission, but I'm not sure that this is substantial enough for an article.  Sandstein  16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Strip away the unsourced junk and there's basically nothing left. Doesn't appear to pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on the {{find}} search above, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamalan Twist[edit]

Shyamalan Twist (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 neologism. SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak (?) delete, unless someone comes with a solid RS base. I'd hate to see The Usual Suspects or The Forbidden Planet tagged with "shyamalanism". East of Borschov 02:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can see, there is no distinction between a 'Shyamalan Twist' and a 'twist ending'. This article could be merged and redirected, but as it is a neologism with no sources I can find, and the article contains little useful content, I don't see the point. --Korruski (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... or at most (if sourced) Redirect this to M. Night Shyamalan in a section describing Shyamalan's particular use of twist endings... as what he does now is his own version of what has been done long before Shyamalan ever made a film. Unlike User:Korruski, I was able to find the "Shyamalan Twist" neologism being used in sources as far back as 2001,[89] and even a book reference.[90] And while yes, the term is growing in usage,[91] that usage is topical. Had Shyamalan never made a film, that neologism would never exist and plot twists would stilll happen. That he uses twists is no more worth a seperate article than the far more notable film twists used by Alfred Hitchcock or John Huston. A twist is a twist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as far as I can tell, this is a term made up by the article's author. He keeps adding it to articles that have nothing to do with Shyamalan, such as Troll 2 and Troll 3. GreenGlass(talk) 02:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no... it seems that the author did not make up the term, [92][93] as sources show the term in use even as far back as 2001. However, my concern is in its mis-application when twist ending is what a "Shyamalan Twist" actually is.... and we already have that aricle. Re-naming that established term after a more recent filmmalker than perhaps Hitchcock or Huston does not change its original meaning... and the author is simply adding disparate films whose endings fit the criteria he has defined... and that is OR. Perhaps the author might consider placing a sourced section at the M. Night Shyamalan article to descibe Shyamalan's own version of a twist ending, and we can redirect to there. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Brosnan[edit]

Timothy Brosnan (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)

Unverified biography whose main function seems to have been advertising for the company founded by the subject, Creative Hammer. Note the history for the main editors, where you'll find Creativehamedia. Anyway, a blatant COI and some spamming is not a sufficient reason for deletion, but the apparent lack of notability is: I can find nothing through Google News and Google Books about this subject--and nothing is offered in the article. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional COI note: see this edit summary by the article's main editor, who identifies himself here as Tim Brosnan. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For someone who has done all these things, there is, apparently, no newspaper or other reporting of them. It makes me wonder how real they are.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not demonstrated. The so-called references are mostly just a bibliography. Even the Romanian references are not about Brosnan but are based in part on one of his columns. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there is enough notability to warrant a wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am forced to agree with Jimmy Pitt. All those references appear to be a bibliography of his work, nothing about the subject himself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per rewrite, subsequent consensus, and withdrawal by nominator. (Disclosure: asked by nominator to review discussion and close. Have done so.) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis)[edit]

Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) (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-neutral point of view fork from the Mahmoud Abbas article. Cherry-picked quotations are not taken from the original text but instead copied from translations made by questionably reliable sources. While the author of this dissertation is certainly notable, the dissertation itself is not notable. It is well covered already within the main article at Mahmoud Abbas#Doctoral dissertation. An attempt to redirect this article was reverted[94], and it is unlikely an attempt to merge will be any more successful based on the opinion expressed by the primary author. Risker (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: Withdrawing this AfD, for two reasons: First, after considerable and admirable effort, AgadaUrbanit has sucessfully located an independent, scholarly, third party source that confirms the key facts of this book (title, language of publication, date of publication, author, publisher), most of which did not exist in the article and were not confirmed by its reference sources at the time of nomination. Secondly, the article has been improved significantly since the time of nomination. While I am not entirely persuaded that the subject matter is sufficiently notable to have an article on its own, and believe that a redirect would be more appropriate, I respect the consensus of other editors on this matter. I'll go flag down another admin to close this. Risker (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one seems pretty obvious based on the title alone. NickCT (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker and NickCT. Also note the person that created this article was indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information is given in the article on the person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update The article has been improved and could be kept. However I would still vote to delete. It is not a bad article but it is really about the author not the book, hence WP:Coatrack.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's "about the author not the book", but anyway, thanks for updating your evaluation based on the new changes. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The thesis was published as a book. I renamed the article to the name of the book for clarity. Per Wikipedia:Notability (books) A book is generally notable .. [if one or more of the following is true] The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself ... in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ... the book's author is of exceptional significance. Clearly, the article meets the inclusion criteria. Other arguments raised above are not reason for deletion - the article can be improved. Marokwitz (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is this notable? It is a published thesis, not a book in the sense of something that was written specifically for publication. Therefore it must be treated as we would treat any other scholarly study. Where is the academic review and commentary? Where is the peer review? Risker (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is full of academic review and commentary of this book, by Holocaust historians such as Dr. Rafael Medoff, Brackman et al, to name a few. Marokwitz (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the article, the book is "based on" the thesis, it isn't the thesis itself. So are they reviewing the thesis or the book? For that matter, who actually wrote the book? Risker (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the cited sources the author of the book is Mahmoud Abbas. I estimate (but the sources aren't clear on this) that the book is a translation of the dissertation from Russian into Arabic, along with some edits and adaptations. Marokwitz (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, the sources aren't clear on this at all. Neither of the sources used to attribute the full authorship of this book to Abbas actually do so.[95],[96] Neither of them identify the translator, there is no ISBN number associated with the book, it does not appear in the catalogue of the publisher. That the book exists, I don't necessarily doubt; however, it's still not approaching notability. Risker (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are sufficient sources showing that it is a real and notable book. I don't know the ISBN but I assume searching using the original Arabic name would help finding it. The article is not perfect, we can work together to improve it. But there is no reason for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the more I look at this, the more it seems to be the equivalent of a published version of a translation of a speech by a notable individual. We know very little about the book itself, and the only quotes that can be found from it are cherry-picked by biased reviewers; it's mentioned only in passing by any others, without significant review. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you calling notable Holocaust historians "biased"? Dr. Rafael Medoff is biased? Brackman, Breitbart, and Cooper are biased? If they are holocaust researchers does this make them automatically biased ? Are Tom Gross and Chris McGreal biased? How about the BBC, also biased?Marokwitz (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC doesn't review the book, and mentions it only in passing. Medoff is indeed biased, based on the title of his review ("A Holocaust-Denier as Prime Minister of "Palestine"?"), which was written 20 years after the thesis was presented; his entire thesis is based on the fact that in 1983, Abbas questioned the number of people who died in the Holocaust - there's no evidence given that Abbas denied it had taken place. If it's not important enough to review until an additional 20 years of scholarship have taken place, this further emphasises its non-notability. The quotes and statements attributed by various individuals (yes, including Tom Gross and Chris McGreal) are unverifiable and provide no context--I can't find a single library that includes any version of this book in its holdings--and neither of them are reviewing the thesis. I've not been able to find the Brackman, Breitbart and Cooper reference, so can't assess it; however, the fact that I can't find that either raises some questions. Risker (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Rafael Medoff is notable scholar of the History of the Holocaust, the author of several books on the topic and the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, an academic research institution. Calling him "biased", on the basis of the title of his review (!?!) shows a serious lack of understanding of how this project is supposed to work. Seeing a wikipedia office holder - a current member of the arbitration committee - use such an argument as defense of an apparently ill-considered AfD nomination is disappointing, to say the least. HupHollandHup (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in much of the world, calling someone a Holocaust denier is considered a hyperbolic insult used with the primary intention of inciting unthinking enmity, particularly in the 21st century. Medoff is a scholar, reviewing another scholar's work twenty years after the fact, and comparing it to a contemporary state of knowledge; it should have been child's play for Medoff to debunk a 20-year-old thesis without resorting to such name-calling. Let's not fool ourselves, it is a real thesis that resulted in a real doctorate from an institute whose successful doctoral candidates now hold professorships all over the world. Incidentally, you might want to do some work on the Rafael Medoff article, it's poorly sourced, doesn't mention where he studied prior to his doctorate, and doesn't even state his nationality. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. You are wrong in just about everything you wrote above. Holocaust denial is a real phenomena, studied extensively in academia by the likes of Medoff. Calling its practitioners what they are - Holocaust deniers - is neither hyperbole nor an insult. You would do well to read the judgment of a British court - available here : [97], in which a formerly prominent historian - much more notable as a scholar than Abbas ever was - was found to be a Holocaust denier, and described as such by the court, in those very words. The Judge's intention was not to incite unthinking enmity, he was stating a plain fact. I don't know which parts of the world view it as an insult to call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier. I suspect it may be those same parts of the world where Holocaust deniers are currently the heads of state. When Medoff debunked the Holocaust denial Abbas engaged in, he was not doing so on the basis of any new material that came to light in the 20 years that had passed from the 1982 date of the thesis. Everything was known then. I suspect that the reason for the delay is that the "thesis", as a "scholarly" work is nearly worthless, and had no impact on the serious study of the history of the Holocaust. There was no reason for any serious scholar to dignify it with a response, until its author became an important political figure. Let's indeed not fool ourselves about the nature of the thesis : Supervised by a KGB officer, who at the time was the head of well known foreign propaganda front organization, in an institute set up as political tool he height of the Cold War, to provide the facade of prestigious academic titles for the clients of the Soviet empire. Searching for the scholarly impact of this "thesis" on Google Scholar yields exactly one reference - in an article citing it as an example of Holocaust denial.
None of this is particularly relevant to the main point I was making above - which is that you dismissed a notable scholar with impeccable academic credentials on the basis of a title of a review he wrote. This is bad form for any editor, doubly so for someone who is currently an arbitrator.
A word of advice: we are all human , and instinctively defend positions we take, even when we are wrong, as you clearly are in this case. But, when you are in a hole, it is wise to stop digging. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, HupHollandHup, assuming the worst in people is a very unhealthy trait, and I urge you to reconsider it. In my own lifetime, the number of reported victims of the Holocaust has ranged from about 1.5 million (what I was taught in grade school) to the current consensus opinion that it was approximately 6 million; I read a news report recently that some scholars are now estimating 8-10 million, but that's not commonly accepted yet. Forty years ago, our textbooks taught us that somewhere between 30 and 45 million people in total were killed in World War II (current estimates are now 50 to 70 million). The views of well qualified historians have most certainly changed over the 65 years since the war ended. All of those numbers are inconceivable to the human mind, and the unspeakable horrors that Holocaust victims (both the dead and the survivors) experienced are not in any way diluted by them having happened to a smaller or larger number of people. That *anyone* died that way is one of the greatest tragedies of humanity.

