Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 April 11 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of call tracking platform providers[edit]

List of call tracking platform providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is basically a list of companies of unclear notability. Only one of the entries has a Wikipedia article; the rest largely point to external web pages. A category would suffice for this subject. ... discospinster talk 23:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom; the 'references' appear to be just a few more commercial external links and do nothing to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaggy Dog (1994 film)[edit]

The Shaggy Dog (1994 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced film that's IMDB page links to the 2006 film. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:44 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:50 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Did you think of correcting the IMDB link before bringing it to deletion? It was rather easy to change it to the 1994 film (which I have done), and I have also sourced the airing and the originating network. As it was a Disney telefilm which aired on a major network and is part of a known film franchise that although is a telefilm, can be sourced rather easily with 967 g-hits. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of Disney's worse bombs, a real dog, but notable. Keep. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TV movie full of notable stars which aired on a major network. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Film meets WP:NF. Nominator might have done just a teeny bit of research before bringing this one to AFD for a simple external link error. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schmidt. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JBoss Arquillian[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of this product in reliable sources or any other significance to indicate that it meet WP:N or WP:WEB. ThemFromSpace 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has a merger proposal tagged with no discussion. I will point out that the target of the merge proposal, JBoss application server is a different piece of software so it is an inappropriate target. This book does call it out as a test framework, but does not provide significant coverage as it goes on to just repeat some sort of mission statement so I don't see this as strongly supporting notablity. In any case, this was the only reliable source I was able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phi zeta[edit]

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

non notable society WuhWuzDat 23:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this organization is notable. NYCRuss ☎ 13:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—National honor society for veterinary medicine; founded in 1925. Notable.—RJH (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep–Organization at a majority of the Veterinary schools in the US apparently.Naraht (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • To elaborate: The small number arguing "delete" pointed out that the articles themselves mostly consisted of uncited trivia. The much larger number arguing "keep" cited WP:IPCA, and noted that the poor quality of the existing articles was not a strong argument for actually deleting them, arguing that the topics themselves were notable. The consensus I gathered from that was that the articles should be kept, but (severely) pruned. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aldebaran in fiction[edit]

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

Also nominating the following similar pages as these all seem to have the same issues:

These articles are essentially all trivia and the majority of the content lacks citations. There is also no indication that the usages of these stars in the works in question has received significant coverage by secondary sources, thus failing the General Notability Guideline. Icalanise (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep some, delete some per WP:BEFORE. Alpha Centauri, Betelgeuse, Sirius, and Vega have been attested more in popular culture and fiction than the average star. For examples, see Beetlejuice, Contact (film), and 101 Dalmations. I am not so sure about the others. The nomination list is poor, because if the nominator had actually done any homework, many references could be found for the more notable ones of this bunch. The others probably could be deleted without damage to the project. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd kindly ask you not to go straight in with the insults thanks. I am still not convinced that any of these topics are of sufficient notability to match the GNG, i.e. is there significant discussion of the concept of "Aldebaran in fiction" anywhere? A list of works that reference (however tangentially) Aldebaran is not a discussion of the usage of Aldebaran in fiction. Should we also have a "Stephen in fiction" article to list every single fictional work that uses the name Stephen? Icalanise (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That analogy is surely very far off the mark. If there were only one Stephen, who was a very famous person, recognizable by that name alone -- just as there is only one Sirius and one Alpha Centauri -- then we certainly would want an article about literary references to this "Stephen". Change the name "Stephen" to "Jesus" and you'll find that the answer is rather obvious. That's why there's an article Cultural depictions of Jesus. Or perhaps you think that should be deleted as well?RandomCritic (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a large body of literary criticism about the subject of Jesus in various cultural and fictional settings. Is there such a body of work for the literary usage of the star Aldebaran? I think your analogy is off too. Icalanise (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems that Jesus was invoked here not to set the bar for what deserves a IPCA, but to illustrate an example of a unique figure with recognizable popular culture references, unlike "people named Stephen". RandomCritic could have just as easily used Che Guevara or Elizabeth Báthory. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I think these articles are actually content forks from Stars and planetary systems in fiction. If these are deleted then I can guarantee this (fan-cruft) content will start popping up on the various star/planet articles once more. Perhaps it would help if the information were migrated to one of the sister projects instead? (Wikibooks?)—RJH (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history of these articles is this: they began as "X in fiction" sections under the articles about the various stars, many of which grew to be so large as to dwarf the scientific content of the articles themselves. To make sure that scientific articles about stars focused on the science, these references were moved to Stars and planetary systems in fiction when the number of references was small, or to their own articles when the number of references was very large (as is obviously the case with Alpha Centauri in fiction or Sirius in fiction). Of course such lists are bound to attract trivia (which is much better than seeing the scientific articles packed with trivia) but the fact is that these lists contain a solid core non-trivial references which are of considerable interest to literary research. Keep.RandomCritic (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Fails GNG. Not one single article here has evidence of non-trivial coverage/ supporting references from reliable third party publications. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as preferable to the alternative, which is to merge all of the fictional references (which are WP:Verifiable via primary sources) back into the articles on the real celestial objects, per WP:IPC. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:IPCA then clean-up and better source where required. AfD is not clean-up. Plus, a mass nomination of only nominally linked articles does no justice to any editor wishing to judge each on its merits. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Random Critic amd Dravecky. The mass nomination seems heavy handed and indiscriminate to me. Per WP:BEFORE you should really make good faith attempts to establish notability for each; I don't think that's been done here. Each can be re-evaluated, some may need better referenced or pruned and thereafter merged back into the main article. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have seen the light! Keep Portrayals of God in popular media, delete all other lists, especially ones of fictional or imaginary popular culture references Nevermind, my medication kicked in, I feel better now. Anarchangel (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, IPCA still requires that the material demonstrates notability. This content largely does not: it is I-Spy cruft which has gone unnoticed by the world at large. Secondly, the articles are not wildly varied in quality. All of them are very low quality lists of trivia with negligible referencing. A mass-nom is fine here. If there is the odd bit of content worth saving a closing admin with a brain will be able to figure out how to handle it. Quite how RandomCritic came to the conclusion that Alpha Centauri in fiction (five references: three primary, one user-generated, one YouTube) or Sirius in fiction (two references) have a "very large" number of references is beyond me. Redirecting these to Stars and planetary systems in fiction with an admonition not to split again purely on length would be a good start. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems apparent to me he meant the number of references in popular culture, not the number of article references, which may need shoring up. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the case then there's no argument for having split the pages in the first place. When it comes to trivia, "add the content and the references will follow" simply doesn't work, as secondary reliable sources are typically nonexistent. The vast majority of the material in all of the nominated articles could (and should) simply be deleted, which would go significantly towards resolving any article length problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re: "add the content and the references will follow", I would remind you that Wikipedia has no deadline. That being said, as mentioned above, I do think that some (many?) of the articles aren't well referenced and it would be difficult to find a third party references. Some, however do include entries in which the role of the particular star in the story is significant enough that it would show up in a review or editorial summary, and should be eventually sourceable, and as discussed in WP:NOTCLEANUP, should not be deleted. (I guess this is a longwinded way of saying I fundamentally agree with Bearian, though I've not yet examined each article enough to determine if his short list is accurate, but as AfD is not cleanup, I think the correct approach would be to back off on the mass-AfD and identify the problems with each article individually with clean-up tags or noms to merge back.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangrolu (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will also point out WP:BURDEN that the burden of evidence lies with those who add the material. This burden has been routinely ignored in the creation of these articles, despite the majority of them having templates warning of content issues. If you disagree that this should be the case then perhaps you should ask to have these templates reworded to remove the explicit deletion threat that I have made good on in this nomination. If you disagree that mass nominations should take place then you should take it up on the main AfD page to have the mass-nomination process shut down. - Icalanise (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:BURDEN does not assign AfD as a solution. It states the longstanding WP principle of unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Which I have already agreed with above: many of these articles should be pruned and/or merged. But WP:NOTCLEANUP remains the guiding principle here with respect to deletion. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is wikilawyering. Deletion here is simply the reversal of the decision to split these from the original list article in the first place. That was a poor decision which it should not be difficult to undo. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I have already explained, there was no "decision to split... from the original list article". These articles share the same genesis as Stars and planetary systems in fiction, but evolved alongside it rather than being split from it. Length is a reasonable consideration; very long articles become unwieldy, unreadable, and eventually unprocessable. Folding the articles -- except maybe two or three of the shortest ones -- into S&PS would make the article overly massive and result in the article needing to be split again.RandomCritic (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If there were any degree of editorial restraint on any of these articles there would never have been any need for a split. It is a common anti-pattern on Wikipedia that lists of trivia grow until they are unwieldy and are then split rather than pruned to only contain worthwhile content. Whether these started as lists in the planet entries themselves or as part of the super-list is not really important: the decision to split should not have been taken in any of them as the content lacks the required real-world notability to stand alone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that if the final decision is to merge, the proper target would be Stars and planetary systems in fiction. Icalanise (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- these articles all suffer from the same flaws; they are all crufty "I saw it here!!!"-style original research and the sourcing is extremely poor or completely nonexistent. A mass nomination is entirely appropriate, despite the personal opinions of some editors that a few of these articles might be more important than others. Finally, WP:BEFORE is not policy, it's not even a guideline, it's just advice. It certainly does not trump WP:V, so it is not appropriate to use it as your entire "keep" rationale regarding articles with zero sources. If you want to elevate WP:BEFORE to a policy, start an RfC; this is not the place. Reyk YO! 03:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think WP:BEFORE should necessarily be policy, but I do think that citing it is germane to the debate and consistent with the notion that "eventually sourceable" material should not be deleted as discussed in WP:NOTCLEANUP. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All WP:NOTCLEANUP. Typical example where the solution is not to delete, but to {{sofixit}}. walk victor falk talk 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note that the WP:NOTCLEANUP that you linked lists "we'll find some sources later" as an argument to avoid for a Keep rationale. This seems to have been ignored by the majority of people citing this resource. Plus that page is advice/opinion, not a guideline nor a policy. Icalanise (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All
    • Background
The article Stars and planetary systems in fiction gives an extensive list of real stars with a list of fictional references to each, either to the star itself or to hypothetical or imaginary planets orbiting the star, from print, film, and games. The article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, where it is rated as List-Class and High-importance.
Certain stars are "overloaded" in the sense that they have disproportionately large numbers of references from fiction. The stars are: Aldebaran, Alpha Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Deneb, Epsilon Eridani, Rigel, Sirius, Tau Ceti, and Vega. Each of these stars is separated from the main list and has its own article. For the stars that remain in the list, the average number of references is about 4.4, and the median is 2. Sirius alone has 44 references.
There are at least two reasons that references to overloaded stars are not part of the main list:
      • Readability of the list as a whole. Including the overloaded stars in the main list would make it difficult to see the "forest" (all the unexceptional stars) for the "trees" (the overloaded stars).
      • Readability of the overloaded stars. Moving the overloaded stars to their own articles allows their references to be given a subsidiary structure that would be inappropriately elaborate for the main list.
Here’s an example of the main-list entry for the first overloaded star:
Main article: Aldebaran in fiction
Clicking on the link takes you to the "child" article "Aldebaran in fiction."
Recently, the "child" article for each of the overloaded stars listed above was tagged as being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
    • Cleanup Project
Since 3/14/2011 I have been engaged in a Cleanup Project for the main list Stars and planetary systems in fiction. The last comprehensive cleanup of this list was performed on 2/21/2007. In that revision, the contributor standardized entries so that they all begin with title, date (where available), genre, by author (or company), followed by the description, and made a number of other improvements.
The current Cleanup Project for the main list includes
      • Verifying content and creating Wikilinks to the title, date, and author or company.
      • Deleting items for which the content could not be verified.
      • Creating citations where appropriate.
      • Improving the grammar and flow of the descriptions, and augmenting them when appropriate by researching original works or linked Wikipedia articles.
The Cleanup Project is approximately 90% complete.
    • Argument for keeping the child articles intact
I wish to argue that the child articles not be deleted or merged, but should continue to stand as independent articles, for the following reasons:
      • The main article is List-Class and High-importance. It is reasonable to assume that the child articles inherit this importance, and deserve to stand on their own as articles.
        • Trying to juggle a bowling ball with a bunch of ping-pong balls. I noted above the reasons for not merging these articles into the main list Stars and planetary systems in fiction.
    • The Talk page for the child article Aldebaran in fiction contains the header “merge into Aldebaran” (some other considered-for-deletion child articles have similar headers). This would be inappropriate for several reasons:
      • Category error. The child articles relate much more closely to Stars and planetary systems in fiction than they do to the main articles on stars, which are concerned with physical descriptions and scientific facts.
      • Cats and dogs. Fictional references to stars are mostly unrelated to their scientific properties and descriptions. The talk page for a main star article would contain an un-structured mixture of posts from members of two disparate communities, to the benefit of neither. I suspect that the existing contributor communities of the main star articles would not welcome the intrusion.
      • Damaged credibility. Any tagged deficiencies of the child articles (e.g. insufficient citations of fictional sources) would require the main star articles to be similarly tagged – detracting from the authoritativeness of the scientific articles.
After I finish the Cleanup Project for the main list, it has been my intention to follow up with a similar cleanup of each child article. I believe that my cleanup will significantly address the deficiencies that have been pointed out in the child articles.
At this point I intend to go ahead and perform the cleanup on the child articles to improve their quality. When that is done, there will be more grist for this mill. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asserting that the cleanup of stars and planetary systems in fiction is "90% complete"? It still contains not one single secondary source which discusses the subject matter as a whole, nor any which analyse the incident of said fictional works being set in the locations in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that such sources exist: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It is merely a question of of finding (which is not easy in itself due to the high signal-to-noise ratio, but the shear quantity of clutter is a proof in itself of notability) and integrating them. walk victor falk talk 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links are to lists of various science fiction and science fiction related discussion that happen to mention the stars in question, e.g. as a brief plot synopsis. These are not discussions of the usage of, say, Betelgeuse in fiction. Icalanise (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, OperaJoeGreen's explanation is compelling (at least to me.) htom (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - I hate separate "IPC" articles, and would refer to see them in their parent star articles with references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Beside the fact that deletionism is the worst form of heresy since sliced bread, these articles will simply begin once again as sections under the main topic, only to be separated out once they grow large enough, creating yet another cycle of kvetching and moaning. As for refs, keep in mind that works of fiction may serve as the source of their own synopses. μηδείς (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary sources are sufficient for verification, but absolutely not for establishment of notability. Striped ties in fiction could be adequately "referenced" by hundreds of primary sources but that would do nothing to establish the notability of the content therein. The root problem here is that the parent article should not be in listcruft format in the first place: it should be a piece of prose describing the various aspects of astronomical bodies in fiction and how they relate to civilisation. Were that to happen there wouldn't be a problem with expanding lists. Indeed, it's only the potential for a great article along those lines to be written which prevents me from outright AfDing the parent (along with the most notable offshoots, premature as they are, such as Moon in fiction and Mars in fiction). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I say that works of fiction may serve as the source of their own notability? My bad. What I really meant to say was that works of fiction may serve as the source of their own synopses. Have to make sure I don't ever make that mistake again. Whew! μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And "may serve as sources of their own synopses" is, in wikispeak, "are sufficient for verification". Which is not the same as "may serve as the source of their own notability". And, as the latter is required to some extent for standalone articles here, a comment which asserted the former and not the latter is by definition not a strong argument for keeping a given page. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And ere I sought zee article was tagged as in need of sources for verification. Must be going blind as well as forgetting ow to speek zee eenglish. Be careful, or I shall taunt you a second tahm. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OperaJoeGreen and others. Perhaps they should be renamed to "Fictional depictions of X" to alleviate the "concern" that Icalanise keeps harping on. Semantics again rears its ugly head. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that doesn't "alleviate" the problem at all. An article discussing fictional depictions of a given subject should discuss them in the usual article style, not just list them with primary sources. No secondary sources == no evidence of notability == inappropriate for a standalone list. Not one answer been given to this so far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly my point here. Contrary to various people here who suggested I didn't bother to do any looking for sources, I did try to find decent secondary sources that discussed the usage of these stars beyond a simple list of whichever work happened to mention the star in question. I'd actually be quite interested in a discussion of the literary usage of Altair or Vega in fictional works, but I'm just not seeing anything out there beyond the listcruft. Icalanise (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please stop with the cruftcruft. Calling someone else's work garbage does not help solve the problem. I agree that simply mentioning the star in a particular work should not be sufficient to merit inclusion in such a list. However, as others have already mentioned there are many instances where a particular star may play a more significant role in a particular work of fiction, and it is these mentions which merit inclusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, no: it is absolutely up for debate whether these particular instances have enough in-depth coverage of that type. Several of them have no sources at all, not even primary ones, and the majority of the entries themselves are trivial references from simple inspection. In fact I wouldn't even call it up for debate: the only people who seem to have bothered looking for sources are those who couldn't find them, which is sadly typical of this kind of AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the RJH and others' arguments that at least these articles, poor though they are, prevent the main articles about the stars being filled up with science fiction TV show/novel references. In addition, for quite a few people, these sci-fi references are probably the first time they will have encountered these names, and they may look for IPC refs for confirmation the name is the same thing. Bob talk 15:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When highly notable things are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the thing in question is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the object, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the item is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're taking it as a given that there are sufficient non-trivial references to warrant standalone articles here. I could accept that without further evidence for things like Moon in fiction, but certainly not for any of the entries here. The root articles is chock-full of trivial mentions and if they were pruned then all of the notable entries here could comfortably be rolled into it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is 11 1/2 Keep to 2 1/2 Delete. This afd is not generating any new arguments and is well ready to be closed. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing a headcount. Of course headcounting is not the sole factor that should be taken into account. Icalanise (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the AfD is that it's not getting any arguments which adequately address the comments for deletion. It's certainly attracting a lot of mee-tooism on the keep side, but in case you hadn't noticed this is depressingly commonplace on AfDs on fiction. I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that a close which reflected the actual content of the debate would be unpopular with about three-quarters of the participants. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Kerckhaert Horseshoe Factory[edit]

