Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 15

< 14 February	16 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bat-Kid: Origins[edit]

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

This is about an upcoming movie made by a bunch of kids. Both sources are websites probably created by the author of this article. Does not even come close to meeting notability guidelines for films. BurtAlert (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While I might have suggested a userfication, the fact that an article about a CCE Entertainment production was created by User:CCEMania gives me concerns toward WP:COI. It can be either undeleted or recreated if/when the film is released and actually gets some coverage[1]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 8 off-Wikipedia Google hits for the film's title; I also suspect (given the article's tone) that it's a fan-made movie. Even if I am wrong, I'm afraid it's still a delete due to a complete lack of reliable references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:15, 18 February 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) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ishaq Khan[edit]

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

Pure WP:PROMO, created by Adnanishaq123 (talk · contribs) in an obvious conflict of interest. No way this meets WP:ANYBIO at all. bender235 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anon-posted pics, no WP:RS, full of WP:OR, no credible claim of notability, etc etc. Pages like this should just be prod'd instead of wasting AfD time. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that the "cadet college" he founded is a major academic institution, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 19 February 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 Deletion per WP:G12 as a copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air-Spade[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable construction tool, is written like an advert, and does not cite any sources. BurtAlert (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 16 February 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, although I would note that "long term historical notability" is not what's required - notability is consistent. Ironholds (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Managing Editor Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable software firm (also evidence of COI edits, but that's not deletion cause). Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gave a good look around and didn't see any WP:RS coverage. Mostly press releases & mac-centric user generated blogs. Midlakewinter (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the COI updater. Wondering why this is being flagged now since it is not significantly different from the previous version(s) posted since November 2008. Also seems rather similar to WoodWing, about a similar company, which is not flagged. Mary.SweetenMary.sweeten (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Added an additional footnote and made some other edits to flesh out uses of MEI legacy ad-layout software. Mary.SweetenMary.sweeten (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References to minor trade awards (ComputerWorld Honors for Roundhouse Ad Tracking System &c.), top-100 lists (EContent 100 Companies That Matter Most) and press releases do not establish that this business or its products have the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to "the COI updater" - I think you have just come in as it was caught up with. As with God's, Wikipedia's mills sometimes grind exceeding slow. To everyone else, the lady in question is working hard (under pressure from yours truly) to find sources that will satisfy even Smerdis. And doing her ordinary job too, no doubt. Peridon (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from "the COI updater" - Not that I am privy to the mysterious ways of Wikipedia, but is it possible that when I flagged my edits as "major," it alerted the authorities? I do appreciate the transparency of the process, however. Note to Peridon: Thanks. Note to Smerdis: In the software business, 20 years isn't just historic, it's an eternity. Mary.SweetenMary.sweeten (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Creator's "ordinary job" is "Marketing writing and production at MEI" according to LinkedIn... ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - known within its industry, has been around for a long time, resopnsible for widely used tools. More sources are needed. –SJ + 10:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WoodWing Please note that this article is now at AfD too - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodWing Software. (Not one of my nominations...) Peridon (talk) 11:12, 20 February 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 Result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs)

Shining Star (Phrase)[edit]

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

While this article contains many citations, the referenced materials are a disparate and far-flung collection of uses of the term "shining star". Any attempt to bring such disparate sources into a single encyclopedia entry an only represent a synthesis of new ideas on the part of the author. The article reads quite like a sermon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author and while I couldn't figure out how to delete it immediately, I am fine with that. It relates to a project near and dear to my heart and I could see how this wouldn't be the right place for it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 15 February 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) 02:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel F. Rhodes[edit]

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

This article survived a prod back in 2006, but it does not seem to have any assertion of notability and I cannot find any sources about this man that he did not write himself. Brian the Editor (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The de-PROD was based on the fact that he had published a book. However, there is coverage about him, or his book in my searches. Note that the publisher of the book is Cotton & Cigar Publishers, which also happens to be owned by Samuel F. Rhodes, so it is essentially self-published. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not establish notability. The claims are: 1) his book I Saw You Sitting On The Moon, 14 G-hits; 2) ownership of a few non-notable firms. All incoming links except the one from List of poets from the United States seems to be referring to another Samuel Rhodes. jonkerz ♠ 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Superman7515 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 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 ma

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

New ranking system for universities, not notable, apparently the product of someone's MSc thesis (see here). The article is mostly unsourced; some of the references currently in use do not relate directly to the ranking system itself, and a number of google searches show that there is no sufficient collection of sources available for supporting statements in the article or for establishing notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I realize this is not the usual type of entry for the academics list, but it seems of obvious interest to the people who contribute here. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No sign of any significant nontrivial news coverage in secondary sources. As a remark, why wasn't this PRODed first, since it was created by an SPA who has left? Ray^Talk 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP is running around adding it to articles on various universities, so I anticipated that a PROD would be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject itself is important and, if properly written, should be notable. However the article focuses on one particular so far unnotable scheme. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- For clarification: the name of the article is the name of this new ranking scheme. It's not an article about rankings in general; I agree that would be important, but "URAP" is intended to be about this new scheme. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -

Comment - The author of the thesis is listed as a member of the research team according to the center's website. The MSc thesis seems to be a product of the research center, not the other way around. Some of the references cited are coming from mainstream newspapers and news outlets in Turkey, but the international coverage has not been that substantial so far. That's probably because the ranking system is brand new. It will probably get some attention in the near future, especially from developing countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.215.104 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — 85.104.215.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 17 February 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 keep for two reasons: 1) The proper forum for discussing deletion of redirect pages is Redirects for discussion; and 2) Per WP:R, one possible reason for having a redirect is "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." It is perfectly acceptable to have book titles that have no independent notability for a stand-alone article redirect to the author's article or some other appropriate article. Additionally, these are all remotely plausible search terms, and circular redirects can be fixed simply by unlinking them. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faces Under Water[edit]

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

Another simply circular redirect page which takes the viewer right back to Tanith Lee Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:32, 15 February 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 keep for two reasons: 1) The proper forum for discussing deletion of redirect pages is Redirects for discussion; and 2) Per WP:R, one possible reason for having a redirect is "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." It is perfectly acceptable to have book titles that have no independent notability for a stand-alone article redirect to the author's article or some other appropriate article. Additionally, these are all remotely plausible search terms, and circular redirects can be fixed simply by unlinking them. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Birthgrave[edit]

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

It is a redirect page which was used on the page Tanith Lee to do a circular redirect back to the Tanith Lee page, giving a false impression that there is a page about this novel of hers. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate The Secret Books of Paradys, Faces Under Water, Saint Fire, A Bed of Earth, and Venus Preserved, all of which are by Tanith Lee and all of which follow exactly the same pattern as The Birthgrave (That is, they are ALL redirect pages whose only link is back to the page that redirected them) . In addition, Darkness, I and Personal Darkness, also by Tanith Lee, go nowhere but to right back to the same everarching pages of the series they are a part of (The Blood Opera Sequence and Dark Dance). I think some editor or other got clever, but this is ridiculous. Every one of these redirect pages is superfluous.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:36, 15 February 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) 02:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin 2[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable film not even in pre-production. E. Fokker (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too soon, and this will certainly not be the title. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The movie is certainly not "non-notable" as an internet search for the terms "Tintin 2" jackson shows. Nankai (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Current version does not show itself as meriiting being a stand-alone exception to WP:NFF. If requested, userfy the two-sentence stub so its author can expand and source it as release draws near. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:TOOSOON, too early to create an article about a movie like this. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. Too premature for its own article. If there are additional plans for this film, per the guidelines, they should go in a "Sequel" section at The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn. An article should only be created if production begins. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pitman[edit]

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

Contested PROD by User:Timpitman, potential WP:COI. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully professional level of football. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from article's talk page:

I wish to challenge the proposed deletion of this article. I contend that this article be retained for the following reasons:

1 Maintaining a coherent and effective user journey - Where articles about football clubs specifically contain a current team listing (as does the article on Brentwood Town FC) the user should be able to follow all or as many of those link as possible in order that the user is presented with a consistent user journey that provides access to as much related information as possible. Dead links only frustrate users and a high profile service such as this should be seeking to minimise the occurrence of dead links wherever it can.