Medoff's entire livelihood is dependent on "debunking" and vilifying anyone who does not immediately accede to current thinking on the Holocaust; that in itself does not make him an unreliable source, only a biased one. Not a single person who has commented on this AfD or on the article itself has read the text of the thesis or the book, in either language in which it was published, and none of us can compare the unsourced English translations of quotes to the original text; they are unverified and, unless we can find someone who'll go to the National Australian Library, read the book in Arabic, and make a competent English translation, the quotes are essentially unverifiable. And yes, both as an editor and an arbitrator I have repeatedly encountered reference sources where scholars have selectively quoted people they don't agree with to paint them in a bad light, or ascribed beliefs or motivations to opponents that aren't borne out by deeper research. That is one of the reasons why significantly negative statements require multiple reliable sources, under both our NPOV and BLP policies. And no, a bunch of different news reporters all quoting the same critic doesn't count as "multiple reliable sources", except to confirm that the critic actually said what he said.

A critic says "the author believes X even though Y is true" and the author says "You've misread, I said that others have said X and still others have said Y". That is essentially what this boils down to. It is not for us to say whether X or Y is true. It is for us to accurately report, as best possible, what the BOOK says, as conveyed by those who have actually read it, or written it. That is why both Medoff and Abbas are appropriately quoted in the article, and why I continue to have reservations about unverified and unverifiable translated quotations attributed to the book in the article. You yourself are now saying that this scholarly work is so unimportant that it barely gets any internet hits, which was pretty well my position in the first place; I completely agree that it should be mentioned in the article about Abbas, which is why I tried to redirect it to that section of that article. It's a pity that you've had to resort to implying that I am a bigot when your own research seems to confirm my initial position. Risker (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. thesis and book based on thesis
  2. doctoral thesis that later became a book
  3. his doctorate and the resulting book
  4. Позже на основе диссертации Аббас написал книгу/Later, based on the thesis Abbas wrote a book
  5. National Library of Australia Catalog Bib ID 493205
Hope it helps. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would have been more useful to give the actual quotes. Shall we review what they actually say?
  1. "Some Jewish groups allege that Abbas' doctoral thesis and a book based on the thesis..." - not "his" book. Note that that source references the BBC website link that follows below.
  2. "Israeli-Palestinian history denial: In 1982, Mahmoud Abbas...wrote his doctoral thesis that later became a book..." Again, "a" book, not "his" book. Interesting heading used there, as well.
  3. "But some Jewish groups have criticised both his doctorate and the resulting book..., again "the" book, not "his" book.
  4. Позже на основе диссертации Аббас написал книгу/ "Later, based on the thesis Abbas wrote a book"- Google translation; "Later on the basis of thesis Abbas wrote the book" - Yahoo Babelfish translation This one looks like it is confirming the authorship. Note the actual section of the Lenta.ru website - it is the Lentipediya, which means it is a tertiary source.
  5. National Library of Australia Catalog Bib ID 493205 This is the prize-winner, an independent, scholarly source, solidly confirming that the book exists, that Abbas (and only Abbas) wrote it, and that it is in Arabic.
Now, the first three imply but do not state that Abbas was an author of the book, and give insufficient information for the level of referencing needed for an article in an contentious area. The fourth would not usually be acceptable for a contentious fact because it's a tertiary source (like Wikipedia, or Britannica); it does attribute to an actual news article, but I gather that is not available. Finally, the National Library of Australia catalog saves the day, even though this borders on being a primary source; it is an independent and scholarly reliable source. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the point of the semantic nitpicking with regards to the first 3 references, when you concede that here is really no question about the true authorship , per the final one? When you are in a hole, stop digging. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AFD Participants: This article was renamed to "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" after creation of this AFD, to match the name of the book. I apologize for any confusion. In addition I improved the article. Please reconsider your !votes following these changes. Marokwitz (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm open minded and I had some doubts. The article should be improved. However, I guess we should consider Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the article's references do indicate some notability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AgadaUrbanit I think there's enough material to stand alone - and moving more material into the main article would unbalance it - I would probably remove the authors photograph and the article requires improvement but I see no reason to delete. If it wasn't against WP:TITLE I would see benefit in adding a (book) subtitle to the new article title just as the old one had (Doctoral Thesis) to avoid some controversy Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mahmoud Abbas. If there is a page to be done on Zionist-Nazi relations (and this is serious topic of history, not kookalooka White Nationalist drivel), this is not the page. Abbas' book can be best incorporated into his own biography, in my estimation. It's hard to make a deletion case for it, however, so default here should be to KEEP if merger doesn't happen... —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
  • Keep - Whoops, I see now that this is a sub-page of the Abbas biography already, established to keep the latter from becoming unwieldy. Highly notable author, which should be sufficient for WP purposes, but a book translated into several languages that has been the subject of sufficient inquiry in its own right. Pretty clear notability decision here, terrible original title of this article notwithstanding. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the renaming, the book appears notable based on the sources in the article as of now. With no prejudice to the original nomination, which appears to have been somewhat usurped by the move/retargeting of the article, it appears appropriate to keep a reference to this work separate from Abbas' article. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable enough, and all the major issues have been dealt with. --Joker1189 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously notable, given not only the prominence of the author, the multitude of high profile reviews that expose its explicit and horrendous Holocaust denial, but also the controversy created by the book and the dissertation upon which it is based when Abbas was elected. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reestablishmentariansim[edit]