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

Non-notable family business - no references to independent sources provided at all. Google books turns up a single reference in an industry journal (claiming the company is the largest independent manufacturer of horseshoes in the world) but from the context, it appears to be an advert. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't find any independent coverage. De728631 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fascinating stuff, but I can't find any Secondary Sources, either. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Republic Brewing Company[edit]

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

Non-notable small business. Google news, scholar and book searches turn up no results (unless I'm Doing It Wrong(tm)). The one independent reference provided is to a regional news outlet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And the article creator appears to have a WP:COI as well.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any secondary sources. In addition, the company's own website http://www.newrepublicbrewing.com/ says (as of 20 March 2011) "Exciting news: We now have both our federal and state permits to manufacture beer!". This further suggests they're not notable, at least not yet. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick search on Beer Advocate elicited no returns, which means they're neither a bottler of beer nor a brewpub. The page is likely an advert for an aspiring brewery.--Chimino (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First you make the beer, then you make the article. Not the other way around. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment the brewery is not known so it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. When it becomes known and has a few reliable sources writing about it, then we can have an article. SilkTork *YES! 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Alvin Andersen[edit]

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

The only thing I can find as a source is http://trekanten.org/da/nyheder/maltes-blog/299-en-dag-tilbage which doesn't really seem independent, failing WP:N Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He has won 47 out of 76, and he is 16 years old. [7] Not notable or particularly remarkable, it would seem. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find any biography of him except for a load of rankings and results. You get that a lot with 1000s of competitors at local levels. I don't think that age factor should be taken into account of notability though.--Peaceworld 12:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no fencing competitions at a top level based on his profile at the FIE which is the governing body for the sport and the Eurofencing link posted above shows he is competing only at the Cadet level. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about him to establish notability in general, and the absence of top level competitions indicates that he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The fact that Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary was deleted rather undercuts most of the keep arguments below, because it can no longer be claimed that he was the founder of a notable institution. On the delete side, the best argument is lack of multiple reliable sources, but there is not consensus support for the belief that there are not sufficient sources to be found (whether or not presently in the article). The consensus below is that the North Louisiana History article should be viewed both as independent and as a reliable source, notwithstanding the fact that its author was the creator of this article (which in and of itself does not create a conflict of interest), so the article is at least verifiable. "No consensus" of course means "feel free to reevaluate", which seems most appropriate here given the close of the related AFD and the at-best borderline notability claim. postdlf (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. L. Clover[edit]

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

Unnotable local pastor. Lacks multiple, non-trival independent sources per WP:BIO.

The article contains five sources. Two local obituaries from 35 years ago, a geocities website page from archive.org, a trival one sentence mention from a local church's website and a local history publication, which appears to be self-promotion. Delete per WP:AUTHOR, which article claims he was an editor.

This article was created by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) who authored the local history article: "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010) (the one "independent" article cited in the wikipedia page). This user created several other articles about local churches and people tied to Clover, and cited his own article to prove its notablity. These people and organizations appear to lack notablity. He also created the wikipedia article North Louisiana History. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminstrator. The creator of this article is not naïve, but has been told for years not to create articles about unnotable people. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn and comments like this in 2007: "A number of your articles have been deleted for the policy violations. Yet, your editing behavior in those areas doesn't seem to have changed. Just today you have created several articles on non-notable individuals, some of which appear to be copied straight from the obituary section of a newspaper.... you'd been notified before about this issue of your creating articles for non-notable people...." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. First party references don't make reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as founder of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, which is an article itself up for deletion, unfortunately. The publication in North Louisiana History does indeed represent independent, non-trivial, third-party coverage; that the author of that article brought the information to Wikipedia as well is good, not bad, in my estimation. I believe we at Wikipedia should treat seminaries with the same kid gloves that we do secondary schools, but that's an argument I make in another place. Suffice it to say that the initiator of that seminary is notable for that achievement alone, the journal article is a feather in the cap — and this coming from an atheist, so it's not WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT but rather WP:Notability for me. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary for deletion is the same editor making this nomination. A startling coincidence, it would seem... Carrite (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned in my nomination, these articles are all created by the same user for self-promotion, and are nominated next to one another. No coincidence. Nominated because they are unnotable and created by the same person. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this (Billy Hathorn) article solicited/canvassed Carrite's keep vote. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha!!! - Hilarious. My friend, you have got to be kidding me... I found this all by my lonesome, I'm an atheist and I don't give a flying fuck about Christianity, Baptists, missionary baptists, or the founders of missionary baptist seminaries. Here's the deal: I believe in principle and I believe in making the best dictionary possible. Principle, in that we should not be shotgunning to eliminate things we don't like. The best dictionary possible in that we should not be eliminating perfectly useful biographies on a whim. More is more. This is factual stuff, turn the other cheek, as the Christians would advise... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can only have good articles if you have good sources. The fact that 10 out of the 19 sources for this come from the creator's own article should give you pause. Also don't pretend to know my beliefs. I simply don't like it when unnotable subjects get created for self-promotion. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the founder of the seminary. It says somewhere I think in the Wikipedia rules that all college founders are notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about an accredited institution, then there wouldn't be an issue and I would agree. The problem is that "unaccredited" can mean virtually anything, good or bad, so 'common outcomes' pretty much makes it clear that you have to have 3rd party references that pass wp:rs. Even one, solid one would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This user created the article, but failed to mention that. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment - The Missionary Baptist seminaries do not seek accreditation from a secular body. They are independent of such regulations. Students entering the schools know that the degrees are recognized only within the denomination itself or a related denomination. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Article creators are perfectly within their rights to participate in deletion debates and there is no obligation on their part to mention their creator status (although it is admittedly a nice touch in the name of full disclosure...) Carrite (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD is not a vote. What secondary sources show this subject is notable? I do notice your editting Billy Hathorn's other articles now too. Why?HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To improve them, perhaps? My question is this, since we are now well into the game of impugning motives: why have you nominated FOUR articles by this user for deletion? Are you stalking him? Carrite (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated three articles (a school, a person and a publication) written by one creator who bases the articles on his own publication. In fact, I linked to the publication in the nomination on this page (did you miss it?). This user is promoting his work by creating articles about subjects that lack third-party sources. If this is notable then there will be sources for it, beyong Billy's article. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the coverage in North Louisiana History is enough to satisfy notability here. I would also respectfully advise the nominator to limit his comments here to the content of the articles and their notability (or lack thereof) rather than the users that have edited them. (WP:ATTP) Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I agree that being covered by a single regional source passes WP:V & WP:RS, considering it is itself up for AFD. Assuming it passes AFD, that still doesn't mean it would qualify as a reliable source via WP:RS, only that it would be "notable" (for example, many blogs are WP:N "notable" but not considered reliable sources). If there was several sources from "smaller" publications that were independent (even if not notable themselves) then I wouldn't really have a concern. Or even a single coverage in a unquestionable WP:RS source. The problem, from my perspective, is that several articles almost make a "ring" that rely on each other for sourcing, without any outside, independent coverage. The COI issues don't make a reason for delete, but when the primary source is a book (that itself won't pass WP:BOOK or WP:RS), then there is a real, demonstrated lack of ability to verify the claims. Since we are talking about a biography, the bar is a little higher than, say, a sports bar or publication. I don't think anyone questions the person existed, but any material that can't be verified through independence sources can (and honestly, should) be removed, and it makes it impossible to prove notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really buy the idea that this article is unverifiable. I'm inclined to view NLH as a Reliable Source ("third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") since it's edited by an academic historian and not associated with the subject of the article in any obvious way (other than being from the same state). Qrsdogg (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims he was known for being an editor for his church, which means the guideline for notablity is WP:AUTHOR. The problem is even if you accept the local publication (despite the conflict of the interest) to demonstrate notablity, that means the only sources you have are the social security index, two local obituaries from 35 years ago, and a defunct a geocities website page. Other than that one local source, we don't have information about his authorship, work and so on.
How can you have an article about an editor without more several non-trival sources about him? How about sources about what the article claims, his editorship? A notable paper editor would have had people write about his work. Yet, the only thing found is a wikipedia's editor's local history paper. This subject fails every step of WP:AUTHOR. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: 1. It really don't bother me much that a Wikipedian authored one of the works cited here. Citing oneself is really only a problem if it involves a POV dispute. 2. Usually I would like to see more sources than this, but given the obscurity of the subject (1950s Northern Louisiana) I'm willing to be less demanding-given the position that he held as the founder of a college and the difficulty of digging up old newspapers. 3. I think you have explained your view on this issue sufficiently, repeating yourself further may not be a good use of your time. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Clover founded a seminary–which seminary is a major academic institution for members of the American Baptist Association of 2000 churches.  Having 54 students in 1972, this is by seminary standards a large seminary.  The action of founding a seminary has a long-lasting effect on society, as is shown by the careers of graduates of this seminary.  For example, one graduate likewise founded a seminary.  Clover also founded a bookstore, wrote books, and founded a newsletter.

    Regarding related guidelines, WP:Notability (people) states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'", which certainly applies to L. L. Clover. WP:Notability (people) further states, "Many ...scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  Many of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are aimed at research professors, and routine positions like president of a university, so while relevant need to be read in the context of an individual whose impact on society is not just as an academic but as a founder of the academic institution itself.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Louisiana History[edit]

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

Unnotable local history publication published by an unnotable local history organization. Lacks affiliation to a university as well.