2 Comprehensiveness and avoidance of discrimination - In seeking to provide what is, in effect, a database of football clubs and football players, the service should seek to be as comprehensive as possible. In seeking to exclude information about players simply because they have not at any time in their careers held full professional contracts discriminates against, and alienates, the thousands of people who regularly follow non league clubs. If the service is designed to be elitist in this fashion I would suggest that, in order to maintain consistency, the policy of deletion should be extended to exclude articles written about any clubs falling outside the Football League.

3 Inclusion of information directly related to footballing achievement - This article and the references appended thereto relate soley to the players achievements in football, which in my eyes is much more worthy of inclusion than some of the other information held on Wikipedia about other players at the same level. I would draw your attention to a similar article concerning Jamie Guy of Braintree Town which, apart from outlining the player's career, contains references to alleged bullying, brawling and racism, all of which is more suited to publication in a Sunday tabloid newspaper than a supposedly learned encyclopeadia. (Posted by Timpitman)

End of copy. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a case of COI here, but that's not of itself a reason to delete. Nor is the rather promotional (not in the football league sense) language. The league played in is the old Isthmian League under its new sponsored name, and is not a national league, and is semi-pro/amateur. No indication is given of the subject's status in this respect, but given the age and number of appearances I would guess at amateur, which I think fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Correct me if I am wrong. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether he is semi-pro or amateur is in fact irrelevant, as neither is sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which requires participation in which all teams (and by extension all players) are fully professional. There are no fully professional teams/players at all in the Isthmian League -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Although all of the arguments laid out above by the creator/subject are extremely verbose, none relate to WP policy at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Simply because an argument is expressed in precise (verbose?) terms does not make it invalid, and its not having previously been considered as part of WP policy surely should not prejudice its proper consideration else rules would simply be followed for their own sake and never challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.147.254 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest - Who is the final arbiter here, ie who has control of the delete button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.147.254 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will make the call based on the consensus of the debate after around seven days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's someone known as a closing admin, unless the debate shows no sign of getting any delete !votes - in which case an ordinary (usually regular) editor can close after seven days. The closing admin or non-admin will have taken no part in the debate (except possibly providing neutral information). I don't know how the closing admin is chosen, or if they just come in and look at a list. For your information, it is good etiquette here to be logged in when you !vote (only one per oerson) or comment (as many as you like - but don't overdo it). The !votes and comments are weighed up by the closing admin (the non-admin will only have keeps to deal with), and a decision reached. If there is a mass influx of new accounts who have not edited anywhere else, they are given less weight than the known regulars - and may even be investigated to see if they are one person (see WP:SOCK. They are called SPAs - single purpose accounts - and usually say the same thing over and over. They will be read, though, just in case they say something worthwhile. This is not a kangaroo court, and new 'evidence' can be added here or in the form of changes to the article (which should be notified here). We can and do change our minds. I've changed three times in one debate. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The normal situation is that administrators who choose to contribute to closing deletion discussions will check the list of discussions due to be closed today but not yet closed and work on those. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information re required etiquette and the decision making process. I am glad to hear that there no likelyhood of anyone being a judge in their own cause. I am therefore happy to leave my original contentions in the hope that the wider considerations outlined will have some weight when considered against the rigid application of the existing rules.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpitman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 February 2011

Delete I can fully sympathise with Timpitman, and I do understand his point of view. However, as is unfortunately very common among people new to editing Wikipedia, his conception of Wikipedia's purpose is mistaken. Wikipedia does not seek to maintain "a database of football clubs and football players" which should be "as comprehensive as possible", but rather to make readily available information on subjects which have a significant degree of notability as demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. Timpitman, you are welcome to suggest changes in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies if you want to, but this deletion nomination will be decided on the basis of the guidelines and policies which exist at present, and unfortunately your reasons do not address those. (This is not the place for a detailed discussion of whether the notability guidelines should be changed, but it is worth mentioning that we have to draw the line somewhere, or we would have articles about my left sock. Wherever we draw the line someone will object, with cries of "discrimination" and the like. It is reasonable to debate where the line should be drawn, but not to suggest there should be no line.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that it makes a change to meet up with a footballer who has a command of the English language beyond four letters at a time (or seven, counting -ing). I don't meet many on the whole, but the only other one with a command like this was Steve Heighway. He too started off in smaller league clubs - and wouldn't have got an article at the time either... CU L8R? Peridon (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the last two comments, and especially that from Peridon. If my article is in the end deleted rest assured you will see me back as soon as I gain my first fully professional contract! Incidentaly, although there is no article on Wikipedia about 'My Left Sock', there is an article on the film 'My Left Foot' which contains a reference to film critic Jay Sherman wearing a My Left Foot sock given to him at the film's premiere...Timpitman (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one... Stick around anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, if this discussion results in a 'Delete' decision, then you can request that the closing admin moves the page into your User space (User:Timpitman/Bio or similar) so that all your hard work won't go to waste if & when you make it as a pro! Good luck, Giant Snowman 01:56, 23 February 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) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kob-dhehaad District[edit]

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

This is an article on what appears to be an administrative district in Somalia. The sole source, however, is a 32 page booklet sourced to Wikipedia. Fair enough, I looked for additional sources. Bari, Somalia, the region in which this district is found, does not list the Kob-dhehaad district as one of its subdivisions, and its source (a 1990 list, granted) does not list this district anywhere in the country. All of the sources I see via search are mirrors of Wikipedia's coverage. Based on this, I'm not entirely sure that this district exists. If it does, and if we can confirm that, great - I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. But I've been unable to find anything meaningful to confirm. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Delete !votes here, and some discussion could probably continue as to what exactly the subject is - but it's clear from the source provided by Snottywong that this is A) a place in Somalia, and that B) it exists. That's good enough for me. Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Sadads (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll admit I didn't realize that the source I added was sourced to Wikipedia, and therefore is not a very good source. However, I did a little more digging and it looks like the district does indeed exist, but is more easily found under an alternate spelling: Kob-dhexaad. See its location in Google Maps. A google search under the alternate spelling yields a lot more results, including this UNICEF document which mentions it. It may be more appropriate to move this article to Kob-dhexaad district (or just Kob-dhexaad) and turn the dhehaad spelling into a redirect. SnottyWong ^confess 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above Zwilson14 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - I also tried confirming that this district exists, but to no avail. Lrkleine (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still not sold on the idea of this place existing, but the new spelling is promising. I'll look into it later today. If we can confirm, no objection to the move from me - but let's see what's what first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what qualifies a Somalian settlement to be a "district", but I think it's clear that Kob-dhexaad exists, even if it might be closer to a village than a district. Anyone know what language this source is in? I can't get it translated correctly. SnottyWong ^express 14:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:OUTCOMES#Places. SnottyWong ^chat 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright, fair enough. I'd like to know exactly what this is before we close - one line in a UN report does not do much for details - but I have no objection to Keeping the article - and have so noted above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It exists. Keep and move to the correct spelling of Kobdhexaad. — AjaxSmack 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If after 3 years the wikimagic hasn't worked to make this page longer than a sentence then I think we are safe to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.130.210 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in WP:Notability or WP:NOT-INDISCRIMINATE applies to this case. WP:Notability (geography) holds that populated places are considered notable even if the population is very low. This place receives some mention in English sources (e.g., here on p.3) and more in Somali sources (e.g., here and here). — AjaxSmack 23:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A district is larger than a city, correct? I'm presuming as such from the article and the links therein. Therefor, per our notability requirements and Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer and the fact that sources have been provided that prove that it exist, then it is notable. The notability requirements for places (as long as they are at minimum a city or village size) is that they are inherently notable as long as it can be proven that they exist. Silver seren^C 01:05, 23 February 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) 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotts Mill, Delaware[edit]