Reestablishmentariansim (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)

Written like a dictionary definetion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is just a dictionary definition. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it's just a dictionary definition, of a seldom used word. I suspect that the word itself was made up, years ago, as a response to disestablishmentarianism, which in itself is used only as a bit of trivia as, supposedly at one time, the longest word in the English language, but even that's a redirect. Mandsford 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one has noticed that this is not reestablishmentarianism, then? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term has been used in a way that demonstrates potential to be more than just a dictionary definition.[98] It has also been used in a religious context.[99] So there is genuine usage of the term out there to describe a discrete concept (the re-establishment of previous generation of elites). But I'm not sure whether a separate article is justifiable - perhaps we can do some more searching? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, there is the "not a dictionary" issue. Second, there is no evidence that I can find of any significant amount of use of "Reestablishmentarianism" (and none at all of "Reestablishmentariansim", which is the title of the article, but presumably that was a typo). On those few occasions when the word is used it is frequently in contexts which indicate that the person using it does not consider it a real word: for example 'what might be dubbed “re-establishmentarianism” ' , and even 'and speaking of $10 words, I'm waiting for reestablishmentarianism, and concomitantly antireestablishmentarianism, to begin cropping up' . The first of those is one of the examples linked above by Mkativerata. The other example linked by Mkativerata says 'an implicit "re-establishmentarian" (our term) strategy.' So again we have the hedging with "our term", acknowledging that it is not a recognised word, and also the fact that the word used is actually "re-establishmentarian", rather than "reestablishmentarianism". From what I can see, this is a sporadically used neologism, rarely if ever felt even by those who use it to be a "real word", and when it is used it is used only in passing. I have not managed to find even one case of substantial coverage of the concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:DICTIONARY (not to mention misspelled). User has been adding articles with little or no basis given for being on the encyclopedia. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CloudStack[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this freeware. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No problem with re-creating as a dab page if articles on more notable groups are created. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Chi[edit]

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

I can find no references outside Baker--and an extremely small fraternity of this sort is very unlikely to be notable. But I had considerable difficulty searching--there seem to be other organizations withthe same name, and some very well known fraternities with Zeta Chi as part of their name. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk p. to re-examine, in light of added sources. Being listed in Baird's manual of American college fraternities. shows WP:V, not WP:N -- it's a indiscriminate directory. The others are either about members of the Baker students who happened to belong to the fraternity, or are local documentation of minor incidents. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a (non-independently sourced) claim of being the oldest surviving independent university west of the Mississippi. If a source can be found this may merit a single line in the main (and very short) Baker University article. Otherwise consensus has been to delete such pages. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, according to WP:LOCAL, a local place deserves its own article as long as there is sufficient information that can be attributed to a reliable source; such seems to be satisfied by the Baird's manual with supplementary information from Zeta Chi's website (considered a self-reliable source as per WP:SOURCES as long as it isn't unduly self-serving). Considering that WP:LOCAL did not make it as a guideline on account that many people considered it overly exclusionistic and that this article may still meet its standards perhaps says that it should be included. Moreover, I believe the WP:GNG--which specifically states that neither fame, popularity, nor even importance are necessary--are at least weakly satisfied here due to the existence of independent sources which address the fraternity. For example, in addition to Baird's, there is this article (note: link doesn't quite send you in right location; look for the yellow highlighted portion in the right panel) which discusses at length the building of an addition to the frat house, though I admit it is debatable whether such is "routine" coverage.
All things considered, I think it's worth keeping this article, though perhaps, since I have found other fraternities and a sorority of the same name during my research, it should be moved to Zeta Chi (Baker University) (currently taken up by a redirect) and Zeta Chi be turned into a disambiguation page (perhaps incorporating material from the deleted Zeta Chi (Disambiguation) page, which may or may not have something).
Nonetheless, this Zeta Chi is older than any of the others I've found, older than any of us here, and may well be here long after we who discuss this AfD are long gone. There's information here that may be of interest to posterity, such as the fact I dug up yesterday that Zeta Chi tried to obtain a charter from Delta Upsilon in 1925 (which I suspect is unknown even to the living members of Zeta Chi who may think that the frat has always been about independence from other frats). —CodeHydro 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is consensus that student organizations at single universities are not notable. This little frat at a little university has no claim to notability except its age "west of the Mississippi", and that claim is not backed up by any source. As can been in this search, many frats make this claim. Abductive (reasoning) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Zeta Chi doesn't claim to be the oldest fraternity, but the oldest independent fraternity that has been continuously operated. Using this search, you find that Zeta Chi is the only one really making that claim. There are a few results for Delta Psi Delta at Linfield College, founded one year earlier but it was a club, not a fraternity, until it was reorganized in 1913.[103] While there's no obvious independent source to back Zeta Chi's claim, there seems to be absolutely nothing to refute the claim independent or third party. Moreover, whether or not the claim that "There is consensus that student organizations at single universities are not notable" is true or not, we cannot say this one fraternity is not notable based on the collective, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. —CodeHydro 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, it sort of might be the oldest independent local frat in a restricted geographical construct we call "west of the Mississippi" which means next to nothing to people outside the US. Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Baptist Theological Seminary[edit]