This article was created as sheer self-promotion and to promote local religious organizations. This article was created by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) who authored the article: "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010)." This same user created Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, L. L. Clover, and Jimmy G. Tharpe, which all source that same North Louisiana History and it is the sole "independent" article to prove notablity of Clover and Tharpe articles are Billy's article. These appear to be merely local pastors with no notable sources and should be brought to AFD. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AFD started, a Richard Arthur Norton has started building a wikipedia article at North Louisiana Historical Association (the local history organization that publishes the above), which is also being listed for deletion in this AFD. This organization fails WP:ORG. It is NOT to be confused with the Louisiana Historical Association, which is completely separate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable publication. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep North Louisiana History is loosely affiliated with Louisiana State University in Shreveport, where the back articles are on file, and formerly with Louisiana Tech University. It has been around for some forty years. Much of the contents is written by professional historians. I would think all historical publications would be "notable", particularly those publishing materials by professional historians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user created the article for the reasons stated above. I dispute two false claims the creator of this article said. Academic publications are directly tied to a university of university press. University of California Press, for example, publishes 54 journals, but that by itself doesn't make those journals notable. The fact that Louisiana State University in Shreveport keeps copies on its shelf doesn't make it affiliated, academic or even notable.
    • Secondly, regional historical associations accept work by amateur historians (people who aren't professionals) interested in local history. For example, this publication will publish people's personal stories, which is hardly academic. Professional historians are people who spent years learning the profession and earned graduate degrees in the methodology. It's obvious, but being more than forty years old doesn't mean its notable. The fact that its so old and there aren't any sources, demonstrate it isn't notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Loose affiliations does not reliable sources make. "Notability" is not a factor of how you or I define it, it is how it is outlined in WP:Notability. Who it is written by is not the issue or a criteria for Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). The issue is singularly whether or not the subject matter of the article can objectively meet the criteria for inclusion. I understand that this article was created by you, and you feel an affinity for it, but that alone doesn't make it notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also delete redirect North Louisiana Historical Association, which was created a few minutes ago along with some changes to the article. 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaeyyn89 (talk • contribs)
The creator of this article solicited/canvassed this vote. 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • False claim - I did not solicit Carrite's response but thanked him for his favorable comment on my behalf. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I confirm this. Don't be so quick to cast aspersions, please. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please tell that's a joke given what you wrote here or here.
When I get followed from AFD to AFD by the same group of people who want to keep the articles created by the same user who has a history of creating unnotable articles (see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn--warned by the community to stop doing that), and they comment claiming deletion is part of a "anti-Christian bias" (Billy Hathron and Carrite 1 2 3). Then they appear on my AFDs, talking not about sourcing or actual policy, it looks like this is a canvassing on my AFDs. Meanwhile they ignore that this whole time only one secondary source on this has been written in the last 60 years-- a brief mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what you are seeing.  Try this search on Google scholar and tell me if you get 129 citations: ["North Louisiana History" OR "Journal of the North Louisiana Historical Association" OR "North Louisiana Historical Association journal" OR "Journal (North Louisiana Historical Association)" OR "Journal / North La. Hist. Assoc."].  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, if you click the link above for google scholar or search for "North Louisiana History" in quote for google scholar you get 17 hits: Not a single one refer to his journal or association, but simply refer to north Louisiana history in general. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got only 93, but the first couple pages of hits were articles that had appeared in the journal (under whatever name). There were only a couple of actual citations of articles in that journal by articles in other journals, and I gave up looking through them before I found a journal _outside_ LA that cited one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now, thank you.  My results and conclusions are somewhat different.  I agree that the first 30 hits include 25 that are self-referential citations.  Looking at the rest of the citations, I find 13 books, and 38 journal citations in 25 different journals.  Under Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals Point 4, given frequent citations which I would consider these to be, I conclude that "Notability is presumed".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This number of citations would be miles removed from what would make a single academic notable. For a journal, this is an absolutely minimal number of citations. Most academic journals get this number of citations in a single week, not over their lifetime. This is not "frequent", it is "very occasionally". As an aside, I find most "keep" arguments here rather lacking in substance. --Crusio (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for "miles removed" and "lacking in substance"?  As it stands, I find that your statement is free-floating opinion.  On the other hand, my statement that there are 50 Google scholar citations quantifiably refutes the statement, "Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work."  Do you think that the closing admin should assign any of the delete positions greater than zero weight?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is based on several years of experience with the WikiProject Journals and discussions around WP:PROF. 50 GS cites would result in a speedy snow delete decision (in the absence of anything else) if it were an academic. We may expect more from a journal. Given that no evidence of notability seems to be forthcoming (and given that just 50 GS cites is, IMHO, evidence of the opposite), I'm going to !vote Delete here. --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no references given for the assertion that 50 Google scholar cites is cause for a speedy deletion.  I also reviewed WP:Speedy deletion and believe that this claim is (to use a term from there) "patent nonsense".  Regarding the implied and more-relevant but still undocumented idea for AfD, the explanation does not factor the availability of the magazine.  For example, the Journal of Physics (if there is such a journal) is probably available in more libraries and will get more citations than North Louisiana History journal.  This also relates to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals which explicitly mentions journals serving "niche markets" as having a presumption of notability.  Nor has respondent refuted the presumption of notability that the NLH journal has a "significant history", nor the presumption of notability in that the NLH journal has an "historic purpose".  Regarding respondent's implied claim to represent Wikipedia norms, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice which was kept with one Google scholar citation and one newspaper article (and don't bother looking for The Vancouver Voice in Trove at the National Library of Australia because it is not there, and Worldcat doesn't know when The Vancouver Voice started publishing).  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant "speedy" here in the sense of "very fast", not CSD. As for the Vancouver Voice, I'm amazed that that one was kept, but this falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As for refuting things: it's extremely difficult to show that something is not notable, as the proof is in the negative (i.e., no sources can be found). However, the procedure here is that those who argue for "keep" produce evidence that a subject is notable, not the other way around. And up till now, I am not impressed at all with the "evidence" that has been produced. The comparison with the newspaper is incorrect. Newspapers indeed do not often cite each other (I guess), but academic journals do that all the time, hence 50 GS cites is a trivial amount. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are here to discuss notability, not popularity–IMO the null hypothesis that North Louisiana History is not notable is not sustainable: given proper citing by the worldwide library systems including Worldcat, ongoing abstracting published in two outside references, academic support with public money through LSUS in the form of office space and library shelving and a web page with a listing of archives, routine citations (50 known from Google alone) by 40 outside sources, the fact that articles published there are WP:RS, the idea that readers would not be able to look up this journal in Wikipedia, and that editors would not be able to Wikilink this journal when using articles published there.  For those who want policy citations for this statement, these ideas are discussed in WP:UCS.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is indeed the null hypothesis and it is up to those who argue otherwise to produce evidence of the contrary. WorldCat listing is absolutely not a sign of notability, however. The inclusion in Historical Abstracts and America, History and Life is possibly different, if it can be shown that these are major, selective databases. If they are and this journal is indeed included, i'll change my vote to keep, but for the moment I stay with the delete. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Crusio's delete rationale. It's a good point, which why I search for this publications articles in those indexes. Nothing came up, as I wrote below and the talk page more than a week ago here Talk:North Louisiana History. Thus, can those who want to keep the article provide an independent source for the claim "ongoing abstracting published in two outside references" or prove "academic support with public money through LSUS from office space." These are wild, unspported claims. We need independent secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to you before, an AFD is not a vote. Name one independent non-trival secondary source this has discussed in. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of North Louisiana History articles (1970-1995) can be obtained at http://nwla-archives.org/indexes/nlhas.htm Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does that help meet WP:BOOK or WP:ORG? Just because you wrote for this publication and chose to create this wikipedia article to promote your work, doesn't make this notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominator disputes as a "false claim" that LSUS is "loosely affiliated".  I don't think nominator can have it both ways, either LSUS is affiliated with the journal, or LSUS is an independent secondary third-party reliable source.  Either way, the Noel Memorial Library special collection website source is an indication of notability for North Louisiana History.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your point is. Maybe you can explain it? Academic journals are published by academic presses. This is not published by an academic press or even a publishing house. As ill-defined as a claim of "loosely affiliated" is, there is no evidence of it. Unless you're claiming a 16 year out of date index is proof of being "loosely affiliated." Are you? In that case all research libraries are "loosely affiliated" with the NY Times too for keeping the NY Times indexes.
But let's, for the sake of argument, say this local publication is "loosely affiliated" with a university. So what? The fact that its own "loose affiliation" hasn't even bothered to update an index about it in 16 years proves just how unremarkable this publication is. Furthermore, it just means that everyone who want to keep this article doesn't have secondary sources to demonstrate notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because you created them too in order to promote yourself! You added yourself to Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (now deleted), Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.") And even more pathetically, for example, he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis!
Also your references, as adminstrator expects will be removed.
New comment: I am not familiar with the "en.wikipedia.org" source mentioned above, and I rarely use such a reference; didn't know I ever had, actually. Many of the notable alumni lists require notation, and that explains the sourcing of "List of Southern Methodist University people." Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing adminstrator should take note of the RFC about this user creating unnotable articles here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation: None of the list that you cite above is non-notable. Any state legislator qualifies for Wikipedia under the rules, and most of that list have gone beyond legislatures. I did not create all of those article but added information to some of them and had to give the source when I added new information. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New comment The above is a different list, and I stand by the content of each article; show what is in error with any of them, and I will make corrections. Many of these cited above are not in North Louisiana History.. There are many in North Louisiana History who have their own Wikipedia article even if the NLH article is not cited in their biographies. This demonstrates that much of what is in NLH is "notable." If there was, for instance, a Journal of South Missouri History, would you asssume that it too is not notable? Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Theses and dissertations (secondary works) are valid sources in any historical journal and are even encouraged. If there is something incorrect in any source, it is the responsibility of the author to ferret out the error and make adjustment. If the author writes a falsehood from what he thought is a valid source, he is still correct, because his information he had was presumed valid, and he has cited the source. Family-supplied obituaries (also secondary works) in newspapers (primary sources) are also presumed valid; I have found only one flagrant obituary error in the past five years that I have written for Wikipedia, and I believe that error came from a family misperception about the occupation of the deceased, not deliberate falsehood. Someone disparaged a "35-year old obituary" as an unreliable source; well, that is when the person died! Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the webpage is "Archives - North Louisiana Historical Association Index, 1970-2005 (by Subject)".  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? Libraries archive publications they receive. That's what they do with them. Individual issues get bound in larger volumes for researchers and shelf-space. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Robert F. Kennon, but it does not cite North Louisiana History or one of its predecessors.  I think it is a mis-connect to say that because the journal reports on notable topics, that the journal is therefore "worthy of notice".  This is an associational study, and studies showing a statistical association do not show causality.  I would agree that if this is all we knew about the notability of the journal it would be a reason to justify more research and to expect to find verifiable evidence of the journal being worthy of notice or attracting notice.  In this case, we already have verifiable evidence both that the journal is "worthy of notice" and that it "attracts notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
  • 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
  • 5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

Nominator's opening statement that this is a local journal is refuted by being documented by the National Library of Australia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for this publication leaving a "historic purpose or have a significant history"? Sources for being "frequently cited by other reliable sources" Sources that this is "non-trivial niche markets"? You can't assert this without proof. You provide some sources and I'll withdrawal the AFD. It's simple.
That a nation's archive would archive an obscure publication is not surprising. That's what a national archive does! They track down or are given (through several methods) an obscure publication for the country and archive it for scholars. That's why the National Library of Australia has racist publications from obscure, unnotable American groups too. For the record, an academic press would produce about 1000 copies of a book and research libraries and national archives throughout the world would buy it because its from an academic press. That's even for scholarly books that are rarely reviewed and have no academic impact. The fact that this doesn't even fall within these guidelines and you citing its existence in a library does not prove it notable. On the contrary, it shows how hard you've looked for sources, can't find them and don't understand library holdings and archival purposes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point by example: one the obscure things the National Library of Australia has is issues of the newsletter published by the Florida Conservation Foundation. Will you also claim this organization's newsletter is a notable publication and create a wiki article on it. Because a library has it doesn't mean its notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New comment I would not object to an article on Florida Conservation Foundation, or North Carolina Conservation Foundation, for that matter, though I am unfamiliar with this organization and would not likely be contributing to said article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing a lot of assumption as to "because it is a newspaper, it is notable" and "it is in a library in Australia", and "serving non-trivial niche markets" (without proof) and I'm sure the intent is honorable, but those are not accepted "proofs" of notability. I understand it is a contentious AFD, but it seems like there is a lot of grasping at straws, assuming and conjecture, but very little (read: none) actual verification of notability. Seriously, when you have to go so broad as to make a claim that because a library in Australia has a copy, this tends to reinforce the idea that no verifiable sources DO exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment  It is difficult here to respond to all of the rhetoric.  The nominator has been warned by people in current AfDs and on his/her talk page to tone it down.  What more is there to say to someone that rather than agree that it was incorrect to say that the journal was "local", brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see any need to start calling people racist in this AFD. I commented on his talk page about him simply getting a bit overzealous, which is a common mistake, but I agree with his conclusions that the article isn't notable and surely that doesn't make me a racist. Saying it is a "local" paper (ie: no widespread appeal outside of the general locale) alone is not enough reason to make such claims, and I would dare say is bordering on being uncivil. Everyone would do good to tone down the rhetoric and simply look at the facts. We can disagree on the facts without throwing around labels. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give your diffs that have examples of "calling people racist in this AFD"  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD. above introduced the concept into the AFD, which is essentially the equivalent of invoking Godwin's Law, so I fail to see how any additional comments will add clarity to the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment: There are several NLH articles dealing with blacks, desegregation, etc. Here is one from 2004: Example: NAACP in LA

"We Are But Americans: Ms. Georgia M. Johnson," Sartain, Lee. Vol.35, No.2,3, Spring-Summer 2004 108-134 Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, what's that have to do with the article? I hope you're not trying to imply anyone who wants this deleted is racist.
Can we focus on how this article suffers from a lack of third-party sources and nothing in the article demonstrates notablity? I added the third-party needed tag because everything that's been added are links to libraries that shows this publication exists. No one doubts it exists. The debate is on how there aren't sources demonstrating this is significant to include on wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New comment: The diverse listings of articles printed in North Louisiana History demonstrate its notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request:Before this article is deleted, can we see if any other historical journals have been similarly dropped from Wikipedia? And if so, why? Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is helpful to know if deleting historical journals is a common practice, or is just this one being singled out? Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Has any other historical journal been deleted? The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate 2006 article is right about three editions per year. About 2008, the publication was reduced to twice annually. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply yes, other local history organizations more than 50 years old with a publication have been deleted because there aren't secondary sources showing notablity, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayward Area Historical Society. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the basic requirement for journals, which is being included in the major subject indexing services (in this case, America History and Life , & Historical abstracts.) That's a reasonable standard applicable to all disciplines, and is essentially the equivalent of "significant 3rd party coverage" At worst, merge to an article about the association, which is how we have sometimes handled marginal journals. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems like a very reasonable take on this. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched both those databases and found no evidence of that. That means the NLH website and the 1998 catalog listing is wrong and/or out of date. Furthermore, we don't have an independent source to verify this publication is abstracted by those indexes. In fact regarding this issue, I left a tag on the article (which was removed) and mentioned on the talk page here: Talk:North Louisiana History a week ago. I received no reply.
Also that 1998 reference (#15) is used three times in the article says the publication is quarterly. The wikipedia article says it comes out three times a year. The creator of the article says it comes out twice a year. Which is correct? You need secondary sources to have an article on a subject, not out of date library listings. That is why there is a guideline for notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This AfD should have been closed 24 hours ago, might I suggest that an admin close this ASAP as a No consensus since the discussion has been disrupted by a personal attack with racism added, such that further discussion is itself tending to disruption.  The article has been greatly improved during this time, so while a "No consensus" could be challenged again with another AfD, the article is not now and would not then be a weak article in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? There are two AFDs. In sheer votes (which an AFD is not it is 5-including nom- to 5 keeps, including the creator of this article and another creator of the Association's article. Or take out involved parties, 4 to 3 in favor of deletion). All but one of the keep votes, having been from people who have been following me from AFD to AFD.
Furthermore, the status of sourcing hasn't changed and doesn't support the claims of those who want to keep. Despite repeatedly inquiries for sources, one secondary source has not proven notablity for either (or both). Posting a link that a library has catalog a former publication "news letter" and another called it "newsletter" hardly merits WP:BOOK.
The fact that this has been published for so many decades and merited one mention in a local paper speaks volumes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone keeps saying that NLH is published three times a year. No, it is now twice a year. That change was made in 2008 or so. It is Winter/Spring and Summer/Fall. For instance, Summer/Fall 2010 is Vol. XLI (Nos. 3-4). Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Sources on this are scant, hence the all links to library catalogs. Secondary sources, in the last six decades, are close to nil--one mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; I have the most recent copy before me, Vol. XLI, Nos. 3-4, Summer-Fall 2010. It is now published twice a year. The board of directors met on April 17, 2010, and again on May 11, 2010, the latter at the Shreve Memorial Library, Brooadmoor Branch. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the point here is that you can't add the "fact" that it is published twice a year based on your having a copy in your hands. That is defacto the definition of original research, which is prohibited. That is why a citation is required. That has been a concern with articles you write, based on your books, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh, come on now, be FAIR. If a journal is published twice a year instead of three times a year, and the dude has a copy in front of him that says it's published twice a year, it's not "original research" for him to make a note of the FACT. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This is ridiculous. The article has been here for nearly a year and the creator has to reference the publication itself and two meetings of the organization (the definition of WP:OR) from last year, to claim to know the publication rate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the publication itself gives its publication rate, that may be WP:PRIMARY but certainly not WP:OR. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll be of service: this should close as NO CONSENSUS. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask again: What secondary sources about this publication and/or organization (there are two AFDs) do you have that demonstrate notablity? As discussed above, the citation for how many issues get published is the publication itself. Links to library catalogs do not demonstrate notablity. If this publication is so rich and relevant to wikipedia readers why haven't people/scholars written about it? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to ignore the article in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above for secondary sourceS, plural. Guidelines expect more than one non-trival secondary source. I am not ignoring the single local newspaper coverage from years ago. However, that alone doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:BOOK because you need sourceS to build an article. Furthermore, the quote in that article is "It is published three times a year by the North Louisiana Historical Association, Inc. of Shreveport." The creator of the article says its published only twice. We don't have any secondary sourcing that can accurately describe important matters like how many times this gets published or relevance to society. If it isn't notable for newspapers or academics, it isn't notable for wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This article was scheduled to be processed by an admin 48 hours ago.  24 hours ago I asked that it be closed as "No consensus" for complex reasons that included the risk of an admin keeping the AfD open for another 7 days.  Instead we remain in limbo.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that it is bad form to tell the closing admin how this should be closed. The admin will weigh the arguments (not count the !votes, mind you) and make up his/her own mind. Part of the delay may be that few admins may be willing to wad through all the bickering here in search of the few solid arguments. I said above that I would change my mind and vote keep (like DGG) if the inclusion in the two mentioned databases could be verified. However, this appears not to be possible, so I maintain my delete vote. It will be interesting to see the closing admin's evaluation of all this... --Crusio (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on database inclusion: Looking in America: History & Life I find listing of 132 articles using North Louisiana History. EG it lists McCleary, William - Source:North Louisiana History; -Winter/Spring2011, Vol. 42 Issue 1/2, p3-20, 18p - Document Type:Article - Full Text Word Count:2761 - ISSN:0739005X - Accession Number:59867535- Database: America: History & Life
But there are 888 articles listed under one of the suggested other titles in our article: North Louisiana Historical Association Journal.
Looking in Historical Abstracts I could only find one article (But I didn't try with other titles):
RE-DEDICATION CEREMONY OF THE BRONZE TABLETS ON THE GRAVE OF DR. JOHN SIBLEY (1757-1837).Detail Only Available By: Wernet, Mary Linn. North Louisiana History, Spring/Summer2009, Vol. 40 Issue 2/3, p127-127, 1p; Historical Period: 2009; 1757 to 1837 Subjects: NATCHITOCHES (La.); LOUISIANA; RITES & ceremonies; SIBLEY, John; SEPULCHRAL monuments; SIBLEY, Jackson Database: Historical Abstracts
(Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Strange. I searched for Billy's article by author name/title and it didn't come up.
I researched a little more about these databases and I don't know how being one of 2,000 publications in America: History & Life or one in 2,000 publications Historical Abstracts makes each publication, including this, notable. I find it troublesome that an index in a database, means we ignore WP:BOOK and WP:ORG.
Reply. My article is 2010; the index goes only to 2005. That's why you didn't find it.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There simply aren't sources to have an article about this and the keepers can only point to one secondary source from a local paper in this organization's six decades. Anyone find a secondary source about how many times a year this is published? Can the contradictions be fixed? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the past 30 days, 3,466 have viewed the article. Its references are twice as long as the article itself. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because people think its about North Louisiana history (history of the region) or because all the interest of this AFD? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, there is more than one good independent references, but you have your selective glasses on. There is "Louisiana, the Pelican State" which has a brief history of the journal and the "Baton Rouge Morning Advocate" which also talks about the journal. You just choose to ignore them and use the bibliography listings as strawmen. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 5 for the article and 5 against; only ten stated a position with so many additional comments as well. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than 3,800 have viewed the article in the last thirty day but very few have commented. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly. You've been around long enough to know that AfD is not a vote and that number of page views is not an argument at AfD either (and how many of those views have been related to this AfD and the flurry of editing it has caused, do you think? This AfD has over 500 page views since last week, so I guess you'd think that this is notable, too... --Crusio (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the harsh statements? I was just trying to summarize the "votes." as they are stashed within so much irregular text. Yes, I know that the vote can be 10 for and 1 against, and the "against" wins. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DGG. There's a laundry list of items that need to be cleaned up, including sourcing - which, despite claims to the contrary, is not adequate. We do have several references that don't pass muster, and those have been discussed at length above. But there's also evidence to suggest that this journal is (barely) notable, and DGG hit the nail on the head with his comment on indexing. This article can be salvaged. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also - stop vote counting. This will close when it closes, and anyone who expects admins to snap to it hasn't read the wall of text above. It's not (yet!) a trainwreck, so chill out and let some other poor bastard the closing admin do their job. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Buscarini[edit]