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

Abbotts Mill, Delaware is not an unincorporated community. Abbotts Mill is just that, a mill alongside Abbotts Mill Pond. The mill itself has been turned into Abbotts Mill Nature Center, but it is not an unincorporated community as marked. A mill alongside a pond is certainly not notable. State of Delaware Historical Marker - Abbotts Mill Superman7515 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Nature Society Abbotts Mill Website Superman7515 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Abbotts Mill is not a community but the site of a former grist mill. At the least, the article should be edited and expanded to reflect this.19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article can be moved to Abbotts Mill Nature Center and turned into an article describing the history of the mill and the nature center. I do not believe it to be an actual community. Dough 48 72 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Geographic Names Information System lists Abbotts Mill as a populated place, which would indicate that this is in fact a community. I wouldn't entirely object to merging it into an article on the mill (which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore notable in its own right), since there appears to be far more coverage of the mill than any other aspect of the community, but it should still be kept somewhere. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than GNIS, what other coverage is there of this being a community? Other than unreliable websites that use the GNIS information directly, such as Hometown Locator, no other sites list Abbott's Mill as being a community. No site run by the State of Delaware, Sussex County, or the parks and nature sites that review this area make any mention of the area being a community. Superman7515 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears that it once was a community, and whether or not it currently it is populated it is certainly notable due to the historical mill.[3] Just because sources on its status as a community are limited (on the Internet at least) doesn't mean they don't exist. WP:Notability says once notable, always notable. I would recommend seeing if the article could be fleshed out as is. If, down the road, it becomes apparent that it's more appropriate at an article about the historic site instead, it can be moved. There's also ample precedent for having articles about a communityy in addition to any historical sites within that community. There's no harm in keeping it for the time being and letting interested editors try to improve it.DCmacnut <> 19:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at the g-satellite image of this place, it does seem to be a distinct population center, if not very large. Sure it might be dominated by the mill, but there's still a neighborhood that's separate from it. --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are houses and housing developments in the area, none of them refer to themselves as "Abbotts' Mill" or being located in "Abbotts Mill". The state refers to the area as "near Milford".Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the housing development near Abbott's Mill (Blair's Pond Estates, in reference to the other pond near Abbott's Mill Pond, Blair's Pond Estates housing development) is what is being used as the reference for the community, again the article would be wrong, because that housing development is located in Kent County and the GNIS info states the supposed community is in Sussex County, so those units couldn't be considered in the decision of whether Abbotts Mill is an unincorporated community in Sussex County. Those homes, and those around Abbott's Mill, are considered by those of us in the area as in Williamsville, which really is an unincorporated community in Kent County. Superman7515 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per these comments and below, it does seem the designation as a site as opposed to a community is correct. I still advocate "keep" as the site is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to a State of Delaware website, which again mentions it being near Milford, but makes no mention of a community having ever been there or being there now, that is or was referred to as Abbotts Mill... http://history.delaware.gov/preservation/HistoricPlaces/AbbotsMill.shtml On a side note, if this is kept, how hard is it to get the article changed to the proper name of Abbott's Mill with the apostrophe? I honestly don't know as I've never tried changing an article title before. Superman7515 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a bit of NRHP info and set up redirect from Abbott's Mill to the article, for now. The article can be moved to either Abbott's Mill over redirect, easily, or to Abbotts Mill Nature Center and turned into an article describing the history of the mill and the nature center. It looks like it is not actually a community, so it should be moved, and the settlement infobox deleted. I've included an NRHP infobox further below. This might better have been a Requested Move discussion, not an AFD. --do ncr am 02:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, this may be a notable historic place. But trying to get this in as an "unincorporated community" under WP:NPLACE is the weakest of all arguments. As the Delaware website notes, "The mill is a two-and-a-half-story frame structure". Not a delete, because it might qualify as notable in its own right as an historic landmark, without the nonsense that it is or ever was a community of some sort. I've considered User:Dcmacnut's argument that it might have been a community once, based on [[4]], but I'm not finding it-- reference to a mill and some outbuildings where people worked is all I see. Like Dcmacnut, I think there's an argument that it's notable as an historic site. But forget GNIS as proof of this as an independent community. GNIS counts so many things as so-called populated places that are definitely not "unincorporated communities"-- mobile home parks, neighborhoods, subdivisions, etc.-- that it can't be taken seriously when it comes to whether a place is notable under WP:OUTCOMES. If you live in the US, you can type in your home county [5] and see for yourself how many of these non-communities turn up. GNIS got 607 so-called populated places in Sussex County, of which a fraction are actual towns, in Category:Towns in Sussex County, Delaware. We went through this GNIS thing not long ago with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waltlou Mobile Home Park. As noted, this might qualify as a state-maintained tourist site or landmark, but the idea that it's a little country town just doesn't mesh with what the State of Delaware calls it. Mandsford 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a NRHP site. The unincorporated place is quite strange - but since it is in Delaware, it has a lot of company. In Delaware they just don't do towns and cities like they do in other states. See New Castle County, Delaware for something of any explanation, but I think it comes down to the small area and a 350 year history where every wide spot in the road had its own name. Then in New Castle County, they almost all use Wilmington as their postal address! BTW, I will get a photo of the place, but it might take awhile. Smallbones (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a street view by typing in "Abbot's Mill Nature Center" on Google maps, on Abbot's Mill Road. Equal treatment for Delaware, I say, no more, no less. Mandsford 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though that would explain why Delaware has so many unincorporated communities. In most other states they're all notable, but there's only about 30 per county and rarely more than 120 for large counties. I had always wondered why such a small county had over 600 populated places. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to explain with many of the others that have been created on here that aren't communities but are listed in the GNIS. Such as the different intersections that are "Whatever Crossroads" in the middle of farm land with no houses around or Old Furnace which is another NRHP site that GNIS has listed as a community. In reality it is an actual old furnace, Deep Creek Furnace, that was put on NRHP in 1977. I've lived here my whole life and Smallbones is right that pretty much every wide spot in the road had a name at one point or another. You look at PA and NJ where there is no unincorporated land in the whole state because it is all broken down into townships, etc. In Delaware, you can drive for miles and not be someplace, so they named everything. Superman7515 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who originally proposed the deletion, I would have no problem or objection to this being moved to a more appropriate topic of it as a NRHP site about the mill and nature center if we can get a consensus on that. I just clearly disagree with it being labeled an unincorporated community. Superman7515 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to where? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to move but can be reworded as an article about an NRHP site. The person who proposed it as an article about a community could not even manage to find a population figure. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what's documented is that it is named "Abbott's Mill" (with possessive apostrophe), and there are no other such places, so "Delaware" is not needed as disambiguation. I think it should be moved over redirect to Abbott's Mill (leaving redirect from current name). And the unincorporated community stuff comes out of the article. N'est-ce pas? --do ncr am 17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no population figure because most unincorporated communities in the US don't have census data, even larger ones with post offices, so there's no way to get reliable population figures for them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:20, 17 February 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) 02:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Aftab[edit]