Karen Baptist Theological Seminary (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)

written like an advertisement Eeekster (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have since removed the advertisement-like text (which seems to have been copied off of the school's website). This essentially stubified the article. I also added the 2008 source to the article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Mindfulness Center[edit]

Nashville Mindfulness Center (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)

One hit on G-news archives fails WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The single gnews hit is about a specific event held there, not the center itself. Although it is mentioned it is a trivial mention, definitely not enough to establish notability. Nothing useful on google either. Yoenit (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio State Speech and Debate Team[edit]

The Ohio State Speech and Debate Team (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)

School Club, Long term GNG tag not Encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But in Wikipedia sources are what we use to establish notability. Without sources there is no notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete fails WP:ORG. "seems notable, just unsourced" is a very weak reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google & gnews search did not turn anything, does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yoenit (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tate[edit]

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

Contested PROD. "WP:N, WP:V. While Ms. Tate's voice work certainly is present in a number of credits, there's no reliable independent sources that I can find that provide more than a byline (Searches via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks)."

(If you can find appropriate WP:RS to verify and establish notability for this voice actress, of course those of us at the BLP Rescue Squad would appreciate your help! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per verifiable career meeting WP:ENT.[104] Commonness of name will make expansion and sourcing difficult, but do we toss because it may take a little work? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment First, I agree with you (as nom) that "need to do work" is not (and should not be) a deletion criteria. Second, it's my understanding that IMDB is not generally considered a WP:RS because of the inclusion of unverified data, although I don't believe this is entirely unanimously accepted at WP:RSN, you'll have no trouble finding discussions [105] on that point. So, while I was the editor who added IMDB to the external links section, based on concerns about the reliability of IMDB as a source I wasn't willing to use it to establish verifiability (nor of course does it go towards notability.) --j⚛e deckertalk 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The individual's career can be verified through the works themselves. But yes, being listed in the IMDB does not confer notability. This individual has such a common name that online searches give many false positives. Digging through them all will take a great deal of time and effort. I'll see what I might do to assist later today. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. I'm travelling (responding from Chicago Midway airport), or I'd revisit this, I did spend a fair bit of time looking, but as I tried to indicate, if an article can be reliably sourced, I'm thrilled to save it. Cheers! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all for using IMDB as a source for uncontroversial info, but it can never be the only source for an article, especially not a BLP. With no other coverage I can't see how this is going to meet the notability guidelines, although I'll happily change my !vote if someone finds something useful. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hollenbach[edit]

Shawn Hollenbach (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 comic. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be related to a cluster of single-purpose accounts editing this bio and Miss Fag Hag Pageant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added articles and interviews about Shawn, I don't know how to note all his television and theater shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarbonaro (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per individual meeting WP:GNG. The article has many respectable sources speaking toward this person and their career. While understanding the nominator's concern toward its creators, now that it IS here, it belongs to Wikipedia... and THIS one meets our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Lazar[edit]