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

BLP without any independent sources. No significant coverage in third party sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After a bit of translating, it appears he is notable and has been covered by at least a few sources that would be acceptable. The article needs work, but a little research will show he can pass wp:ent. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Coverage is not very extensive with it seemingly to be mostly about his choreography for one piece. [8], [9] are in English and review his work Cameo, and this in Italian. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lot of reviews of his dance pieces which are not self promos. Agree with above, Article needs work --Whiteguru (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guranda Gvaladze[edit]

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

WP:N: Georgian botanist, certainly exists, Gscholar has some results under GE Gvaladze. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, I'd expect the cite counts to be very low in Gscholar here, but they're far enough away I'm having trouble seeing an argument under Gscholar on that basis. A more significant claim is the Abhazian Regional Academy of Sciences, might or might be notable but I haven't been able to verify it, or much else, partially due (of course) to the problems of translation from Georgian, and I'm not convinced ARAS membership confers notability in any case. I'm happy for this to go either way, but I would like to see the article, if kept, based at least in part on reliable sources. joe deckertalk to me 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards delete lots of titles are listed, but none that notable; and there is no evidence for his impact. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She certainly exists and has published, but the article is completely lacking in sources and I can't find any myself, nor any evidence that she has made a significant scientific impact. Aside from the regional academy it seems that the other memberships do not convey notability; in particular, the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (whose notability seems dubious to me) has a membership application form that seems to imply that one need only have a Ph.D. to join. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitby Bookshop[edit]

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

Non-notable small business. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nom sums it up nicely, just another business. No indication or even claim of independent notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoongle[edit]

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

Article appears to be mainly about some university students who rent apartments in a building. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the nominator says, it's an unnotable student house. Article clearly created as a prank. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a place unremarkable and not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the content is made up, and the rest has no indication of notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mostly made up. The infobox would claim it is registered on the NRHP but the reference number provided turned up no record when using this search form. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Mayberry[edit]

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

Non notable political candidate, an autobiography, not elected may well have article if and when he is, currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Personally I would set a very low bar on the articles of candidates for a national legislature even if they fail the regular notability guidelines like this one does, but it does not appear this candidate is even viable. Also 0 reliable sources, all references are to other Wikipedia articles. Monty845 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable politician. Safiel (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not at all notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - non-notable candidate; fails to meet any of our criteria. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always with unelected political candidates, he'll be entitled to come back if he wins but is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Also note that this is most likely an WP:AUTO violation as well, given the creator's username. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creep (Internet)[edit]

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

More of a non-notable dictionary definition using original research than an actual article. Author has good intentions, but this doesn't meet criteria for inclusion on many fronts. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionite Jewish Community[edit]

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

This article was recently recreated for the third time. There seems to be only one independent reliable source which specifically relates to this topic which would not qualify as a trivial source. On that basis I believe that it qualifies for deletion yet again. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP The article was NOT recreated; it was demerged, since the merged content was deleted from the Ebionite article, against the merge consensus of the 2nd AfD. Since the content seems unstable within the Ebionite article it was moved out as per the consensus there (no one objected to proposed demerger, including the AfD nominator, who is demonstrating bad faith with the lack of engagement prior to nomination). Since the contents have survived 2 AfDs, and has grown in sourcing since then, this 3rd AfD is doubly ridiculous. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the intention in demerging is to create a sub-article about modern Ebionites in general - as opposed to the ancient Ebionites - not the EJC in particular. This article is due to be renamed - I was waiting for feedback before renaming when the AfD was raised. The AfD nominator seems not be aware of this, despite the mention on the talk page [10]. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article were to be renamed, then the content, would, presumably, be adjusted as well. In effect, it would be an entirely separate article than this one. Saying that this article has to be kept because it is to be renamed and the subject material adjusted does not strike me as a particularly reasonable argument. FWIW, having reviewed all the relevant material I could find myself, I have no particular reason to believe that an article about all the modern movements which claim to be "Ebionite" would meet notability guidelines either, as I have found no independent reliable sources which specifically mention any others, or discuss modern Ebionites in general in a substantive way. Some may have been created since I last looked, of course, but I hadn't seen sufficient evidence as of a few months ago anyway. And, regarding the allegations raised above, please consider this nomination for deletion, based on the failure of the content to meet notability guidelines, as my response. I had not myself noted the discussion on the article talk page earlier, and, honestly, given that the article is in mediation and awaiting arbitration because of certain editors' apparent violations of WP:IDHT and other policies and guidelines, I'm not sure any comments I may have made would have been given any attention anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, IOW, you decided to violate assume good faith and not engage in dialogue. That speaks volumes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What truly speaks volumes is the ongoing effort of the above editor to impugn and otherwise possibly harass me, on this page and others, while refusing to discuss any matters of substance. That is one of the reasons the request for arbitration has been made and accepted by ArbCom. I have every reason to believe that the ongoing nature of these completely irrelevant ad hominem attacks, and other refusals to acknowledge or abide by policies and guidelines, speaks even more volumes. It seems that I must ask the above editor once again to actually try to make his comments even remotely relevant to the subject at hand, and cease from the regular disparagement of others which he seems to indulge in whenever he cannot find any policies or guidelines to support his opinion. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not seeing anything that contradicts my statement, that you decided to violate assume good faith and not engage in dialogue over the matter of demerging. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your lack of visual acuity is noted. I have, by the way, seen nothing which even remotely indicates that this point is relevant to this discussion. Nor did I see anything in the ongoing mediation page mentioning the article creation, which I think would have been reasonable as well. As I have stated elsewhere, I have a watchlist of about 4 or 5 thousand pages, and I guess I assumed any attempt of recreating a page on the group, when that content was being discussed in mediation, would have been at least mentioned there, particularly if the action was undertaken by one of the parties of mediation, which includes you, me, and Ovadyah, and the only independent RS on the subject which has been produced was actively being discussed in the mediation. Considering there is discussion on that page of changing the content of the section, it seems to me that it would have been reasonable to at least mention that the content was being moved elsehwere, no? John Carter (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is highly relevant to the present discussion to point out that there are two reliable sources supporting this content. James Tabor being the second reliable source. You pointed this out yourself in the last AfD here and it has been recently reaffirmed in the present mediation here. Ovadyah (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP NO ACTION and against merging - The article has at least one source that mentions the group specifically which has an ISBN number. Therefore, the group exists based on WP:V. The issue in the second AfD was if the group is sufficiently notable under WP:N, which is a guideline, to merit its own article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Existence (even confirmed by an ISBN book) does not equal to notability. Do you know that there are millions of small businesses listed in various travel guides, industry catalogs, etc? 90% of them exist only in these books. As for our case, we don't know how the author got info about EJS. If he just picked by chance from their wedsite (after commendably diligent web search), without any research, we have no proof from the book that this "Jewish Community" is more than one person. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are at least two other books which mention, if only mention, the subject. One of them is a book of quotations, including a quotation from Philips and a statement that he founded the EJC in 1985. Another is an encyclopedia of new religious movements which mentions nothing but the name in a list of NRMs. Unfortunately, neither of them provides more than a single sentence on the EJC or Philipps, and may well be subject to the same questions about where the information came from as the book included. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted for a Speedy Keep because of the improper way this was done. When we were discussing options on the talk page of the parent article, a vote to delete was not even brought up as an option. If it had been, I doubt that there would have been a consensus decision to de-merge. Ovadyah (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is every evidence that you monitored the talk page of the editor who created the article, per your rapid response. He was so far as I can tell the only editor at the time who had been actively involved in the article itself, so he was the only one I was required to notify. I believe, if anything, the unsupported claim of impropriety above is much more clearly demonstrated in that editor's comments, and lack of even basic understanding of the XfD process, per his own comments here. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors do not need the blessing of others to take actions they believe improve the encyclopedia. Weak or invalid speedy keep arguments are damaging to the credibility of those making them; speedy keep is a documented procedure reliant on particular criteris which weren't met here, and not simply another way of saying "I really want this kept". The nomination was not obviously in bad faith (as the edit summary accompanying this argument implies), which is a serious allegation against editors in good standing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to explain this one more time and then I'm moving on. I was previously opposed to a de-merge shown here. John Carter supported a de-merge shown here. While any editor can change their mind, it would have been nice to know that when we were trying to reach a consensus this week shown here. Anyway, what's done is done. Let's reach a consensus and move on. Ovadyah (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have established both that there had been an attempt to discuss this week, and, at the same time, established by yuor own comments on this page that you as an individual apparently have little understanding of the XFD process. Also, it is worth noting once again that there was no such discussion on the active mediation page. I believe it would have been appropriate to make at least some such comment on the mediation page, but no one seems to have thought of that. Odd. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BB is not the slightest excuse to ignore WP:CONSENSUS since it relies entirely on there not being an existing discussion. Moreover, the nom was absent from the discussion, which adds to that negligence; see below.
  • Merge into Ebionites Per the consensus of the last AFD, which the article's creator supported. If someone is deleting merged information, that is an issue for the talk page, not a criteria for a new article. I take Michael C Price 100% at his word, which makes this new article a NPOV fork. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE or alternatively MERGE into a small footnote on Assemblies of Yahweh, or find some more appropriate article than Ebionites, or better just delete totally. As far as I can see this isn't a church/group and doesn't "exist" other than as an "online community", which, other than Facebook which is a company, means it doesn't "exist". The one source only says "Ebionite Jewish Community, Shemayah Philips" which is just 1 person, a person who doesn't have a book on Amazon, and isn't mentioned anywhere and isn't notable. There is this source, The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality by James K. Walker, but it seems to be a trawl of websites and 1-man religions. Does every individual in this book warrant a Wikipedia mention, let alone an article? Nope, imho. (Sorry) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) -- as a second note to that, I just looked again at Assemblies of Yahweh and even though they are only 3000 strong it seems a Related Groups paragraph at the bottom would cover this content and could probably cover 1 or 2 similar subjects/groups.[reply]
  • Comment - This comment is made only to say that the Walker source is an outstanding one, but it does seem to meet minimal standards for an RS. It may not be a great one, but it does seem to meet the minimum RS standards. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to commment - Hi John. The Walker book is certainly comprehensive, but it does seem that most of the smaller cyberchurches mentioned are not notable by Wikipedia standards. The Sacred Name article already lists 2 or 3 virtual groups of similar marginal notability, few if any adherents, no publications etc.; I don't see why Shemayah Phillips and his webpage can't go there? I also can't see anything in the Walker article which would justify the content being in an article about 4thC Judaistic Christians. Incidentally - a procedural matter, in a AfD wouldn't it be right to notify the original page poster User:Loremaster from 2006? [I forgot to sign] In ictu oculi (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, given the two previous AfDs on the subject, and the fact that, at least potentially, the possibility of other sources having been introduced, it had not struck me as necessarily required, particularly given that you had indicated to me earlier a lack of ongoing interest in the subject. I had myself added the material to the Sacred Name movement article earlier, and have said before that it may well be much better placed there than in the Ebionites article. And I myself count the Walker book as only one RS, when notability generally requires at least two. So, while it is an RS, it is still insufficient to establish individual notability. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to reply In ictu oculi, the main problem with your suggestion is that the EJC does not self-identify as Christian. In fact, they have some kind of pre-screening process where you have to prove you are not a Christian to even get on their list shown here. Of course, this is me doing a bit of web search and not a RS saying it. But the fact remains that lumping them in with some Christian groups that have taken on Jewish practices would be incongruous. Ovadyah (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-identification is not necessarily a binding requirement. I do however have to acknowledge Ovadyah as the expert we have on the EJC, based on his declared interest in the topic from his very first edit to his userpage. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this was intended as a complement. However, I did at least make an effort to contact Phillips directly to verify that what the encyclopedia was saying about him and the EJC was accurate (it wasn't true). The fictitious crap about Phillips being a former Baptist minister that was planted on this encyclopedia in 2005 continues to circulate all over the internet to this day. Ovadyah (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that you seem to be indicating, for whatever reason, that self-published sources sem to take priority over independent sources. In fact, if you were to review policies and guidelines, it is very clear that the opposite is true here. If Philipps had any real intention of addressing this matter, he could certainly have contacted one of the newspapers in his area to indicate as much. I have consulted databanka from ProQuest, JSTOR, EBSCOHost, and Gale Cengage Infotrac, and have yet to find any reliable sources in any independent publications, other than the three sources already indicated, which even mention him. He has apparently made no effort to publicly repudiate that information, and we are not bound to bend over backwards to ask others about themselves. Also, as has already been noted, there is now the intention to actively ask professional journals to discuss neo-Ebionites. Should that request be honored, I have every reason to believe he will be able to answer then. However, none of that is relevant to the fact that this article still does not apparently meet notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not worship Jesus" is the sign of a Christian group, not a Jewish one, but I don't see how that is relevant to WP:Notability "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works."In ictu oculi (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worship is the key word there. It has nothing to do with notability. However, assuming that even a brief mention of this group survives, what we say should at least be reported accurately. I have also made the case that there are in fact two reliable sources backing up this content, the other being James Tabor, which we reaffirmed as per consensus in mediation. Of course we can play the same WP:GAME here that is being played on the main article - that no number of RS will ever be enough. Ovadyah (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called consensus in the mediation, so far as I recall, was only a consensus between Michael and Ovadyah, and I cannot remember anything in that mediation which related specificlly to this topic at all. And the above comment has nothing to do with the main subject here, notability, either. And it is not our place to engage in WP:OR and make an assumption that one source which seems to meet WP:RS should be completely ignored, WP:GAME, and I think more importantly, WP:IDHT, are among the reasons the ArbCom has taken this topic for arbitration, pending the completion of the mediation. But, again, for all the comment above, I have to say that the minimum notability guidlines have apparently not been met. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This topic is notable and well referenced. I agree with Michael C. Price above. It is certainly not a POV fork. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, directory mention in one book is not significant coverage. The other references do not address the notability of this web community.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good then, that point is resolved. John Carter and Ovadyah should probably stop talking to each other here right about now.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I believe the relevant guideline is WP:GNG, which pretty clearly asks for multiple independent reliable sources which mention the subject in some detail. So far as I have seen, there is only one such independent reliable source which discusses the subject in a non-trivial way. Therefore, I believe that it does qualify for deletion as non-notable. I wish that were not the case, and am hoping that the request of some journal to write an article or more to establish notability, which is currently developing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, helps to establish the required notability, but, at, present, I cannot see that the subject meets notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is inappropriate for the nominator to leave comments all over the nomination page attempting to steer other editors into taking an action desired by the nominator. If you don't stop doing this, I will take the matter to ANI. Ovadyah (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I was providing clarification of the first point, and responding to the baseless accusations of others. I have no intention of responding further, only noting that the above comment itself is both very judgemental, seems to ignore the relevant points raised, and would possibly be just as much subject to ANI review as my own, more substantial, comments above. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had an opportunity to make your points in your opening statement. Further "clarifications" should not be necessary. If these "clarifications" continue, I will ask the admins to remove all the comments. Let's have a clean vote. Ovadyah (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that these are not technically "votes", but rather discussions based on policies and guidelines, right? And, if there are no further attempts at impugning my own motivations, such as both of the comments directly above, there I would have no reason to make further comments. And there is sufficient precedent for an individual to make comments after first proposing, particularly when he, regretfully, did not actually cite the exact policy and guideline involved. However, if the above editor is capable of refraining from demanding others do exactly as he orders, there should be no reason for any further comment from any of us, so long as further attempts to impugn the comments of others on any matter other than the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did think they were "votes", so pardon my ignorance. ANI says you are free to make all the comments you like, and therefore, I will likewise feel free to make all the comments I like in rebuttal. Ovadyah (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he is saying that you might be bludgeoning the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the point exactly. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed that conversation. Let's move on please. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability presented beyond brief listing in one book. No evidence there is more than one person in this community. I am also against merging, for the same reason: undue weight for a virtually unknown organization (if organization at all). Lothar Klaic (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence provided that this is a notable group. I can't find any significant coverage of them in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as against merging as I cant see the justification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Que?
  • I think a sensible reading of the previous AfD would be that while many editors suggested merging, nobody explained exactly why the material in the article at that time belonged in the parent. What it certainly did suggest was that a "de-merge" (undoing the redirect) was inappropriate as there simply isn't enough reliable independent coverage of the subject of this article to warrant it standing by itself. I agree with John Carter's initial comment above that arguing for a keep because we could theoretically have an article on a subject somewhat similar to this doesn't hold a lot of water. In ictu oculi's proposed alternative redirect target might also be something to consider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The oxymoronic POVFORK (material that is POV is not a fork, unless the original was POV) shows one side of a dispute, but not the other; commonly, material is railroaded out of an article with deletors saying, this belongs in the X article (often despite the fact that X article does not exist) When the article is created, deletors use POVFORK to delete it. That is not exactly what has happened here, but there is evidence of a lot of back-and-forth, even editors changing their minds about it. The article was created in 2006. The nomination to delete in 2006 says, "After an extensive discussion, the content was removed from the "Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I still tend to think it lacks sufficiently notable" The current nominator, who voted merge/keep at the 2009 AFD, subsequently re-added material to Ebionites, and then decided it should only be a redirect to Sacred Name Movement (nothwithstanding the fact that the Sacred Name Movement is a Christian movement with Jewish beliefs), as can be seen in talk Archive 10: section Neo-Ebionites ...Actually, as the person who first added this material..." Nominator has not written a single word at the talk page of Ebionites since 20 Oct 2010, but is next to unstoppable today.
The reason for the nominator not making any subsequent edits is rather well known to the regular editors of the main Ebionites article. The nominator produced a number of reliable sources on the subject which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and the accompanying page, and the material was questioned as faulty and possibly fraudulent. As can be seen in the Ebionites talk page archives, the nominator recused himself from any further editing of the article at that point, and even indicated that he would voluntarily, on his own, withdraw his adminship if any of the material he produced were found to be inaccurate. No one has raised such allegations, and the individual is still an admin, although for about a year now virtually all the material he produced regarding this subject has been ignored by the others who had not so recused themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and:I think it is arguable that there is a consensus to keep this material somewhere. I think that my example, and the history of this article and countless other articles and AFDs, show that the responsible thing is for a definite conclusion about the fate of material to be reached whenever there is a chance to do so; assuming that someone else is going to do it later is passing the buck. It's all very well to be clever and assert that it does not belong here and does not belong there, but it is not, in the end, helpful when the material obviously belongs somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my recommendation to Merge into Ebionites earlier. There are claims that it was demerged, but that isn't a reason to fork the info, that is a reason to enter conflict resolution. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone willing to do the reading, the entire thread of the discussion, since the last AfD resulted in a consensus to merge, is here, here, here, and here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone willing to discuss common sense, it may be useful to remember that the consensus may change. It may happen that there is a new article, borderline notable subject, people may decide to wait a bit and see what happens. If over time there is no additional confirmation of notability (i.e., more confirmation of nonnotability), then the topic may be deleted from anywhere in wikipedia articles, based on new consensus, which is based on new considerations regardless last-year debates. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also, I think I should more clearly indicate my own specific preferred outcome, which I have not yet done, and my apologies for that. I would favor restoring this page to a redirect, and restoring the content removed from the Ebionites page back to that article. There has been recent discussion of other groups which have been influenced by the historic Ebionites, such as the Elkeasites, Cathars, and others who have had what might be called a "low" Christology, and a sentence or two on this topic (the specific group or the groups in general) in a section on "Ebionite influence or legacy" doesn't strike me as entirely inappropriate. If and when additional independent reliable sources which make significant mention of the topic are produced, then there would be no objections I can see to creating some sort of separate article on this group or neo-Ebionites as a whole. But, at present, I don't see the multiple significant discussions of the subject in independent reliable sources which would merit a separate article on either the specific group or the broader topic of modern Ebionites as a whole. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there is to be a merge, I believe the more reasonable MERGE "target" would be the Sacred Name Movement. The only independent reliable source of any substance mentions that group first, before the Ebionites. While it presents both statements passively, it does apparently consider the SNM more directly relevant to this group than the Ebionites. Also, there is the fact that the SNM is more closely related in terms of time, and that, on that basis, it is likely that the SNM article, when developed, would probably contain more information directly relevant to this group, particularly in areas like its history, than the Ebionites article is likely to. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No information is preferable to wrong information. Therefore, if the choice is between a merge to the Sacred Name Movement and deletion, I will change my vote to DELETE. Deletion is also preferable to a merge to Assemblies of Yahweh for the same reason. That is just a subset of the SNM. Ovadyah (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ovadyah, no problem with your edit. But it does appear to be the specific offshoot of the Sacred Name Movement from which the only source (Walker's web-searchbased book) says Shemayah Phillips came from. Frankly I'm easy, certainly this individual has more to do with the 20th Century Sacred Name Movement/Assemblies of Yahweh than with any 3rd Century group. But the main criteria remains notability, since Walker's book is not 3 sources, and maybe doesn't qualify as 1 source since its a listing of websites, but in any case Shemayah Phillips fails to meet Wikipedia notability criteria.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The fact that Shemayah Phillips was once briefly a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh (if that is even true) is not noteworthy. This is not a biography about Shemayah Phillips. And to imply that, therefore, there must be some kind of linkage between the Assemblies of Yahweh and the EJC is like saying there must be some kind of linkage between being a Christian and being a Jew. The whole point is that he renounced Christianity and converted to Judaism; it's just not Rabbinic Judaism. You don't understand how militant these groups are. I think if you read 1 Maccabees 2:1-28 you will get the point. Ovadyah (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow, since 1 Maccabees is about Jews, but this website's owner is not a Jew (Jews don't recognise Jesus as a prophet). In any case whatever the website's owner is, if he's not notable for a mention on Sacred Name Movement then he isn't notable enough for mention in Ebionites to which there's no demonstrable connection. Out of interest see a similar discussion going on about Talk:Michele Moramarco where the Italian author (and would be starter of various masonic/religious communities) is 20x more notable than than the owner of the EJC website being proposed for a mention here.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a sweeping statement Jews don't recognise Jesus as a prophet is accurate in the context of Ebionites, neo or otherwise. I doubt whether Phillips would agree with you. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment Before we close off this debate, I want to make it clear that the real issue here is editorial misconduct. It should be abundantly clear by now that John Carter has an axe to grind that is so heavy he can barely lift it. The nomination itself is willful misconduct that will be dealt with in arbitration. The content issue we are here to work on can't be solved by merging. That will just take a never-ending dispute somewhere else. Maybe the best course of action for now is to do nothing until the larger user conduct issue is resolved. Therefore, I'm going to recommend that NO ACTION be taken pending the outcome of arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is a prodound issue of editorial misconduct here. Such misconduct is the reason that a request for arbitration on the topic of the Ebionites has ionce again been accepted, presumably on the basis of my claim that Ovadyah and Michael C Price have ignored and otherwise actively sought to prevent that article from being, primarily, simply a POV-pushing supporter of the theories of Jamse Tabor and Robert Eisenman, neither of which has received substantive academic support. I also note how several of Ovadyah's comments here have little if anything to do with any matters of substance, but continue his now habitual ad hominem attacks. I can see no reason whatsoever for the resolution of this matter to not be finished as scheduled, despite Ovadyah's attempt at misdirection above. The notability guidelines are clear, and the fact that noone has produced the number of independent reliable sources which are required for this article to exist as a separate article is sufficient to delete it, or turn it into a redirect. Ovadyah's repeating his completely off-topic personal attacks and putting them forward as a reason for not acting should hold no more weight than his earlier comments indicating that he thought this is a "vote". I very strongly urge that editor to, if he can, deal with issues of substance rather than continuing his drumbeat of personal attacks as a form of misdirection. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a fact we are headed to arbitration, and it is also a fact that I intend to bring up your actions here as one in a long list of examples of editorial misconduct. There is nothing ad hominem about it. Once our content-related issues are resolved, you are going to face up to your behavior. And please remember that you took yourself there. Ovadyah (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently have no understanding of what ad hominem even means. Once again, in your above comment, you completely and utterly refuse to discuss anything directly relevant to the overall discussion and insist on attacking others. That is the very definition of ad hominem, which means, basically, attacking the person, rather than the ideas. Nothing in the little diatribe above even remotely addresses the subject of whether the article qualifies for deletion, and, on that basis, I believe that my own comments, discussing the relevant policies and guidelines, should still be considered. In all honesty, your own comment above is a perfect example of your own failure to even remotely address matters of substance, and instead continue to impugn others while at the same time completely ignoring the subject at hand. I can think of no better example of your own extended misconduct in this matter than the little pure personal attack above. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happens next? Guys, there have been no new votes since the second day.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please read WP:AFD, AFDs last for 7 days or longer generally. This gives anyone wanting to participate the opportunity to do so. Forgot to add, this isn't a "vote", and the number of keep vs. delete is meaningless. It is a discussion. See WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dennis, that's the theory, but it is a rule more honoured in the breach than the observance. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant coverage of them in third party reliable sources. Dragquennom (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many religious sects claiming to cleave to one or another ancient tradition. This one has no substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of secondary reliable sources that discuss Ebionite Jewish Community in a nontrivial manner. My searches for sources on Google, Google News, and Google Books have failed to uncover sources that could be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 (student film)[edit]