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

Autobiographical article that is significantly below meeting reliable 3rd party sources. Author has been warned multiple times about editing wikipedia to promote themselves. As there are links (sort of) I don't think this qualified for BLPPROD. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. If the Margallah Hills thing could be shown to be significant, I could reconsider. Otherwise, it's a man doing a job. Peridon (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable journalist writes an article about himself, hooray. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:58, 16 February 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) 02:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Barnett[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - has only played semi-professional football in England and no evidence has played professionally for Perth Glory in first team game/ professional competition Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a semi-pro at best Stu.W UK (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 17:27, 21 February 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) Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central American Airways Flight 731[edit]

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

Notability not established. Diego Grez (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the consensus notability standard outlined in WP:AIRCRASH for these sorts of articles as the Let 410 is over 12,500 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Agree with above. It meets the notability criteria for crashes.- William 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hull loss, fatalities, acceptable weight -- passes all of the prereqs for notability in WP:AIRCRASH. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. wacky wace 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball keep per all the above. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above and also due to the unusual number of high-ranking officials on board, which elevates the incident above a normal plane crash of this size. C628 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody of the so-called high-ranking officials have a Wikipedia article, do they? Diego Grez (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly surprising, as there are hardly any Honduran high-ranking officials on WP in the first place. Does that mean they aren't notable? Of course not. Lugnuts (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a requirement that there be notable people on board to comply with WP:AIRCRASH on an aircraft of this size. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean, aircraft crashes like this occur very often, I don't see the need to have this one. As per WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS. Diego Grez (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Lugnuts is right, there seems to be some logical error here: Wikipedia article = notability; therefore no Wikipedia article = non-notable. See denying the antecedent. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Honduras is a pretty poor country - it would be remarkable if the passengers of any small domestic flight like this did contain at least one or two people who were notable for something. More often than not, it would be most I reckon. This was not a £1 a seat domestic EasyJet flight that's for sure. Even for developed countries, it's still a good possibility - the last minor crash added to the Wikipedia database could have killed Martin McGuinness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established! Easily meets the GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article currently fails most if not all of EVENT, the meeting of which is a basic requirement of AIRCRASH. The coverage comprises 3 aviation focused sources combined with 2 zero-depth, wire-sourced duplicated general (news) sources. That unhealthy mix doesn't support the existence of Wikipedia-type GNG or historical event notability here, and it certainly doesn't show this is not going to be yet another soon to be abandoned NEWS article, part of Wikipedia's ever expanding RECENTism infested aircrash database. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this search, the subject seems to have been "covered in diverse sources" and to have had a "widespread (national or international) impact". The subject also meets the GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how I interpret those results. If you have some substantive examples from there to convince me of your claims, give it a try, but you were wasting your time responding here with that link if you were just assuming I make votes in Afds without doing such searches beforehand. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passing WP:GNG has been established by the in-depth coverage. It would be willful ignorance to presume that a commercial passenger airliner crash that killed all passengers will be suddenly forgotten about as a "run of the mill" event. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Picked at random....on 16 December 2001, a domestic scheduled flight in Colombia involving the same type of aircraft crashed in poor weather, killing 14 passengers and 2 crew. If such incidents are not forgotten about over time, if such assertions are 'willfull ignorance', then it should really be a trivial matter for you to flesh out this factoid to produce a well-rounded article on both the events of that crash, and all the lasting effects and historical significance of it, without simply resorting to contemporary news sources or specialist sources like the ASN, to show what a valuable addition it would have made to Wikipedia, had it been one of the first articles to be added here (it turns out it wasn't as it happens, I already looked). It doesn't have to be perfect, just lay out some prose here, with the secondary sources you based it on, and we'll see what you can come up with, as a signal to how this article might look in 10 years time. It might even bring some hope to those people who must be really concerned that, while our L-410 article not only doesn't tell you anything about that crash, it also doesn't say anything at all about the L-410 crashes that killed 10 or more people between the two passably 'historical era' ones it does manage to document, between 1977 and 1995. That's before even filling the gaps before the year of the first full article we do have, from 2007. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editing or non-editing of other articles has no bearing on the notability of this topic. There are plenty of articles of very notable topics that have had little improvements done on them in a long time, but that doesn't suddenly make those topics non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crash is definitely noteworthy. There may be a lack of sources in English, but there are plenty available in Spanish (of which I have added a few). Additionally, the Honduran government declared three days of official mourning for the victims, and the president of Honduras has openly stated that the airport in Tegus must be relocated and no further funding should be put into it. El Heraldo, one of the major newspapers of Honduras, has a 13 part special on the accident, available here, as does La Tribuna another Honduran national newspaper. Ravendrop 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I don't really think that I can add any rationale that hasn't already been discussed) --Strikerforce (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deaths of current and former government ministers establishes notability. --can dle •wicke 10:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets two of three WP:AIRCRASH standards for aircraft over 12,500lb MTOW, of which it only needs to meet one: (1) hull loss (2) fatalities. Probably meets the third standard (changes to aviation standards or procedures) due to the call by the Honduran president to reloate the airport the aircraft was on approach to when it crashed, as a direct result of the crash. Also likely meets WP:GNG due to a high-level government official, a former higher-level government official, and a current union leader being on board; none of the three appear to have bluelinks, but that is likely a WP:BIAS issue (if they were American government officials in the same position, they would have had articles long ago). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AIRCRASH requires it to meet GNG, EVENT and NOT#NEWS to have a stand-alone article. If it's your intention to say that it does that, please say so explicitly, as it's becoming quite disturbing to see that many people seem to think that all the rewritten AIRCRASH essay does actually require for 'big plane' crashes to be automatically notable (which as it turns out, goes all the way down to 10 seat island hoppers) is to tick the 'death/loss/changes' boxes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point there, and some people (including me, at least once, to be completely honest!) have mistaken the "one of three" AIRCRASH criterion for mention in type articles as qualifying a crash for a stand-alone article. It's my opinion here that the WP:GNG is satisfied by the fact that high-ranking officials, whose lack of Wikipedia articles about them is almost certainly due to WP:BIAS rather than a lack of notability, were killed in the crash. WP:EVENT is probably satisfied, due to the fact that the accident has led to the President of a country calling for an airport to be relocated, as a direct result of the accident, a call that would have not have taken place had the crash not happened. Having just read over WP:NOTNEWS, given the points mentioned above, I believe it should satisfy that, as well - while "puddle-jumpers", especially Eastern European-built ones, do crash fairly often in the Third World, having one kill a high-ranking government official, a retired Cabinet-level govenment official, and a union leader all in one go is anything but routine - I can think of only two comparable crashes off the top of my head, the one that decapitated the Polish government, and the Ron Brown crash, the latter being directly comparable, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Bushranger.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 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) 02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarat C. Das[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable biography, possibly a hoax. There was a Sarat Chandra Das around 1900, but that doesn't match the article. Worm^TT 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites as its only ref an online journal of writing from a university, which lists Das as a living person, someone published by or affiliated with that online journal. That does not constitute multiple reliable and independent sourcing to establish notability or to satisfy the guidelines for biographies of creative professionals. It does not appear to be a hoax. Edison (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article claims he was editor in chief of The Times of India, the largest-circulation English-language newspaper in the world. If that's true, it's a pretty solid claim of notability. That said, there's still the hurdle of reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upgrading to delete since the primary claim of notability appears not to be true. On consideration, I guess it did seem kind of suspicious that someone supposedly holding such a prestigious position in India would still be going to school in Australia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject himself in his Linkedin profile is very vague about the precise position that he held at The Times of India, but I'm sure it wasn't anything close to chief editor, as it wouldn't be so difficult to find confirmation if it was. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is appear to be scam, as if he was at such a big position at the times of India than there must be at least something about him on web. After hitting his name on net what i found just unreliable profile pages, i think he's from the Hindustan times because i found some of the news articles by him like this, but article doesn't mention about the Hindustan times at all, so i've a big doubt the authenticity of this article. Bill william compton (talk) 14:02, 16 February 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) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet marketing tools[edit]