Shira Lazar (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 significant, not verifiable" Mikepolkfan (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Her existence is definitely verifiable, though this article could use improvement. I wouldn't base her notability on the poor article as it currently stands.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are other sources that list her birthday later in May and earlier in the decade of the 70s. Also, there are questions about her work at the "Daily Planet" at her school in the discussion section. And there's not much else. Please delete this article, there are plenty more people who are much more accomplished than her. --Mikepolkfan • talkblp-r 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But think of how many people are less notable! The fact that there is conflicting information out there on her is typical of people at her level. (i doubt she was born in the 70s, perhaps there is more than one Shira Lazar, I would assume).--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Mikepolkfan - I love that you adopted my signature. haha. --Milowent • talkblp-r 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the first article in the scant references list. The first line is "First off, Shira Lazar is not a fameball." Then it goes on, "Lazar personifies the best parts of being a New Yorker: a go-getter, ambitious, self-aware..." when there is no mention of her being a New Yorker in her own article. In fact it says she's from Canada living in LA. Wiki does not need any more two paragraph entries on desperate nobodies! Mikepolkfan (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mike Polk is not a nobody!--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok, 20 Million views on YouTube versus Shira's exercise video that might break 10,000 by the end of the year! DELETE Mikepolkfan (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MBEL1avd7g Mikepolkfan (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cleveland tourism videos are hilarious, but WP:HOTTIE("Never delete hot people's pages.") is another keep argument for Shira.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? George Clooney, Natalie Portman, Katie Holmes, Adam Brody, Shira Lazar. Which one of these does NOT belong? Mikepolkfan (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DumbBOT! Mikepolkfan (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gene93k! Mikepolkfan (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass the notability test.  --Lambiam 01:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Stroup[edit]

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

nominated for deletion due to not meeting notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefrog55501 (talk • contribs) 2010/09/07 07:02:49

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Washington Post article is a substantial profile on him in a major daily. Additonally sources abound writing about his founding of NORML. [106], [107] are just two examples. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to call nominations ridiculous. Sources provided are enough. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources prove notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE CUSB[edit]

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

Notability, wp:ORG, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE AlexSB for precedent. The Eskimo (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sMerge into a List of IEEE student branches, with just a few words on the branch; divide the list up into IEEE regions. Note that officially, the branch is not called "CUSB" or anything of the sort, IEEE uses branch numbers, not names.

'Keep: It is an article about a branch of a university. Why is this not notable? Yserbius (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not a branch of a university; it is a branch of a national association at a particular university. Such branches are almost never notable, & this is no exception. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AtmosFEAR (ride)[edit]

AtmosFEAR (ride) (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 ride, Google show no reliable sources. Derild4921☼ 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of family-and-homemaking blogs[edit]

List of family-and-homemaking blogs (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 might make more sense to me if it were actually organized in the form of a list, but the category seems to be somewhat vague (see WP:NOTLIST). If a home/family/parenting blog is notable, it can be added to List of blogs. A merge to that article was proposed but the discussion went stale. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not the best list ever created at Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it is useful and reasonably well-defined, and the introductory text, brief though it is, provides context and sources as to why this is a significant and distinct type of blog. This information would get swallowed up at List of blogs.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paris–Dakar Bike Race[edit]

Paris–Dakar Bike Race (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 event is non-notable. The event is non-professional, all entrants ride for charity. It is not massive, 32 cyclist rode more than 1 km in 2010, with only 11 riding all km,[111] similar numbers for the two previous editions. It should be compared to ultracycling events such as Race Across America, which was run for the 29th time in 2010, with 85 cyclists. Other than the website of the organising company and a few articles written by the organizer of the race, no reliable sources can be found about the race, other than one report in the Telegraph [112]. This report written by one of the cyclists, was placed in the 'travel' section, and does not even mention the winner. One reliable source with little information is not enough for a wikipedia article. The PROD that I placed in the article was contested. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This race is really hard and I think it is notable. They don't ride for charity, or for whos charity? Does Olympic winners get money? Sport shouldn't be so much for money anyway.
I'm not sure about the newer years, but in 2006 it was really important, Estonians took a double win, and they were kind of heros, see a video when they returned. So do you want me to make an article of 2006 Paris–Dakar Bike Race, I'm not sure it would be OK. And I think sonewhy everybody wants to delete something, when they could make it a great article. So I could use some help after keeping it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how hard the race is (around 120 km per day is hard but not extremely hard, even for 50 days, if a professional cyclist such as Jaan Kirsipuu would have joined he would have easily finished and won the race) but how notable it is. That the race is not professional does not make it a lesser race, but it makes it less notable. Can you give reliable sources about the race, that show it is notable? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, what do you call reliable. But maybe you can get some links Here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated there, two of those sources are not reliable according to the Wikipedia Reliable Source criteria, as they are self-published. The Paris-Dakar bike race is a wonderful event, but it did not gather enough attention to make it notable for a wikipedia article.
I found this website, that gathered all the press mentions of the race. It was not that much, unfortunately, not enough for Wikipedia notability. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this is listed for 1 week, but because I made a mistake in the procedure, it was not listed until 21 September. So we will have to wait until 28 September, I'm sorry. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D Options Chart[edit]