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

Does not indicate notability, "Promotion" section's tone is just that. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inherent notability of the film aside, the article notes that it's still in preproduction, which isn't far enough along to meet WP:NFF. See also WP:CRYSTAL. elektrikSHOOS 18:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What he said. WP:CRYSTAL of a STUDENT film. A bit of a reach to assume notability where there currently is none. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. It is also very unlikely for the film to become notable since it is a student film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Films should not have their own articles before they begin shooting per WP:NFF, and student films rarely warrant their own articles even after they have been completed per WP:NF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable student film that hasn't even been made. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. I do wish the filmmakers the best of luck. Get it made, get it screened, maybe win some awards, and then get it reviewed in multiple reliable sources. Until there is coverage, the topic is simply not ready for Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe in the future, but the article is not yet ready for Wikipedia. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Justin Bieber#Hair. Per WP:SNOW and whatever. Any usable content that is not already there may be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Justin Bieber's hair[edit]

Justin Bieber's hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about Justin Bieber's hair (or almost anyone else's for that matter) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Unless his hair is particularly famous for some reason, which as far as I can tell, it is not, it is not going to meet the inclusion guidelines on its own. Prodego talk 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep O but o but o. This is Justin Bieber's hair we are talking about here.... Its legendary, it even had its own bodyguard. Contains reliable sources from the BBC to google book sources to show influence on popular culture. We have Rachel haircut. Well Bieber's cut is as emulated by teenage boys and Lesbians. Now surely one can't ignore the reliable sources discussing his hair to prove notability. LOL...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really care what happens to this article, but for the love of God, use a picture that isn't a creepy floating hairpiece. A regular headshot of the Biebs, for instance, would be perfectly sufficient in demonstrating his hairosity. (Not to be confused with Hareosity, which I demonstrate on a daily basis.) Floating hair piles with black backgrounds, however. That's just wrong. harej 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you didn't see the humor in the flying Bieber hair. C'mon LOL this was clearly started as a joke as a separate article but the hair did seriously have a huge influence on popular culture, so I've merged it into the Bieber article. It contains reliable sources... Its worth mentioning in his article the influence and the fact that his hair sold for $40,000 and even had its own bodyguard!!! How many people on the planet can claim that their hair once had a bodyguard eh?? Mwwwoahaaa.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well it is good for a laugh. Perhaps redirected to the biography, in the same way that Beatles Haircut found its place as a cultural landmark. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know if this article was kept I reckon it would consistently attract at least 10,000 views a day...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. And so would an article on Joe Namath wearing pantyhose, had Wikipedia existed then.... 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and God help us. His haircut is the subject of articles published in numerous reliable sources. The Hollywood Reporter, a trade magazine for the entertainment industry: [11]. The London Evening Standard: [12]. The Toronto Star, for heaven's sake [13]. I'm afraid the hair actually passes WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I propose an article on these, for which numerous sources exist: [14] 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHas no encyclopedic value. Perhaps it can be merged with the actual Justin Bieber page?01001010101010010101001 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a section at Justin Bieber: Just because you can write an article about something doesn't mean you should. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the page creator has already performed the merge, and stated above that the page was 'started as a joke' Jebus989✰ 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
heh, his hair is notable. I wonder what would happen if we had individual articles for celebrity body parts. Theo10011 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why stop at bodyparts? Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen's flamboyant sense of style ? Jebus989✰ 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now The Princess Anne beehive would be a good one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there is anything here not already covered at Justin Bieber#Hair. But this looks like a duplication of that section anyway, so my second choice would be a simple redirect to discourage people from re-creating this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and while you're at it, delete Justin Bieber as well. Theo10011 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Justin Bieber, per MZMcBride. Now I'd like to remember how I stumbled upon this article in the first place. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Which was the slant of my initial comment re: the Beatles. Would also absolve me of the responsibility to create a companion article on Dolly Parton's assets.... 99.168.85.28 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - An absurd article premise, the very existence of which makes the project look ridiculous. Editors need to exhibit some common sense and resist the "its reliably sourced so I must make an article of it!" urges. Ugh, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, quickly. Otherwise I might have to create articles on Kirk Douglas's dimple, Jimmy Durante's nose, and Dolly Parton's bosom. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I see no reason this needs to be a separate content fork. Kansan (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the article in terms of policy. It would certainly be better to merge it, but there isn't a strong enough case to warrant an AfD mandate for a merge. Melchoir (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand, bring up to featured article status and parade it around on the front page for everyone to see. Don't merge keep on subject and keep the article title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Article is about Justin Bieber's hair. Is a single article enough to cover this? We need to have Category:Justin Bieber's hair (a subcategory of Category:Justin Bieber's body parts) so we can have separate articles on individual hairs, don't you think? Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Justin Bieber. The current title is intrinsically about this person's hair and he has already changed his hairstyle. The old style is best covered at Fringe (hair). See also Mop top which is the equivalent for the similar Beatles hairstyle. Plus ça change... Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOLWUT? per Herostratus. In all seriousness, Merge to Justin Bieber, we don't need a separate article on somebody's hair. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:56pm • 06:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut, trim, make into a mullet. Keep, as it seems to have general coverage and is comparable to Jennifer Aniston's hair and The Beatles'. Hmmm, never thought that would be in the same sentence. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and merge - Notability is not inhaireted - SeaphotoTalk 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or alternatively delete – per MZMcBride and Tarc. –MuZemike 07:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I should have started this on April Fool's Day... LOL. Could you just imagine reading a book encyclopedia and seeing Justin Bieber's hair as an entry!! Indeed quite absurd, but let it be a spoof of all those "encyclopedic" entries people vote to keep because they "have multiple reliable sources" when really they are simply news story of the week, are better suited to fan wikis or just not suitable for a long term encyclopedia... Don't know about you but it gets wearing the sort of article some people are voting to keep on here, its getting worse to the point that wikipedia is becoming increasingly trivial...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So your idea to address the proliferation of stupid news-of-the-day articles was to...create another one? Tarc (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. I wanted to see whether people would consider it encyclopedic in the same way some people think Ivy Bean and List of Cobra characters encyclopedic and even Miriam the Bunny Woman from Oregon who I recall once had a long article on here who some believed was notable because "multiple reliable news sources covered it" yet all she did was put some carcasses in her freezer.... One could argue that "multiple reliable news sources" cover Bieber's hair... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that User:L-l-CLK-l-l who guards the Justin Bieber article (who is a 17-year-old Christian Canadian just like Bieber) may even be the Biebmeister himself, or at least his best friend.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - He has hair. So what? Big bloody deal. He's not the first, doubt he'll be the last. Find some petrol and burn this, it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. FishBarking? 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every Delete/Merge vote in here is obviously biased. If someone's hair has ever been widely featured in the media, then it is most definitely Bieber's. Half of his fame can probably be blamed on his haircut. 84.195.148.85 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for pretty much the same biased reasons as a lot of above. It's his hair... it's a part of him, and not really that notable in of itself, at least no more than he is. If it detached and started frolicking with the squirrels, though, that'd be another matter, but it hasn't. ~ Isarra (talk) (stalk) 21:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Justin who? this article is about hair, it should be merged with Hair --K3vin (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Seeing how Justin Bieber is still a very young kid, his hair is very likely to change constantly. Unlike like "The Rachel" (as in Jennifer Aniston's character from Friends), Justin Bieber's hair has not spurred a cultural phenomenon. His hair isn't an easily identifiable like Donald Trump's hair is. It is a bowl-cut, plain and simple. It is not notable. Dexter111344 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Justin Bieber or to hair or even to the list of hairstyles. Alternatively just delete it. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - I don't want to live in a world without Justin Bieber's hair. Don't merge. Bieber and his majestic hair are two separate entities. Kip the Dip (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