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

More or less a list of terms, references, with nearly no content whatsoever. Don't see anything salvageable here. Intention of creator may have been to create a vehicle for his own website (which has since been removed by another editor). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was just looking at this article to see if I could clean it up. Appears to be more of a fork of Internet marketing than anything else, anything that actually using a reliable source could be moved there as long as some actual content could be fleshed out for it. Kuru (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was nominating it for deletion at the same time as you. Article creator appears to have a COI with at least one of the external sites used as references, and I'm a little concerned at the amount of time he's spending creating SEO-mentality inbound links from tenuously connected articles (which I see that OhNoitsJamie has now caught and reverted). --McGeddon (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - saw it when it was brand new and thought that it might develop into something useful, but it doesn't actually seem to have much potential for doing so. --bonadea contributions talk 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Content fork of internet marketing, and mostly an unwikified list of vaguely related topics. I don't think internet marketing has enough to do with the sorts of subjects that belong in an encyclopedia to support a list of internet marketing topics, but if such a list were called for this might be a start for it. But none of this material really is encyclopedia material anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless list fork of Internet marketing. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (WP:CSD#A10 possibly) or just Redirect to internet marketing. The topic already exists. Peacock (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a worthwhile fork, albeit very undeveloped. It would massively distort the parent article if even this amount of material was merged in. Notability is unarguable. The article could develop as a list or an article without need for rename or deletion. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random out-of-context list of tools, using primary sources and sources that are unrelated to each other (WP:SYNTH). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stop the Deathrace insanity. WP:DEMOLISH

13:58, 3 February 2011 Creation. Is that the sound of a starting gun I hear?

14:56, 3 February 2011 (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD (WP:TW))

22:20, 3 February 2011 (Requesting speedy deletion (WP:CSD). (TW))

Well, that didn't work. 12 days pass.

But wait, what's this?

16:00, 15 February 2011 (Added WP:COI tag to article using TW) And they're off! Six minutes later...

16:06, 15 February 2011 (afd) - No link to the AFD, which is maybe why 4 minutes later we get...

16:10, 15 February 2011 (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet marketing tools (2nd nomination))

So it's COI that gets you off, eh? Let me put a little something to you. COI without actual wrongdoing is Ad hominem. Think about it. "Intention of creator may have been to create a vehicle for his own website (WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED BY ANOTHER EDITOR)" Lots of smokescreen, but where's the fire?

As for WP:FORK...They have the terms keyword, email marketing, search engine optimization, forum, and blog in common, linked on both articles. However, Internet marketing tools has a few terms that Internet marketing does not:

Affiliate Marketing Software • Affiliate networks • Affiliate Marketing Courses • Web Research Tools • Competitive Research Software • Keyword Research Software • Web Research Services • Email Marketing Tools • Email Marketing Software • Email Marketing Courses • Email Marketing Services • Auto Responders • Tools For Pay-Per-Click Marketing • Ad Tracking Software • Bid Management Software • Pay-Per-Click Campaign Management Services • Webmaster Resources • Website Hosting Services • Website Design Services • Website Building Software • Website and Traffic Analysis Software • Copywriting Software • (electronic) Shopping Carts • Electronic Payment Services • Internet Marketing Courses • Affiliate Marketing Courses • Email Marketing Courses • General Internet Marketing Courses • Search Engine Optimization Courses • Auction Marketing Courses • Search Engine Optimization Tools • Search Engine Optimization Software • Rank Checking Software • Link Submission Software • Search Engine Optimization Marketing Courses • Website and Traffic Analysis Software • Search Engine Optimization Services • Link Submission Services • Crawler Simulators • Analysis Tools • ROI Tracking Software • Split Testing Software • Website and Traffic Analysis Software • Conversion Tracking Software • Website and Traffic Analysis Services • Auction Tools • Auction Item Submission Software • Auction Item Tracking Software • Auction Marketing Courses • General Internet Marketing Tools • Search Engine Optimization Tools • Community Tools • Forums and Blogs • eBook Marketing • Auction Tools • E-mail Marketing • Web Research Tools • Tools For Pay-Per-Click Marketing

Let the people actually providing content to Wikipedia provide it. And if they happen to also be providing the service that is what WP is writing about, I don't really expect gratitude; that sentiment has been shown already to be unappreciated. But getting out of the way is still possible.

Anarchangel (talk) 05:26, 22 February 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) 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Cristea[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no particular assertion of notability in the article, as it currently stands. Janggeom (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:MMANOT. No fights for top tier organizations. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has a decent number of fights, but none for a top organization so he fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 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.