3D Options Chart (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 neither establishes subject's notability nor demonstrates suitable references to reliable sourcing. Ronnotel (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any other sources. The 'further readings' deal with general options issues not specific to this concept. This appears to be a promotional addition to support a specific vendor/consultant. Kuru (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject has been mentioned in John Hull's textbook regardging finacial derivatives analysis, please read through the book to find out. See updated further reference. Also any references to vendor/consultnt has been removed to address Kuru's comments. 05:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethmethod (talk • contribs) — Sethmethod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • "please read through the book to find out." No, that's not how this works. If you've read the book then you provide the reference in the appropriate format Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact term '3D Options Chart' might not be used by some authors but its applications and concepts have appeared in quite a few books, websites and applications, try also to search the term '3D charts for options', here are list of them: http://www.amazon.com/Options-Trading-Perception-Deception-expanded/dp/0977869172, http://www.voptions.com/screenshots.htm and 05:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optionser (talk • contribs) — Optionser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Q. Wang[edit]

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

Previously kept in an AfD marked by lack of participation, then prodded, it is clear that a second AfD is required. An assistant prof, Wang has one review article with about 246 citations, but an h-index of 8 or 9. In my view, a multi-author, seven page long review article is insufficient to pass WP:PROF. Taking the terms "ultraviolet" and "melanoma" from the title of the article and doing a Google Scholar search, one finds other articles with 416, 389 and 272 citations. Searching by "melanoma" and "exposure" reveals articles with 281, 280, 259 and 256 citations. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As noted in the nom, the professor's publications and academic achievement does not yet satisfy WP:PROF. He does get a few Google News Archive hits, but the stories only mention him and do not satisfy WP:BASIC, nor do any other RSs I can find. Novaseminary (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll repeat my comments from the previous discussion (which was closed as Keep, not No Consensus, with two !votes for keep and none but the nominator's for delete). As I pointed out previously, Sloan-Kettering is one of the top half-dozen cancer hospitals in the country. Someone who is head of a department there is almost by definition a thought leader in the field. (The fact that he is only an assistant professor at Cornell reflects the fact that he is primarily a clinician who also teaches classes at Cornell - he is not full-time Cornell faculty. Well-known clinicians often do this, and in fact it is an honor to be invited to serve as a "clinical professor".) He has numerous hits [113] at Google Scholar, which are heavily cited by others. PubMed is harder to evaluate since there appear to be multiple authors named Wang SQ, but many are by him. He also writes for popular consumption. [114] --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But unlike WP:PROF which would mean most academic department heads would be notable, what guideline would this meet? Or do you think he actually meets WP:PROF? Or do you know of RSs that would get him over WP:BASIC? (Are there no notable doctor almanacs or the like?) Or do you think he meets WP:AUTHOR because of his poupular writing? Wonderful clinician or not, I don't see a single guideline he meets. And, by the way, I completely agree with the discussion in the last AfD regarding the over-inclusion of athletes and some others. But of course, lowering the standard for practicing doctors will do nothing to raise the standard for atheletes. And, because of WP:BASIC, a huge number of the athlete articles are not included only based on inherent notability of WP:ATHLETE. Perhaps we should raise the standards of WP:ATHLETE and make WP:BASIC inapplicable to people only covered for sport-related news coverage, but again, this is not the place for building that consensus... Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Someone who is head of a department there is almost by definition a thought leader in the field" is not good enough. Notability is not inherited, and we need direct evidence that he himself is notable. I am not convinced that all heads of departments there are "thought leader", but if it is true then you should be able to show sources to indicate the fact, not just rely on such vague unsubstantiated wording as "almost by definition". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Multiple reliable sources appear to cover this gentleman's research [115][116]. Therefore meets WP:BASIC. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Coverage a journal article is not the same as covering him. BASIC requires the person be the subject (or a subject) of the coverage. These sources mention him trivially. If coverage of a particular journal article met BASIC, each of the co-authors would also meet BASIC even though they were not even mentioned in the coverage at all. And one of the sources was a reprint of the journal publisher's press release. Novaseminary (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was wondering about that (one of the sites seemed a little press-releasey). Given that the article is only a reprint of a press release, I don't see enough notability here to keep. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a nice fellow in an important position that should probably be noted on the pages for his organizations but I don't see it meeting the criteria here. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossball[edit]

Crossball (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 originally prodded this article, but another New Page patroller, Hasteur (talk · contribs), declined my prod, stating that the content should be merged into the Four square article. The problem is that there is no evidence (WP:V) that this is something that was not just WP:MADEUP one day. If you Google "Crossball" it only returns mentions that this is a combination between lacrosse and baseball, certainly not foursquare with a tennis ball. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the objection to the PROD, and tried to get the deletion discussion tabled untill the author responded to questions. I stayed out of the discussion during the first listing because I was unsure. Now that the article has sat for 7 days and the author has not come back (at least from what I can tell) I'm removing my previous objection and now voting delete. No improvement has occured on the article since AfD other than me putting some categories on it to attract attention. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Buckman[edit]