180 Degrees South: Conquerors of the Useless[edit]

180 Degrees South: Conquerors of the Useless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable documentary - no references provided to support notability other than an IMDB link. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
  • Keep searchable under its shorter titles. Meets WP:NF. Has had both US domestic and Canadian and Japanese releases, and has received multiple reviews.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The article and the project will benefit from expansion and sourcing... but not by deletion becuase it needs to be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Always better to do it than just talk about it. The 26-word unsourced stub that was first nominated,[25] is now a nicely sourced 690 word start class,[26] and has been submitted for a DYK. Using more of the available sources, there is more that can be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, based on the references cited above and the improvements to the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SLT Warrior: The Last Hero[edit]

SLT Warrior: The Last Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about some highschool competition. I had originally attempted to userfy it, but this was resisted. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable school event. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A school competition that fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the creator of the page, I didn't get the userfy thing said to me by Plastikspork. Another, there are approximately more than a thousand students interested in this event in our school. I don't get it why Joe Chill says this one failed since he isn't my schoolmate or anything. Although if this has a criteria for determining a success or a failure, I might as well accept the deletion although I'll try to find notable resources for the article I'm planning to create again regarding this one. Garished
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't need to be your schoolmate in order to know that it fails the notability guideline. There are no sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought it was rather offensive and not pertaining to the general notability guidelines. I'll come to fix it slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.50 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heir to the Ottoman dynasty[edit]

Heir to the Ottoman dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Large list of not notable people, Previously and recently recreated article of a different name - Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as a WP:POVFORK of the article Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. Creation by Dilek2 circumvents consensus: an unsourced list of living people is a violation of WP:BLP -- as was previously discussed with the article's creator at BLPN and various talk pages. (Reference books listed in this article do not mention these names. Website is a self-published list. Therefore, unless properly referenced, this list fails core BLP policies of WP:V and WP:NOR.) — CactusWriter (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The editor who wrote this put a lot of time and effort into assembling this interesting information. So, it is sad that Wikipedia policies require deletion, but hopefully that editor will understand policies better in the future. Reliable sources are needed, as defined by WP:RS, especially where living people are involved. Some of the living people at issue here are minors. In Turkey, or some parts of Turkey (or among Armenians) there may be very strong feelings against the old royal family, and so publicizing these names could cause harm. At the very least, we would need reliable sources that have balanced these concerns and decided to publish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure I know exactly what you really mean. Rest assured that the concerns you describe are only speculation. But I do have genuine doubt as to whether you read the article's Bibliography or not. Anarchangel (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The three items in the bibliography are all available in Google Books, and those sources do not support the list of names in this Wikipedia article. For example: click here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These people are listed on the official Ottoman family website and probably in other genealogies, if these people objected to being known they would not release details publicly. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is answered further down this page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The Baden throne was even described in more detail now !!!
  • Thanks for your exceptions...Dilek2 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article that you're referring to, "Line of succession to the throne of Baden", has been properly blanked and converted to a redirect. See here. That followed a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, here. Wikipedia articles about living people require reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why there is so much objection to this article. It is a fine article with sources. I don't understand the rationale "not notable people". Except for a few monarchies, currently almost all dynasties are defunt and still you can read articles about those monarchies in Wikipedia. Please check the article dynasty. You'll find hundreds of links to dynasties all of which have articles in Wikipedia and yet only a handful of them really function as monarchies.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content fork of Line of succession to the Ottoman throne, evidently created to get around the restrictions on naming non-notable living people in such articles. Other articles exist that are similarly filled with nobility cruft, but that's a reason to fix or delete them, not to keep this one. Hans Adler 17:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete There is no List in this Article....CactusWriter....

Deleted it deleted it...PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ok!!!

Enough!!!

STOP it !!!

If it makes you enjoy the article to delete it, do it anyway.

On my talk page, readers can read it anyway.

As I said, thanks to Facebook, there can be thousands of people read

Dilek2 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A comparison of the article's content with content deleted from Line of succession to the Ottoman throne (Revision as of 15:42, 28 February 2011 Anythingyouwant) is quite revealing. Call it POVFORK if you are still clueless, or FORK if you just don't quite get it, or realize as I have that it is savage and unhelpful deletions such as this that are the problem, not people who make articles thinking to rectify them. Anythingyouwant is still, after all these years, completely incapable of the simple task of using the Preview button to make changes with only one edit; taking a truly grand total of 21 edits to perform this unnecessary surgery. Ironically, the material in this article was the only material in Line of succession to the Ottoman throne that actually fit that title; what remains should be retitled to Succession practices of the Ottoman Empire and this article kept, or this material put back in that article, or this material put back in that article and its current material spun out to Succession practices of the Ottoman Empire. Anarchangel (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been three separate discussions at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard about the unsourced content that has been copied into the article that is now up for deletion. You can read the most recent discussion here. There is nothing savage or unhelpful about deleting unsourced info about living persons that could potentially cause them harm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Just then delete my article What is this whole discussion My goodness ... I'm tired. Dilek2 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dilek, WP:AFD discussions last seven days, unless there are pressing requirements or conditions to reduce or expand the time length. Its pretty normal wiki activity. I think we might as well allow this to go the distance now as this content has been recreated in multiple locations and the decision here will give us a guideline as to how to deal with the content if its recreated in future, you can always just remove the page from your watchlist which will make it disappear from your view, I do that if articles or editors are bothering me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. The families website lists the Imperial Princes in order of age, and as such in the succession order (agnatic seniority). Future heads of the Imperial House of Osman are in the list so of interest, but the people are probably not notable enough for their own separate biographies. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "official site" of the family is here.  Many people have self-published web sites claiming notability, but AFAIK that is insufficient prominence for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:Undue weight and insufficient notability per WP:Notability. Moreover, there is no indication that the living people in this Wikipedia article gave any information or authorization to the "official site".  It's very common for a family member to have access to information about other family members, even though that information is not in any reliable published source.  Certainly the non-notable long-dead people mentioned in this Wikipedia article did not authorize Internet publication, so there's no reason to think that the living ones did. And there's plenty of reason to believe such publication could be harmful to them: incumbent governments throughout history have exiled or executed former royalty who sought to claim or reclaim royal prerogatives. We need a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think family members have a problem being listed on the official website. As far as I can see from WP:SPS the website is perfectly acceptable to cite. It’s no more harmful to list these people than it is to have an article on any living person. The Turkish government lifted the Imperial Family's exile in the 1950’s for women and 1970’s for men, or around these dates as I’m not sure exactly. There no reason to delete this list every person in it can be cited to a reliable official source. There is a line of succession to the Headship of the Imperial House I don’t see any issues presenting it, it is a historic and notable dynasty. - dwc lr (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The website is not "perfectly acceptable" by WP:SPS. It states: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You may wish to read WP:BLPSPS for further understanding. Anyone can create their own website about anything and call it the truth or "official", but it doesn't make it a qualified source for an encyclopedia. If you know of a reliable source, please present it. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I can see is “Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..”, and I don’t see how any of the five points apply in this instance so the way I read it the official sources are acceptable. But at any rate I can cite the Almanach de Gotha 2000 and will add this as a reference as well. There is a new Burkes Royal Families published this month and it will possibly have the Ottoman Imperial Family as well. Volume II from 1980 also has the Imperial Family listed. - dwc lr (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DWC LR, the policy quoted by CactusWriter is clear and unequivocal. The material that you can source to Almanach de Gotha can be inserted into Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. The present article that's up for deletion was created merely to avoid Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, and this article needs to be deleted because it's redundant. Also, I don't understand why Almanach de Gotha would include some of the 24 living heirs but not the rest of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
‘Self published’ websites are allowed to be cited if they are published by themselves. The living members of the Ottoman Imperial Family have published websites hence we can use them as a source, that is the reality to claim otherwise is wrong and not what WP:BLPSPS says. It was published in 2000 so obviously those born after are not listed; the Ottoman princes tend to have a few wife’s so perhaps the genealogists missed some descendants of Sultan Mehmed V, who knows. There is a new ‘’Almanach de Gotha’’ this year as well as a new Burke’s, so perhaps the Gotha will list the living members again. - dwc lr (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All self-published websites are published "by themselves", but that does not make them reliable sources, and the "official site" of the Ottoman dynasty is a perfect example. Another example is the Wordpress blog that you want to use.[27] Wikipedia policy is that blogs are not normally reliable sources. See WP:Blogs. Anyway, thank you for dropping your opposition to deletion of the present article (per your comment at Dilek's talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, for instance you or I could publish a site on the Imperial Family, and it would be ‘self published’. That site is the site of the Ottoman Foundation created by members of the family I believe; perhaps a Turkish speaker could confirm this. Yes I would like to see the line of succession merged to the line of succession article and this redirected there, and the other content in a new article. - dwc lr (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can go to my local town hall, give them ten dollars, and register any business name I want; I could call it the "Foundation for Accuracy in Ottoman Geneology". Anyway, the policy quoted by CactusWriter is very clear about using self-published sources in biographies of living persons. As for turning the article "Heir to the Ottoman dynasty" into a redirect, how does it qualify for any of the listed purposes of a redirect?[28]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the difference is I don’t think you are an Imperial Ottoman Prince or Princess creating a foundation and then publishing a site about your family, are you? What CactusWriter quoted is referring to other self published sources. And as for the redirect it could be seen as alternative name, or maybe it could be turned into something like List of heirs to the Russian throne. - dwc lr (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a genuine Imperial Ottoman Princess. (I had to change my name and gender to keep the henchmen of the traitorous "republic" off my tracks. I shouldn't be disclosing this here, but your stubbornness creates a real emergency.) I can tell you with certainty that the ottomanfamily.com domain was registered by a fraudster who is offering adoptions to fools with too much money. Normally I would consider registering ottomanfamily.org, to warn the public and publish the correct list. I am sure you would accept that as proof. But I just don't trust the current government, so I won't do it. In the meantime, accept my word of honour as an Imperial Ottoman Princess that the information on that website is not reliable. Hans Adler 08:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful ;-). I’ll just have to use a media article I found then instead, oh well. - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some of the stuff can be merged, but definitely not the stuff that is completely unsourced. Likewise, poorly sourced stuff about living people should not be merged either. Princess Adler's assertions above are just as reliable as some of the sources now used in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The line of succession can, and I imagine will be merged, the other stuff should go elsewhere if there are sources which there most likely are. Mr Adler and CactusWriter have presented just there own pure random speculation and opinions about the authenticity of the official websites. CactusWrtier also called the Almanach de Gotha “somewhat dubious” without again citing any reliable source as evidence to back up their claim. A lot of objections to sources seem to be based on personal opinions; this is concerning when the sources are acceptable. - dwc lr (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DWC LR, please do no pretend ignorance. It is not helpful to this discussion. You've edited on Almanach de Gotha. You are aware of the sourced criticism on the update [29] [30]. And the burden of the speculation is yours. Note our BLP policy: Be very firm about the use of high quality sources... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. It is you who must prove the authenticity of an alleged "official" website. Otherwise, it is not acceptable. (For the sake of brevity, I did not add the entire policy here. But you should reread it.) I am glad that you are now seeking better sources, such as Burke's and [31]. Please continue to do so. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am familiar with those reviews of Almanach de Gotha, Volume 2 (one 'self published' and one without a named author I might add!) on the non Sovereign Princely and Ducal Houses published in 2001. However they have no bearing on the reliability of Volume 1 (which is cited) which is on the Reigning, non reigning and mediatised families. At any rate the Imperial Princes in the line of succession is more than adequately sourced, and has been put at Line of succession to the Ottoman throne. - dwc lr (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the review is anonymous is completely irrelevant for its reliability so long as it appeared in The Economist. (By the way, for discarding sources as unreliable we don't even need to meet the formal standard of reliability in the sources that inform our decision. Therefore the self-published online review can also be used for that purpose.) And it doesn't just criticise Volume II. It points out extraordinary editorial sloppiness in Volume I exhibited by numerous bizarre orthographical errors, and comments: "If the Almanach’s genealogical accuracy is of a similar standard, the matchmaking dowagers perusing its pages had better watch out." Then it goes on to criticise the managing director and publisher of Volume I (and editor of Volume II) for the grotesque blunder of calling himself "a former member of the [British] royal household" and "separated from his partner, Princess Lavinia of Yugoslavia".
It appears that the modern "Almanach de Gotha" is essentially self-published. The former publishers of the original, real Almanach de Gotha clearly don't want to be associated with that work: "After World War II, publishing of 'The Gotha' had to cease. The genuine 'Gotha' has not been re-published or re-issued since 1944." [32] (My italics.) Hans Adler 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t even think the review is that damming, it mainly criticises the selection of families. As for the editor, member of the “[British] Royal Household”, well he editor was Private Secretary to Prince Michael of Kent, hardly a grotesque blunder. But anyway the review is irrelevant for this discussion as it just about Volume 2, and an anonymous attack against the editor, but anyway this is a perfectly acceptable source, maybe If Volume 2 was cited there could be some legitimate concerns. It’s no wonder only ever one edition of Volume 2 got released, but If you have some evidence of a reliable source criticising Volume 1 please present it . Right where are we now: official ottoman family website, Almanach de Gotha, which source will be next... :-) - dwc lr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The review is explicitly about both volumes. It begins with bibliographic information including prices for both. It even takes some information from the "second part of volume one" and takes it at face value. The first half, including the typos, appears to be generally about Volume I, although that is not made entirely clear. Then he comes to the second part, and that's where the review gets scathing: "It is in the second and newest volume that one enters a realm of fully-fledged absurdity. The choice of families is largely arbitrary. [...] It is an almanac with a most random kind of calendar." Not everybody is in a position to verify the further details of such a work, so presumably the reviewer could not verify that, apart from the absurd selection, at least the other data was correct. That's what Guy Stair Sainty did in his self-published review.[33] There are seven paragraphs listing the inaccuracies he found, starting with this sentence: "The simple inaccuracies here are legion: Princes Biron, Bismarck, Blucher, Dohna-Schlobitten, Radolin, Thun und Hohenstein, and the Duke and Princes of Urach are all Durchlaucht (Serene Highness), not Hoheit (Highness) as the Kennedy Gotha indicates."
The books are not published by an acknowledged publisher or other acknowledged organisation. They are self-published. You can't get around that simply by founding your own publishing company. We might consider them as equivalent to something properly published if they were accepted as accurate by the expert community, but that is clearly not the case and the obvious editorial problems (text looks as if quickly put together with cut-and-paste without even doing a spell check on the result) rule that path out anywa.
Without a doubt, WP:BLPSPS applies for the modern "Almanach de Gotha". Hans Adler 12:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused. The review may begin with information about both Volume 1 and 2 but the only reference to Volume 1 ‘the second part’, is to say it talks about the mediatised families. The author of the article (whoever it may be) does not say anything positive or negative about Volume 1. You are confusing Volume 1 (Part 1 and 2), with Volume 2. What you quoted "It is in the second and newest volume that one enters a realm of fully-fledged absurdity etc", this is about Volume 2, not Volume 1. Volume 2 is about non sovereign princely and Ducal families. You can see in the reviews the author talks about the British dukes so it is clear what Volume he or she is referring to. Guy Stair Sainty is reviewing Volume 2 as well Urach, Bismark, Biron and so on, are all in Volume 2 nothing to do with Volume 1, so totally irrelevant to the accuracy of Volume 1. Boydell & Brewer actually publish them, check the economist review "Almanach de Gotha 2000: Volume I. Boydell & Brewer; 975 pages; $110 and £60". I’ll ask again if you have a relevant critical reliable source for Volume 1 I’d like to see it. - dwc lr (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DWC LR. Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all applicable to the website. The website is wholly without merit for WP:BLP purposes. The reliability of the Almanach de Gotha (2000) is somewhat dubious -- it has been criticized for numerous errors and poor scholarship. On the other hand, Burke's is a good independent source. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you came to the view that points 1, 2, 4 and 5 apply, I'm struggling to see how they do. How is it self serving to list members of their own family? What third parties? What doubts are there, what reason do you have to doubt the authenticity? The article is defiantly not primarily based on the sites, there are at least one print source for most people. I have seen that Volume II came in for some criticism, that is not the volume cited. Thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is very simple. First, who wrote the website? There is no contact info, no news sources, no history -- copy-pasted latin babble? -- and lists of unsourced names and dates. This is not even close to qualifying as journalism nor scholarship. That covers point 4. Probably written by someone on the list, that's point 1. All dates and claims about all the other third party names is obviously point 2. And that the name list was copied onto Wikipedia solely based on the website (see previous discussions) is point number 5. What is a true struggle is seeing is how so many people believe if it's written on the internet, than it must be true. Unfortunately, it means deleting text every day based on websites created as hoaxes. (I deleted another bio just yesterday because of it.) If you want to include names of living non-public figures -- especially minor children -- you are responsible for using only very good reliable sources. Otherwise it does not belong on Wikipedia. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another reference from a news article so it doesn’t really matter now anyway. But these princes are of public interest and there are press reports on them, even minor children, as the 2007 birth of His Imperial Highness Prince Harun Osmanoğlu Efendi was recorded in the media for example.[34] - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