Fit4Talent[edit]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hancock_Park,_Los_Angeles#Primary_and_secondary_schools. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel A. Fryer Yavneh Hebrew Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school (K-8). tedder (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (perhaps to Los_Angeles,_California#Schools_and_libraries.) Nothing indicates this primary school has any notability. (Also some promotional wording problems, not that that isn't fixable.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth mentioning at Hancock Park, Los Angeles, which is how I found it in the first place. tedder (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock_Park,_Los_Angeles#Primary_and_secondary_schools is probably a better target then. I only looked at what the article said. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I figured I'd steer consensus :-) tedder (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hancock Park. Non-notable primary/middle school. A well written article, but minimally sourced and nothing to indicate unusual notability. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is more here than meets the eye, although I'm not yet decided if I think it's enough to support an article. The present article doesn't mention it, but this school's building is a well-known landmark in Hancock Park: it's a huge, distinctive Tudor mansion on parklike grounds along a busy street, and used to be the home of the Whittier Law School. The opening of the Yavneh generated some local political controversy[6][7], which continues, and occasionally flares up. See, for example, "A School or a Shul", Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, March 2, 2006; "City Building & Safety inspectors briefly interrupt Kol Nidrei services at Hancock Park shul", Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, September 24, 2007; "School gets Apology from City for Yom Kippur visit", Los Angeles Times, September 25, 2007; "Change drives tension in staid Hancock Park", Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2007. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, Arxiloxos. I can't research it now, but do you know details of the building itself- year constructed, if it's on the LA or national historic lists? tedder (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any national or regional listings (if I did, I would have already !voted "keep" ), but I dug around some more and found that the building is on the landmark list of the Windsor Square-Hancock Park Historical Society[8], and also found some sources (not all of them WP:RS) indicating that, before it was Whittier Law School, it was (after 1922) the home of a girls' school called The Cumnock School[9] and then (1947-1976) of the Art Center College of Design before it moved to Pasadena.[10]--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick google search of the subject of the article nets a total of 19 results, none of which come from reliable sources; one google news search hit; and three google book search hits, none of which have the subject of this article being the primary subject of the book. If the article is to be Merged & Redirected, an appropriate article should be found. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school is usually called "Yavneh Hebrew Academy" and that search string produces about 57 GNews hits[11]; "Yeshivat Yavneh" turns up about 16 more GNews hits[12]. Those are not huge numbers and may not change your ultimate conclusion, but, in fairness, this school does get more coverage than is typical for a lower-grade school.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per our standard procedure for primary and middle schools. Notability is not inhertited. A school in the sense of the article is a place of learning. If the building is notable s a listed building, it can be mentioned but it does not add to the academic notability.Kudpung (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that there is an inherent notability for schools in WP policy. Right now I told my wife I'd do dishes so I'm not going to take the time to search for it. Yes, the article is crap and filled with ad-copy language but it needs to be improved, not deleted. Arxiloxos has given us some sources and as it has been around for while I'm sure we can create a better article than "Alumni think the school kicks ass". Joe407 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Jewish day school article which is very skimpy. Contract this article enough to create a one paragraph entry there. IZAK (talk) 06:15, 20 February 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. If a cover article appears and the content is needed, let me know so I can bring it back. Tone 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Awad Rashid Al Uwaydah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Apart from a single short paragraph on the website of Andy Worthington, not a single reliable secondary source has paid any attention to Uwaydah (he is mentioned twice in long lists of detainees, that's it). Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's subject has not been covered by reliable secondary sources, such as news organizations. The article relies instead on primary sources. Subject fails notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The sources are reliable to verify the material in the article. I continue to think that every identifiable Gitmo prisoner is and will remain notable, but from previous AfDs I rather doubt there is consensus on that, & I suggest a redirection to an appropriate list or combination article. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Bulk of sources are primary documents under WP:PRIMARY. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 16 February 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. Tone 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Stigel[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper spelling of name:

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

Delete Video game voice artist with no coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I note article claims credit for opening songs in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, but this song credit never made it to IMDB.[13] Another concern is that the article asserts that Stigel was the voice of major character "Luna" in the series when it was Rhonda Gibson in that role in the English version and Kyoko Hyojo in the Japanese.[14] HOWEVER the article does also assert her as the voice of Royce in that series... and it does seem that this and other credits are confirmable under the actual spelling of her name.[15] See also Moby Games.[16] So she is a real voice artist... just one with no sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 17 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Funke[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP article with completely unsourced negative information. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most English sources may mirror the unsourced bio here--so delete unless someone can come up with reliable sources confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be sourced as there is a degree of coverage. And he uses the Dagobert name on his website. John lilburne (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is not an issue; the German-language article has numerous reference which demonstrate this. It just needs some minor corrections, and the addition of either those references, or some English-language equivalents. I've added a reference from a major German newspaper for the basic facts. Warofdreams talk 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it needs some more sourcing adding to the article - I see Warofdreams has added a good one specifically about him - and if kept I think it should be moved to something like - Dagobert the department bomber. He appears to have been something of a folk hero in Germany. Another option is, if there is an article about such people somewhere the content might sit better as a section in an article than having its own. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd go thatta way as he seems to use the notoriety of criminal activity as promotional material for his current activities. So presumably one would want to make sure that WP isn't being used as a publicity source, so a general article on criminal folk heroes would be a better place. John lilburne (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with the above mentioned reasons. This is not a matter of notability. Its a matter of better sourcing and a bit of a rewrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly sourced article, but enough sources exist to demonstrate that he passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 15 February 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) Atmoz (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article full of WP:SYNTH and WP:Coatrack Tentontunic (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I lean towards delete per nom and because this is one of the worst articles I have yet seen here--badly sourced, fuzzy definitions and wording, skimpy and inadequate discussion which does not match the (bad) definition given, and the inclusion of Fox News is plain wrong. However, a potentially notable topic, and could likely be saved if someone wants to make the effort.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poor article, but dezinformatsiia is a valid encyclopedia-worthy topic. A very good history of this concrete thing could be written — it's a noun and it should have a page here. The article as it stands has very big problems... The entire "examples of" needs to get whacked because it's a magnet for POV trolling. Dezinformatsiia is a part of spycraft (used by both sides during the Cold War and still being used by big states today) and has nothing to do with the organized propaganda of Fox News, etc. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll see if I can put together a few hours to work on this. It's not really an area of expertise, but I 100% guarantee that this is a notable and encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - Lest there be any question about the notability of the concept, here's A LINK to a 1984 article in the Ultra-Official establishment foreign policy magazine Foreign Affairs entitled "Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy; New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation." The key to finding TONS of internet hits here is to Google-search the Russian word dezinformatsiia (dezinformatsia, dezinformatsiya). It's a measure of this article's badness that it doesn't mention the origin of the term in the lead. Again, it is a THING in the world of spycraft... Carrite (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - A co-author of the above article also published a book-length treatment of the subject; Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy (1984). ISBN: 0080315739 / 0-08-031573-9 A rewrite of the article will need to use this as an important source. It'll take me a day or two to track down a copy, it looks like I've sold my old copy off... Carrite (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Last comment today, I promise - I have blanked the POV-challenged section on News Corp, which only obfuscates the issue here. No, I am not a conservative sticking up for "my team" — quite the opposite. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is a notable one, with many books and scholarly articles devoted to it. A Google Book Search shows many books which can be used to improve the article: [17]. Google scholar shows many publications with coverage of the subject: [18]. More than a dictionary definition is possible and necessary. If the article needs editing, then it should be edited, not deleted. Edison (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a notable subject that deserves an article. It is sourced. Yes, it should be improved. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I was disappointed in the nature of the sourcing of the examples, the only reason I was there at all was because I wanted a good article on the subject. I'd especially like to see Carrite's version. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Carrite per - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some problems with the content - I expect any article with this title would be a magnet for problematic editing - but the concept itself is highly notable and there's no shortage of sources. bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously not a dictionary entry. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per voters above. Diego Grez (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source impeccably. Important subject, but one that's susceptible to opinion-pushing from both sides of any given dispute. DS (talk) 17:35, 21 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cowtown Computer Congress[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since September, 2009, I can find no significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this building. I am unsure of the reliability of Ink Magazine, but I assume good faith that it is reliable, but one RS doesn't cut it for me. ArcAngel (talk) ) 10:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable organization. Here's another reliable source, ~~but it's also a Kansas City publication. See the notability guideline for orgs, under "Audience". Attention from solely local media does not indicate notability.~~ --Pnm (talk) 20:46, 13 February 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, -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is not a local Kansas City publication any more than a Philadelphia paper would be local for New York City: St Louis and KC are two distinct (and quite large) metro areas. However, the mention in the cited source from St. Louis appears to be incidental. (2) The Cowtown Computer Congress does show up in other hacker-friendly media, such as the websites of Make[19] and NYC Resistor[20], but I am not sure if these mentions are substantial enough. (3) A hackerspace in a cave 85 feet below the surface of Kansas City is inherently interesting, but it's unclear if these are enough under WP:ORG and WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Brain fart. Thanks for pointing that out. (3) Apparently not interesting enough for anyone to write about, though. --Pnm (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really seeing anything here or in the article that suggests this passes our WP:ORG guidelines. Substantial coverage by reliable sources seems not to exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 15 February 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. Tone 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabbits (Farthing Wood)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough for an article. It really ought to be merged into The Animals of Farthing Wood (book series) Tentontunic (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Notability aside, the article is written entirely in an in-universe style and I'm not sure there exist enough secondary sources to construct an article in line with the manual of style. Feezo (Talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Animals of Farthing Wood characters. Looks like we already have a character list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per above, Sadads (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. We don't need to merge or redirect, because (1) there already is sufficient description at List of Animals of Farthing Wood characters, (2) the AfDed article consists only of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), and (3) the article title is an unlikely or unnecessary search term. The other character articles from this book should be handled the same way. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Sadads that there is no material worth merging, and as a redirect, the term is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is entirely WP:PLOT which is what Wikipedia is not. Nothing to WP:verify notability of The Rabbits in this work of fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:26, 21 February 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) 02:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital economics[edit]