Michelle Buckman (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 author seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC / WP:GNG. There only appears to be non-RS blog coverage of her work, nothing in RSs that would meet notability requirements. Even assuming they are all accurate, the reviews listed on the author's own website don't get there; neither does anything in the biography on the author's website. This does not appear to be the investigative journalist of the same name. I proded the article and it was deleted, but the article's creator subsequently challenged the prod on the deleting admin's talk page, so it was restored. Since then, the requesting editor nor anyone else has improved the article or provided any RSs to support notability. Novaseminary (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I couldn't find one press-issued book review and I suspect she's not notable, it's clear the page has active editors who haven't been given instructions on how to proceed to improve the article and instead are surprised by a deletion notice. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the subject (this particular author) must meet the criteria for inclusion, including WP:N. That determination does not depend on inexperienced editors' suprise at a deletion notice. It depends on coverage in RSs and the subject's satisfaction of the notability critera. Unless the subject is notable, the article should be deleted (WP:DEL#REASON / WP:N / WP:BIO). And it is not as if this is a brand new article. The page is nearly three years old, and has been tagged as an orphan for over a year and a half. Your conclusion that the author is non-notable should be the end of the story and should dictate a delete vote by you. Active editors or not, WP is not a web host. Novaseminary (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Novaseminary is, of course right. To say "I think that the subject of the article does not satisfy our notability criteria, but we should treat it as though it does because some editors don't understand our notability criteria" must be one of the oddest reasons for "keep" I have seen. In addition, if you think that editors don't understand our notability standard then isn't the constructive thing to explain it to them? I have checked the editing history of everyone who has edited the article since September 2008, and I have found only one editor who conceivably may be suffering from ignorance of our notability criteria, and I have explained the need for notability and sourcing to that editor, so even if CáliKewlKid's reason for "keep" ever had any basis, the problem is dealt with now. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good Day, once again.
  1. I did not conclude the author was not notable, I stated "I suspect" -- my conclusion is that I do not know because I am not an expert on Michelle Buckman.
  2. An article tagged as Orphan is not at all comparable to the Notability tag.
  3. Your advice on how I should vote is duly noted.
JamesBWatson, I appreciate your attempt at summarization but it seems a little off the mark (luckily I'm not William Tell's son).
  1. If I were to try a similar summarization it would have gone more like "I think that the subject of the article may not satisfy the notability criteria but we should allow time (7 days is rather short in the real world) for other editors to put forth such sources."
  2. I think it would be an excellent and very constructive to explain it to them, especially prior to deletion (which was not done).
  3. I'm not sure how you know whether the editors were suffering from ignorance of the need for the article to establish notability but I in awe.
  4. My Keep recommendation certainly still has basis because a good faith effort to establish sources for notability was not undertaken prior to the nomination (WP:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CáliKewlKid (talk • contribs) 29 September 2010
  • Comment For a similar discussion with CáliKewlKid, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alans and Mosku. I absolutely did conduct a good faith search for sources before nominating this article. I found nothing. No book reviews in published sources. Nothing. You would know that if you read my nomination (and the delete !votes of the other editors). And, not that it should matter, I would note that the article was created -- and has sat in this non-RS-sourced state almost three years -- by an editor who on September 19 of this year had this formerly proded article undeleted. Yet, that editor has not provided anyone even a single RS here or on the article. CáliKewlKid, if you think that any other editor shoud have something explained to them before the article is deleted, please go explain it to them. There is still time, the article has not been deleted. Novaseminary (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm aware that you believe your search alone is enough of a good faith effort but it would seem the policies disagree with you, as I've stated. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." (the next line makes note of adding the notability tag) And even failing those options, the recommendation is not deletion but merging with a broader article. I see no evidence of any of those steps being taken prior to the nomination for deletion (But it is quite true I could have missed them). In fact, a discussion may have saved all parties time:
  1. It would not require review in AfD
  2. It would involve the editors of the article, providing them guidance on how to properly contribute to Wikipedia.
  3. If sources proving notability were available the editors would have a chance to make an effort to locate them.
But ignoring the time-saving appeal... The good faith efforts to establish notability are not limited to your browser window -- they should include the editors of the article or experts (if you are an expert in publishing of contemporary American literature then I apologize and withdraw my recommendation). -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done about as much searching (books, news, web) as one could do. The author is alive and active on the Internet; it is not like we are debating somebody dead for 100 years that may have been significantly covered in newspapers that are not available online. I would also expect (as I mentioned in the nom) that the author's own "Reviews" web page would note any notable reviews, whether online or not. None listed there comes close to meeting notability. In addition, the creating editor was warned almsot ten days ago here that "without sources, it is very likely to get deleted again" (also linked to in the nom). Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked at the pages linked from the article, and i have also made web searches for more information. I have seen Buckman's own site, various blogspot pages, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, writers' promotion sites, etc etc. I have not seen anything that could remotely be seen as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources by the author herself, blogs, etc, aren't enough. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spats (Space Technology Students' Society) IIT Kharagpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spats (Space Technology Students' Society) IIT Kharagpur (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 unreferenced article about a student organization at a single university. The only articles I could find on spAts unconnected to the organization were lists. ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_28&oldid=1142639522"