I have copied the newly-sourced material from this Wikipedia article into Line of succession to the Ottoman throne.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the merge is completed? Nightw 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say so. I merged the sourced stuff, but not the unsourced stuff. In the edit summary, I noted that some of the sources are problematic, but we can weed those out later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An admin might as well close this AFD now and either redirect it to the line of succession article, or delete it. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This will get closed soon enough as nominator I would request is only closed by an administrator, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closure by User:Ebe123 was the correct decision, regardless of whether they are an admin or not, I don't see the point in this AFD remaining open. The line of succession has already been moved, the other content can be addressed later depending on sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant, thanks for working on merging any properly sourced information. And, @DWC LR, an AFD which concludes as a delete or requires a history merge can only be closed by an administrator because it requires an admin's tools. A close by a non-admin is inappropriate here. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I also note that it is still a long list of not notable people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because this is an area of no interest to you does not mean these people are not notable, and of no interest to other people. I doubt ‘non notable’ peoples births are recorded in the press.[35]- dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This list is not a scam

I myself am in contact with an Ottoman prince.

Madame Adler,YOU are not securing Osman princess, but you a member belong to Nadide Arabian.(False Osman).

In Facebook very many real Osmans, Prince and Princesses can be found.

Dilek2 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But delete ok, but is simply this item.

Which person is wrong in this list?

Name me the name, thanks.

Dilek2 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names that are listed without any footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes they are...and this Person with all Date's in the List

But yuu can delete this Article,it's not matter

The Member's are this and not Madame Adler ...or you Anythingyouwant. Dilek2 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If Hans Adler claims an Ottoman princess to be,that she must identity had to change (what a nonsense).

The last oldest princess Neslisah Sultan, born in 1921in Istanbul.

No member changed his name and gave up his IDENTITY.

I can also say that I am the wife of a Sultanzade and now?

This can take my word for trust,

that this page is correct and the names of well Pesonen.

Does it make me now trusted?

Dilek2 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CactusWriter. Looking at the sources, this not only is a fork, but mainly taken from one website. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniffer Viturino[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article appears to fall under WP:1E. There's no assertion in the article of the sources (albeit translated from Portuguese to English through the google translate feature) that her modeling work had reached notability. The one event is falling to her death from an apartment building. JamesAM (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing notable about her modelling career, everything sees to be about her (tragic) death, failing WP:1E. GiantSnowman 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Capacitive sensing#Capacitive Stylus. Since the nominator has already attempted to do this I'll finish the job. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitive stylus[edit]

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

Already merged to Capacitive sensing. Could be deleted now. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 15:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe[edit]

Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:V: Can't find reliable secondary sources to establish the existence of this princess. Likely exists, some coverage in the forums of royalty-watchers, but the only Gbooks hit for anything near her name is a 1963 Debrett's, the sort of book you'd expect to find her in, just not 11 years before her birth. joe deckertalk to me 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This person exits not only in the forums. She was born Desirée zu Schaumburg-Lippe, only her name is now D. Iuel after marrying a Danish nobleman. There are several genealogy sites [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. However, the only noteworthy appearance seems to be this press release by House Schaumburg-Lippe which is signed by her and other members of the family. Non-notable and surprisingly there seems to be no yellow press coverage by certain notorious German magazines. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she exists but I am not sure she is notable enough for an article. - dwc lr (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rademacher (album)[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. Independent released albums are generally not notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS, doesn't appear to be covered in sources, and its just a tracklisting, so should not have it's own article (WP:NALBUMS again) Bob House 884 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS, given that article doesn't contain anything to otherwise demonstrate notability. Cymru82 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age (album)[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. Independent released albums are generally not notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (non-admin closure) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jason Ellis Show[edit]

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

Not MOS, lacking sources, lots of weasel words, unencylopedic. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination wasn't too clear, and I'm not sure if nom has edited under another name, but this seems to be their first contribution. That being said, looking at the pile up of new citations since last nom convinces me that he at least passes a minimum of notability Valley2city‽ 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dekker Dreyer[edit]

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

Not notable for any one thing fails WP:N as director,writer he needs notability is not inherited from a mash of borderline disjointed thing. Righttostel (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete doesn't seem to pass WP:CREATIVE. Tetron76 (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and Tetron76. No "significant critical attention" beyond some blogs. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep his projects have been covered in Wired (magazine), G4's Attack of the Show,Entertainment Weekly, Cracked.com, Midwest Book Review these aren't just "some blogs", along with the many other sources. As per the last AfD (which resulted in keep) he has won awards from two film festivals and has documented work with Miramax. He's obviously notable within his field to be a featured guest at both New York Comic Con, Sci-Fi-London and Dragon Con - three of the largest sci-fi / fantasy events in the world. He has also received local coverage in a number of cities where he's held events (as per sources) and done work. So he has awards, national press, blog references, is recognized as a speaker in his field of work, reviews from credible third party sources, and he consistently keeps gaining coverage! This is insane and I suspect that the nomination was in bad faith!!!!--Wikimegamaster 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't comment on the nomination reasons but the article as written does not include refs to establish WP:BIO. He has not appeared in wired magazine [41] underwire is a separate blog [42]. Cracked.com doesn't even mention him [43], I find 0 matches for his name on Entertainment weekly [44], The midwest book review does 450 books a month doesn't establish noability of book let alone author. The New York Comic Con doesn't show him as a ever having been a guest [45] and doesn't automatically confer notability since it invites large numbers of guests. Dragon con has 198 guests so far confirmed for 2011 and you can apply to add yourself [46], scifi London at least gives a passing mention [47] but it is because they are screening his film. The independent on the refs is not The Independent, The illusion channel screening doctor who is also not exactly ground breaking Watch (TV Channel). In short the references don't check out despite being over 30 as regards notability, nullifying your argument.Tetron76 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as/per Wikimegamaster 72.76.137.201 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep I'm the main editor of this article, Torchwoodwho. I had scrambled my password after an unsuccessful RFA. I never thought I would see such a well referenced article gain deletion support at AfD! I'm shocked. There are references that span genre and mainstream sources at major outlets and smaller outlets, with many more easily found linked at the subject's own website. It couldn't be easier to pass WP:GNG. I also think that the nom is in bad faith and wonder why this wasn't speedy kept. The subject has a varied history that doesn't fit any one specific guideline, but does should be obviously notable due to the extensive available references. 166.216.162.68 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Torchwoodwho[reply]
The article does have some style problems that make it much more difficult to navigate and the number references are misleading due to the lack of coverage of the subject and for people outside of the US it is far from clear what specifically his claim to notability even is in your opinion. Try google news archives for sources instead there may be some[48]Tetron76 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Followed up on the links and in my opinion it still only leaves marginal notability by proxy so he is still a way off achieving the wikipedia.Tetron76 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have a reading comprehension issue as the subject spoke ad a oanelist on digital cinema at sci-fi london in 2009 and is returning again in 2011 with a film. Also he recently participated in the we heart japan event [49] alongside Edgar Right. Also the number of guests at any given event doesn't reduce the event's status same goes for midwest book review... It's still a major review market like publisher's weekly. Festival awards be damned too right? 166.216.162.80 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The artist formerly known as Torchwoodwho.[reply]
hmm your right I obviously misread WP:CREATIVE,WP:BIO, WP:RSTetron76 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a big person to admit they made a mistake. I appreciate you taking that position. On the project I know it's hard to say you're wrong. I need to find a barnstar for you. Thanks for reconsidering. 166.216.162.186 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The artist formerly known as Torchwoodwho[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what article the first two deleters are reviewing, but it cannot possibly be this one. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Tetron76. It would be help if somebody would clean up the entries in the reference list that no longer work. For example, reference 3 pointing to a New York Comic Con biography seems not to work. Some of the entries seem to be little more than reprinted press releases. The article credits him with inventing the term 'ecopunk' but the reference for that turns out to be a personal blog, probably not suitable. Midwest Book Review has the air of being a self-published personal project. It is not clear to me that anything can be learned about Illusion On-Demand, a 'science fiction channel with a large national footprint,' except from its own press releases, which are not reliable sources. Routine reprinting of those press releases by various services doesn't increase their value. From this we learn that Illusion TV co-sponsored an award at a festival in 2008. The channel may no longer be on the air, if you look at its website. If the article is kept, it should be trimmed to what can be reliably sourced. Dreyer does make appearances at various festivals. I don't know if that is enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. Lack of press coverage in actual newspapers is a concern, and the fact that his movies never seem to be shown in regular theaters or reviewed by regular film critics. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[50] It's still on TV, I just fucking watched it! Reliable source is my god damned cable box. There's a word I saw here called recentism. Look it up.
  • Keep: I don't even understand what the nomination is saying, suggesting the subject does too many different things to be notable? That's why new account noms are often bad, they don't understand the policies under which AfD operates. Anyhoo, sources are sufficient enough to demonstrate notability. Not super famous, but enough.--Milowent • talkblp-r 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the admission that the sourcing present in this article is terrible, only a single reference of the thirty-some odd addresses all the requirements of a source to apply towards WP:GNG. However, [51] and [52] are two reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the article subject. --joe deckertalk to me 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep on the basis of an incoherent nomination. Article appears to be both well sourced and notable. Move along, nothing to see here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn ((Non-admin closure). JJ98 (Talk) 06:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Courage the Cowardly Dog[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of characters in Courage the Cowardly Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains a lot of in-universe information and it has no real world coverage and fails WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 09:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn (Non-admin closure). JJ98 (Talk) 06:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory[edit]

List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains a lot of in-universe information and it has no real world coverage and citations to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 09:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp studs[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:WEB web based show. This show does not appear to have received any coverage in third-party sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all criteria of WP:WEB. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete via failing WP:WEB. Not a notable "show". Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. One cited source is the team's web site, the other is a sports writer's blog (which unsuccessfully tried to load Shockwave Splash, which I believe violates WP:EL#Rich media and should not be used). -- Donald Albury 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nianio[edit]

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

The topic has no evidence of notability. The article is unreferenced, and the article's creator states in the edit summary [53] that the article is based on http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2083, a forum, which suggests that the topic is indeed not notable. Searching for "Nianio" by itself and in combination with "design pattern", "programming", and "software" with Google Web, News, Books, and Scholar returns no relevant results. My position is delete, although I am willing to reconsider if evidence of notability is provided. Rilak (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Design patterns in computing is a well covered topic in the literature, and any design pattern that is notable should be easily sourceable to a reliable source rather a discussion forum. A search of Google books and scholar turns up no such coverage for a design pattern of this name. Note that the discussion forum that was used as the basis for this article doesn't even mention the name "Nianio" until the very bottom where the originator of the tread states "I asked about it, because some guys I know are advocating structuring programs in that way, and they named it "Nianio" pattern. There is an informal overview of Nianio out there on the web, along with some examples of contexts and problems where it could be applied, but unfortunately it is in Polish language. So I was curious to what extent are they re-inventing the wheel." -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationale for deletion provided. The issue of the article's name should be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Path to Prosperity[edit]

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

The article states that the budget is officially called "The path to prosperity". However, the cites don't show this as being the official name at all. May just be a nickname, but does not seem to be article worthy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should move it to a different title. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed the name for the House Republican proposal for the 2012 budget; see here. This article is going to be very closely related to the existing article at 2012 United States federal budget, and I can imagine arguments for both keeping this article separate versus merging it in to that one. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an official name. As a matter of objective fact. And given that this is the Republican proposal is it separate from the 2012 United States federal budget, which will be a different mix of things done in the future.