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

Original research bordering on something made up one day. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiDan61, seems also to be a bit of an advertisement in first section. 123 Hedgehog 456 12:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-article, looks like someone's notes.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atrociously written and certainly not notable. AndrewvdBK (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not that I'm arguing for the retention of this article, but "atrociously written" is never a reason to delete an article. (See WP:ATD). Bad writing can be fixed, if the topic merits it. In this case, the topic does not appear to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Atrocious writing can be grounds for deletion when it gets to the point that no reasonable reader can be expected to make sense of it. This text comes very close to that; and worse, it is broken English vaporing about how we can all get rich on the Internet. It's like 1999 all over again: Main economic principle is growth gains. Do not misunderstand it as efficiency gains. Difference is between doing something every time better and doing different thing with better results. On big scale this is the most significant factor in economic growth. The cogwheels for economic growth are macro and micro economics. Meantime ITC has made more than 30 years. It is already playing a huge role in global economy, but yet it has no clear name. Everybody would agree that the Web we know today will change human habits forever. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:33, 15 February 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 PlanetSide#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetside Next[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is no question but that a sequel to Planetside would be notable, but at the moment all information that doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR is the fact that SOE have said that they are working on a sequel and have asked for input from the players. There is no title ("Planetside Next" is "kind of the working title" according to the source), and no release date (this source deduces a release date from a "casual mention" in a discussion forum). What real, sourced information there is, is also present in Planetside#Sequel (which also includes some of the synthesis) and I propose a redirect of this article to Planetside#Sequel for the time being. Once SOE releases more actual information, that could probably be used as foundation for an article. bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to section in the Planetside article. WP:HAMMER applies readily here, though to be fair the term is commonly tossed around in the gaming world and thus an appropriate search term. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem. Term exists and is known in the Planetside world because of its association with the user-survey run by the company that makes Planetside. It cannot yet be shown to be leading to anything tangible and in any case would be a working title rather than a confirmed title. MLA (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Masem again, WP:HAMMER applies. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I had previously created PlanetSide Next and PlanetSide 2 as redirects to PlanetSide#Sequel to avoid premature speculation, but as you can see this article's capitalization is inconsistent. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:13, 17 February 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. L Faraone 04:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beep!!/Sunshine Sunshine[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NSONGS, as songs have not been released, notability in the form of a chart position, a certification, awards, covers. As notability cannot be asserted at this point, the article violates WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, the article does not assert why it is notable in the the first place. --Prosperosity (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Prosperosity is incorrect that the article does not pass notability. I have provided 7 independent sources which mention the release (outside of those verifying that it exists) and discuss the notability of the two songs within Japan. It seems that there is a fatal flaw in WP:NSONGS that it explicitly forbids articles on verifiable future releases of singles (which are more like EPs in the Japanese music industry).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources just simply discuss that the songs exist, and how they are associated with a movie and a marketing campaign. None of them discuss the notability of the song in any way applicable to WP:NSONGS. --Prosperosity (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources (one Japanese, the other an English translation) do more than that. They describe how the artist feels about one of the songs (which is available in a particular format in the Japanese market) and other things that go beyond "hey, buy this CD in March". If the article passes WP:GNG, it sure as hell would pass WP:NSONGS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason WP:NSONGS exists, along with all the other notability guidelines; it has come to a general consensus that certain topics need to establish notability in a different way to a general article (or else these guidelines wouldn't exist).

That an artist has thoughts about her songs isn't a criterion for a song being notable, and the "other things" you mention are just tour dates and what's on the added DVD, or things that aren't to do with the release at all. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there's more background on the creation of one of the songs as well as its now clearly supported notability as it has been stated she will be performing it live and that performance will be broadcast live via FM radio.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I know that userfy is not a valid AfD comment, just move it to the userspace. This will be eligible for an article once better sources are provided and reviews are available. Keegan (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of excellent sources provided. The article is perfectly fine where it is in the article space and need not be removed from it for any reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 3 February 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, Bejinhan talks 09:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 15 February 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) 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi cola[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Internet search reveals very little. The official Facebook fan page has six followers, which might give an indication of the importance of this product. Schwede 66 09:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily a stub with hardly any third party references. – Novice7 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I hadn't realised that. The producer of this product is David Wright, according to this newspaper article. The user who created the WP article is Dlmwright. Schwede 66 01:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. I did find this story about the company, which mentions the product. But that's a far cry from what's needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Whpq. That source is the only one that shows up in an "all dates" Gnews search. I found one-line mentions of the product in four books from Gbooks, but nothing of any substance. It appears there are no reliable sources as yet. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, very little coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:40, 18 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsanullah (Guantanamo detainee 350)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. One article gives him three sentences and a photo. No other reliable secondary sources are available (e.g. the Andy Worthington source given doesn't even mention Ehsanullah). Google News Archives gives no results for Ehsanullah Guantanamo, even though there were two different detainees with the same name. The only Google books result may be about this Ehsanullah, or the other one, so it isn't really useful either. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a Detainee does not denote automatic notability. Subject is not covered by secondary sources, and fails notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The sources are reliable to verify the material in the article. I continue to think that every identifiable Gitmo prisoner is and will remain notable, but from previous AfDs I rather doubt there is consensus on that, & I suggest a redirection/merge to an appropriate list or combination article. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like most of these articles the subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under WP:GNG. Over course there is no reason why some of the information couldn't be included in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, but its not suitable for a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 3 secondary sources. But more importantly, keep per WP:PRIMARY A phrase that quotes a prosecutor as saying the accused killed the victim can be extracted from his cross-examination, given sufficiently OR or POV reporting; that is the sole reason that trial records are to be used with care. Not really that difficult to avoid, when it comes down to it. N and GNG have treated primary sources as though they were radioactive for far too long, PRIMARY itself shows little of that squeamishness. Primary sources such as government documents are the most reliable source of information on what the government bodies that created those reports said in them, and replicating their information is OR-proof in today's heavily patrolled WP editing environment. There is little chance of OR or POV entering the article through those reports, and zero chance of OR remaining in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually i count only 2 secondary sources but 2 or 3 does not really matter. The point is none of them provide enough information on the subject of this biography what would add up to "significant coverage". "Keep per WP:PRIMARY" You must be kidding. Primary sources do not count towards notability under WP:GNG. Are you talking about the OARDEC / JTF-GTMO documents when speaking about reliable and no problems with OR? You must be kidding again. These are the most unreliable primary sources on earth and nothing can be taken from them directly without OR. They are not courts document. Prosecutor? There is no court, no prosecutor no judge here. He has never been tried nor charged with anything. Bottom line OARDEC / JTF-GTMO documents are unreliable primary sources that do not count towards notability under WP:GNG and the few secondary sources do not add up to "Significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Yachtsman1, Anotherclown fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 05:50, 23 February 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV Patrol Tacloban[edit]