As an analogy, compare/contrast Healthy Americans Act verses Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator has not proposed deletion of the article. The article's talk page is the suitable place to discuss issues of naming. RayTalk 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everydevil[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Lots of references supplied but only one (Monterey County Weekly) even mentions the subject of the article. RadioFan (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G11 by user:Materialscientist. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super brandon jesus adventure[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Absolutely no references online. Stickee (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist[edit]

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

Dicdef, OR. I can't see it being anything more; this is just a bunch of "X playlists are Y" definitions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The article needs references, but the topic of playlists is definitely notable. The "History" section of the article makes it ineligible for WP:DICDEF anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a notable topic with a long history going back to the early days of music radio. The topic has been discussed in depth in books and newspapers for decades, and the current article, despite its shortcomings, goes far beyond a dictionary definition. Cullen328 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if sources exist, then why isn't there a damn one in the whole article?!? Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lack of sources in a non-BLP article is not and has never been a proper criteria for deletion. WP:V clearly states "verifiable" not "verified". Subject matter is reasonable for an article, covers the broad application of a narrowly defined term, so it is more than a dicdef. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • SO WHERE THE HELL ARE THE FUCKING SOURCES?!??! EVERYONE IS SAYING KEEP BUT SOURCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT PROVING THAT THE SOURCES EXIST. WHERE. ARE. THE. FUCKING. SOURCES. SHOW ME THEM, BECAUSE I SEE NONE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep it WP:CIVIL. There is no justification to take this tone in a discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://media.curse.com/Curse.Projects.ProjectImages/15422/11910/capslock.jpg --Closedmouth (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah whatever. Show me where the sources are, 'cause I ain't seeing them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have now added references to this article which shows that it definitely passes the general notability guideline. These sources show coverage of playlists by Reuters, The Guardian, TNW, O'Reilly Media, and MacWorld. Another source shows that it has been the subject of PhD research. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Kesey[edit]

Roy Kesey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. This writer may in fact be published, but I don't see any compelling reason this guy meets WP:Notability. I noticed at least a couple of the references were added by the editor of an online journal (Smokelong Quarterly) that redirect to his site. Seems to violate WP:COI. That aside, after a search didn't find anything in terms of awards or distinguishing characteristics of the writings that warrant a page for author. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—He seems notable enough. His Double Fish story was the winner of The Missouri Review's Jeffrey E. Smith Editors' Prize.[54] He received a 2010 prose fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts.[55] &c. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the above, his work has also been reviewed. For example, this is published in GoErie but is a reprint from the LA Times. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 03:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (non-admin closure) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 03:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjan Kumar Singh[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all either related to the subject or trivial listings of his photo exhibitions. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Meyer (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable. I can find no evidence that this person meets Wikipedia's requirements at WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No information on this guy pops up on news, and the only places I can find the name mentioned are on content farms. Notability is asserted, but it sounds more like a biographical description of somebody who is in politics - but does not meet the criteria above. Besides, just because you serve with Reagan does not make you notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a losing candidate. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wasn't able to find sources sufficient to establish the notability of this politician under the WP:GNG. As a note, while marked as BLP unsourced for a mere 2+ years, this article has been unsourced for over seven years, and is as present one of the eleven remaining unsourced BLPs from Wikipedia's first half-million articles. --joe deckertalk to me 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I feel so special for nominating it! 0;-D Where do I find the other ten? --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here (they're all sourced or at AfD now). Hut 8.5 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fun to take a look every now and then, this toolserver search takes some time but will give you a complete list. I picked away at the 2003 entries when I was bored the last few months, but we started writing a lot more articles in '04. --joe deckertalk to me 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Música + Alma + Sexo. joe deckertalk to me 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shine (Ricky Martin song)[edit]

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

The article itself says "It isn't considered as an official single." The song hasn't achieved notability by itself either by charting on a national chart (as opposed to iTunes), as many promo singles do. Should redirect to album article. Fixer23 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 result was Keep 6 keep - 2 delete (non-admin closure) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure) - reclosed to remove afd notice and to add old afd to talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people reported to have lived beyond 130[edit]

List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is two "stub" articles mixed from the two original articles, which are Longevity claims and Longevity myths. There is no reason combining the two articles. Claimants who are between the ages of 113 and 130 belong on longevity claims, while claimants who are 131 or older belong on longevity myths. Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion as the creator. This is not the only solution, but so long as there is consensus for listing individuals with impossibly long lifespans, then a suitable home needs to be found for them. Longevity myths and longevity claims are problematic articles that were created as part of the Longevity walled garden. The first step in cleaning up the walled garden must be to separate list articles from topic articles. Post the Longevity arbcom, this is an attempt to do that. If Longevity myths and Longevity claims are to survive as topic articles, they should be cleared of their embedded lists. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator may be misguided because he is of the thought that "claims between 113 - 130" neatly belongs to Longevity claims while "claims over 130" belong to longevity myths. That is not how we should categorize those articles. In fact, those articles explains in the pre-introduction section, this:
    • Longevity claims "This article is about modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims."
    • Longevity myths "This article is about historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims."
Throughout history, not just biblical times, but even during Roman Empire era as well as Chinese dynasties, there have been reports of people living hundreds of years. I agree with Itsmejudith that they need a suitable home (article) for them. Right now, neither "claims" or "myths" seem appropriate so that is why I liked this particular article by Itsmejudith. Perhaps it is time to AfD longevity myths instead, and incorporate the changes into this article. We may benefit for a rename, though, from the current "List of people reported to have lived beyond 130" to something like above, "Historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims" -- or even better, in my opinion --: "Historical cases of extreme human longevity"? That way, we don't automatically place a "myth" label on those cases, because we honestly cannot sit here in 2011 and say all of those cases from BCE and/or CE are 100% myths! Regards, CalvinTy 15:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I understand WP:LIST, this seems to fit in fairly OK. Pretty comprehensive. THough, shortening up some of the details where there are articles isn't a bad idea. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appropriate way to organize this information, avoiding the original research implication of articles entitled "myths" or "claims". Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is duplicating much of Longevity myths. Why 130? The article contains Biblical characters are 100+. Would a report of aworld record breaking 127 not be notable? Unavoidable issues of WP:UNDUE, I haven't got the edition of World records cited but the next edition makes it very clear that many of the claims are not of this age, yet, it is used for a citation without qualification. It should be noted that none of the claims has any scientific foundation. Surely, this would be better handled by an article commenting on longevity rather than a specific amalgamation of lists.Tetron76 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article seems fine to me; if anything, I'd say Longevity myths is the one that should be deleted as redundant to this one (and possibly POV). Yes, the cut-off point of 130 years is pretty arbitrary, but I think that's going to be inevitable in this subject area - if it was extended to 'List of people reported to have lived beyond 120', say, it would be just as arbitary. A cut-off has to be drawn somewhere, to distinguish these dubious and legendary cases from more plausible ones, and 130 years is as good a point as any. Robofish (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tetron76. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robofish. Agreed about Longevity myths being the one to be deleted. This article here may benefit from a non-arbitrary rename, not mentioning cut-off number in title itself. Instead, the cut-off number of 120 or 130, etc, can be stated inside the article. Still stand by my earlier comment that a rename to something like "Historical cases of extreme human longevity" would be good. Cheers, CalvinTy 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 130 is actually a good cutoff number, because people have been verified to have lived into their early 120s before, but never beyond that point. This list appears to be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:LIST. On the other hand, Longevity myths appears to be a problematic article, as noted by others above; I would support that page's deletion and redirection to this list. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trilon (disambiguation)[edit]

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

None of the other entries has an article, or an approprite "related" article that is close enough to warrant someone typing in "trilon" to look for it. Dab essentially points to nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several appropriate targets. trilon, EDTA, tabun, Brascan, mispelling of "trylon" 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyla Dawn Cameron[edit]

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

I came across this as a random unsourced BLP. I cannot find reliable sources for it, at least not any that would establish notability per WP:BIO. There are only two items of coverage found about her in a Google News search, a reprint from a blog and a brief mention of an anthology she published. The sources cited in the article are self-published and thus unreliable and/or not independent. The 2006 Eppie Award she won (now called the EPIC Award per E-book#Production, [56]) does not seem to be notable.  Sandstein  06:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I added that Seattle Post-Intelligencer review to the article, so it is no longer unsourced. But I don't think one review and one minor award are enough to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sallie Barnhill Miles[edit]

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

Appears to be completely unverifiable, and borders on an obvious hoax. The subject is purported to have lived to be 117 years old and ridden buses in defiance of the local laws, in 1845 (at the tender age of 5). Unsurprisingly, I am also unable to find any coverage in secondary sources that would meet WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no third-party confirmation of the existence of Sallie Barnhill Miles even in African-American newspapers dating from this time period and available through Google Books. --NellieBly (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Buses in 1845? World's oldest woman for a 17-year period? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first London omnibus ran in 1829, introduced by George Shillibeer. So riding on a bus in 1845 is not, in itself, implausible. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While finding a way to pass Lake Erie on the way from North Carolina to Virginia would certainly be unusual, it's not easy to believe that an escaping slave would travel such a route. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the reasons above. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find no trace of this person in any reliable source, even using several variations and alternate spellings of the name. The editor who wrote the article has had several other articles deleted and seems unwilling or unable to follow our basic policies and procedures or to collaborate with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Poole (film industry)[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage of this individual in reliable, secondary sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Zahid[edit]

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

(previously prod'd) This is a very long biographical article. The closest thing I can find to a notability assertion comes toward the bottom, where it says "A few students of Islamia College and other colleges has done M.Phil and P.hd. on his stories and writings." I've tried a few searches for his name and creative works, but nothing appears notable. However I don't have much experience with Urdu names and I could be using the wrong search parameters. Fang Aili talk 23:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow appears to now be an Urdu Journalist after trying his hand at a number of different occupations. Agreed, the only notability is his contributions to Urdu literature. This article does not stand up when compared to articles in List of Urdu language writers. I say WP:NotJustYet; let his works continue and let him gain a reputation as an Urdu litterateur.--Whiteguru (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete it is not clear what precisely he is notable for nor what the references are supporting for but on the grounds of WP:Creative seems to fall short.Tetron76 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like a resume.--Effingcrazy (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can not see the notability here. AFD is not really my thing just tried it out here for two test. Now I will focus on getting to learn wikipedia. But here is No notability.--HelloKitta (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There's only one blue-linked entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6 (technical, disambig rationale). So tagged. The original purpose of the dab may have been for helping to promote an article on a not-commonly used AJAX web update method, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHAH (2 nomination) - this article target was removed over a year ago. Eliminating that, there's a word ahah - something in Egyptian that doesn't have a link in the first place. This leaves us with the only blue link - a book in the Book of Mormon. There is no need for this dab. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the discussion below, Colonel Warden's and Robofish's comments alone reflect the broader consensus-supported understanding of relevant policies and guidelines regarding lists of this kind. The WP:PROMOTION argument fails because an article is not promotional just because it lists companies, if those companies merit articles and there are not POV content concerns (I see none presented). WP:NOTDIRECTORY would forbid this list from including contact information, lists of individual franchise locations, or lists of non-notable companies (i.e., the kind of content you would find in a business directory or yellow pages), but it does not forbid a list of Wikipedia articles on notable companies organized by the notable type of company or service they provide. Any non-notable entries can simply be removed through normal editing. And per WP:CLN, the mere fact that a category exists does not preclude other forms of organizing the same information. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice cream parlors[edit]

List of ice cream parlors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete:pointless (aside from promotionalism) list. blatantly WP:PROMOTION (free advertising); also question as to notability of establishments in question. Would we have a list of furriers or hardware stores? [email protected] (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see anything about this list being promotional, but this is something that is better served by a category, methinks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep "Pointless" is not a coherent argument to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning reworded to comply with Colonel Warden's objection. [email protected] (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks but you are still off-target. WP:PROMOTION is about self-promotion but there is no obvious COI here. It seems that you mean WP:NOTADVERTISING but that section indicates that coverage and links to major organisations are acceptable. In this case, the list just provides internal links to articles about the various ice cream chains. Because there are no external links or other text content, the list is well within the constraints of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The organisations listed, such as Ben and Jerry, are extremely notable and are blue-linked, showing that we have separate articles about them all and so WP:NOTABILITY is satisfied. So, all I'm seeing here is a prejudice against commercial organisations. This is not a neutral POV and attempts to remove content on this ground would be contrary to our editing and other policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nothing inherently wrong with this as a list. The businesses listed are presumably notable, as they have articles; and yes, we have a category for this purpose, but that doesn't stop us having an article as well. As for issues of 'free advertising', well that could be said about all Wikipedia articles, couldn't it? I don't see why a category is acceptable for this but a list isn't. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a category would be any better or more acceptable. Also, I assure Colonel Warden that, regardless of the outcome of this AFD (which I suspect I know) I am entirely neutral on ice cream parlors, and am not anti-business or anti-enterprise. [email protected] (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not be used as a promotional vehicle, this is nothing more than a directory listing. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to listed objections, an actual list of "ice cream parlors" is likely tens of thousands of entries long and wholly worthless. The argument that the article serves some purpose that a category does not is not in evidence in the article which defines what an ice cream parlor is, lists a random selection of ice cream parlors and ends. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balmoral High School (Belfast, Northern Ireland)[edit]

Balmoral High School (Belfast, Northern Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Non-notable, POV-ridden article about defunct school.[email protected] (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First of all it has been long standing convention that high/secondary schools are generally kept. The school being closed does not magically mean it never existed. But even in this school's short tenure, it became notable per the letter of WP:GNG as it has received very substantial coverage, even as a failure including from national outlets. [57][58][59] The POV is a matter of editing and improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - POV is never a good reason to delete an article. The better way forward is to clean up the page, and that I have done. Long-standing consensus is that secondary schools are notable and that notability doesn't disappear when the school is closed. I would add that as a failure of the PFI (as indeed it was) this school has added notability. The way forward is to expnad the article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary schools are usually held to be notable. The fact it's defunct is irrelevant. Being POV is never a reason to delete an article on a notable subject - it just needs cleaning, as it has been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even former secondary schools should be kept as notable. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Awasthi[edit]

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

All the sources are about the organization he directs or about the deals made by the organization, they are not about the subject himself. That only merits him a mention in the organization's article. Enric Naval (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, so he's the director, but that's what he is. The organization is clearly notable, but there needs to be more on Dinesh. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Gshrotriya but there's a clear consensus that this doesn't meet WP:NFILMS at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhobhar - The Live Ash[edit]

Bhobhar - The Live Ash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Notability not established according to WP:NFILMS or WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment While I gave the article a bit of a cleanup to prep it for expansion, and while the director himself might have just enough Wikipedia notability[60] to have an article, I am having difficulty myself in expanding and sourcing this film article. A number of possibilities come up with a gogle search,[61] but I cannot find any archived news coverage. I will grant that this is likely due to the film being an Indian film in Hindi and Rajasthani, so if others better able to improve the article can do so, I would be happy to offer a "keep" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the director of the film I would like everybody to check the film's page "Bhobhar the film" on facebook which contains links to several press articles during its screening in Jaipur International Film Festival 2011. There are several stills from the film and production stills also available. Besides, the film is relatively new and not yet released in theatres, lot of stuff in press is not available. Film at presnt is doing festival rounds after which it would have the thatrical release. Gajendra Shrotriya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshrotriya (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Working on account of WP:NFILMS, and based on the director's comments above, I am also working off of WP:CRYSTAL. I can make no assumption at this time that it will be released to theaters. Unless there is clear-cut evidence that this WILL be released in theaters, I'm sticking to this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the director says "lot of stuff in press is not available." If the movie gets serious press then the article can be recreated. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandelion[edit]

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

Another editor placed a PROD for notability which was promptly removed by the article's creator. Eeekster (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails under WP:BAND: unsigned band (no record label), no evidence of ever having had a major label release, no evidence of concerts other than as support/opening act, and no other evidence of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly they're good, and it's a great style, but I'm just not finding anything that says they're notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MojoMojo[edit]

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

Nominating for the similar reasons the article was nominated for in its first nomination: Non-notable software, references consist only of trivial or non-reliable sources. Article was userfied instead of deleted, and the user decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the topic suddenly was notable enough to re-introduce to normal article space. Some sources have been added since, but they seem to be either all blogs, trivial mentions or other non-reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMHO, the nom is right - I'm not seeing anything in the way of [[WP:RS|reliable sources for this piece of software. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lack of solid secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow arrow[edit]

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

Notability provided but no 3rd party sources to back it up. Reads like an advertisement. Albacore (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Non-notable art "underground" project lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. A couple of articles exist that mention the project in passing, but again, nothing of substance. Article fails to support claims of notability by providing reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making Connections, Here and Now , New York Times, Ethan Todras-Whitehall, 25 January 2008, [62]
Targeting the 'Art' Around Every Corner, washington post, 2 July 2005, [63] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The Washing Post has an entire article dedicated to this phenomenon. It has made news around America. Many other major newspapers cover it. Dream Focus 23:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourcing in article shows notability, AfD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • talkblp-r 10:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2011_April_10&oldid=1142639431"