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

Non-notable show, with numerous spamlinks to facebook pages. Unsourced. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all articles of the regional versions of TV Patrol into a single article, and clean up. Probably ABS-CBN Regional News Network. As a local, I know these programs well and they are not 'shows' per se, but in most cases are the sole TV news providers in their respective areas (excluding Metro Manila). Each station covers a specific region (often several islands/provinces), so I'd think they were notable (they are themselves secondary sources, being news programs). I have also informed Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines as this falls within the scope of the wikiproject (I hope that's not canvassing heh).--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:TVSERIES. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - per reasoning given by Obsidi. Subject of article itself has not established independent notability as stated in WP:TVSERIES. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howard. The fact that this is also the only regional newscast not only in Tacloban City, but in the entire Eastern Visayas region, should assuage some form of notability among the nearly four million people who live in the region, and if I were to use Obsidian Soul's reasoning, keeping the articles as they are seem to be more appropriate rather than merging all of them into a single article. Notability here ought to be independent of reliable sources, especially since in the Philippines, reliable sources can be hard to find, and if Facebook links are a problem, then we can easily clean them up. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howard and Sky Harbor. Per WP:TVSERIES, the news program's main point of notability is it is the main news program (if not the only news program) in television delivered in Waray-Waray language. Although I support the creation of the article ABS-CBN Regional News Network. --Bluemask (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean ABS-CBN Regional Network Group, which redirects to List of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation channels and stations. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howard and Sky Harbor. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Per other comments stipulated above. --TitanOne (talk) 06:27, 18 February 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) 02:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 (rapper)[edit]

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

Seems like the notability of this person is disputed. It looks like there are published sources which meet the notability guideline, and yet there is evidence to show why he is famous as mentioned in the lead section. The problem is, none of his singles have hit any charts yet, which means the person doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Minima c (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC, only finding trivial coverage largely in unrelated blogs, zero evidence of charting, all releases appear to have been independent. Might be noteable one day but that day is not today.--RadioFan (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet criteria at WP:NM. Passionless -Talk 08:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 15 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 2006[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums: demos are generally non-notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete demo recordings generally aren't notable even if the artist is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 14 February 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, -- Lear's Fool 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of any coverage by reliable sources. Can't see any way that this meets WP:NALBUMS. Katherine (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 February 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) 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Forward Optimization[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK, original research, non-reliable sources, not verifiable, not neutral, inappropriate tone, novel synthesis, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neologism Chzz ► 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and possibly rename as walk forward analysis. For some reason, the editor has started somewhere deep in the details rather than at a higher level topic of which this is a part. This encyclopedia on trading strategies discusses this very topic. This technical analysis book also covers the topic. This book shows that the optimisation is part of an overall walk-forward simulation. It's also covered in this book. I'll stop here, but there are more book results. The article has a lot of problems, including being completely opaque to somebody not already familiar with the subject matter. However, that is an issue of editting and not of deletion. -- Whpq 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks for your guidance, shall look into the matter. Please give a week or so, please.. Moreover, if it is possible to move it back to my own userspace to make it a better article before going live.. please do so.. Sincere thanks and apologies once more.. Ruthiecameryn (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a topic is notable, it's my own personal belief that leaving it in the main article space rather than hiding it in userspace is the way to go. Multiple editors all working together to create and improve articles is the way a wiki operates. If it is hidden in userspace, only the one editor will know about it and be working on it. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would appear to be verifiably a notable term of art for something. This is barely English, but it is a start towards something. Normalize the case of the title if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks for the guidance, including the links etc.. I agree with you all and welcome your changes and reviews also as the main aim is to educate the public.. If keeping the page public helps in making it useful and valuable to the public, I fully support it. :) Three Cheers! Am making notes and trying to see how to make it a better article. Please continue to guide me, and let me know as to how to change the title if that is more appropriate? Thanks :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify as to where to ask for queries or help regarding sources, notes, etc. as per the template notices? Should the queries be put here or on the Talk:Walk Forward Optimization? --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Yes. -- Whpq (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic without refs, plenty on google. Regular editing fixes the style problems. Szzuk (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topic may merit an article, no comment on that, but this article? This one seems to even conclude with an advertisement of a specific piece of software. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Any advertising can be editted out. It doesn't require deletion of the entire article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 14 February 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, m.o.p 05:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is some consensus here, but nobody has addressed the nominator's concerns as thoroughly as I'd like. Relisting for that purpose. m.o.p 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay. I will go through in much more detail.

WP:COATRACK: I don't see how this article is a coatrack. The article does ramble, and could use a heavy does of trimming, but it isn't being used as a means for advancing biased opinions.
WP:OR: The book sources I provided clearly show that third party indepedent sources discuss this topic. This isn't a topic that has been dreamed up by the article's creator.
WP:RS: The fact that the article has non-reliable sources does not invalidate the fact that reliable sources do exist and can be used to replace the unreliable ones.
WP:V: Clearly related to reliable sources, so the fact that they do exist regardless of whether they are currently in the article establishes that we can have a verifiable article.
WP:NPOV: Being non-neutral is treated by deletion in only the most egregious irredeemable cases. This may have some hyperbole such as "Think of it as an ‘out-of-sample’ testing on steroids.", but there is nothing that cannot be fixed by editting.
WP:TONE: The article is written as an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and has issues with phrasing as mentioned in the point before. Again, this is fixed by editting and not deletion.
WP:SYNTH: I am assuming this refers to the conclusion section and similar elements of the article. It's not synthesis if these supported by reliable sources, and the fact that material is gathered in a conclusion section is a result of the essay style in which the article is written. This can be treated by editting, and the use of reliable sources already shown to exist.
WP:DIC: Honestly, I don't know why this is in the nomination. This is clearly not just a dictionary definition.
WP:NEO: This is not a neologism, as the book sources show, this is a term of art in the the financial field, and there is a body of literature behind it.

I believe that covers all of the reasons stated in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject which is tagged as needing expert attention. Needs to be improved, not deleted. FWIW, I added the books mentioned above to references. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:02, 22 February 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, unambiguous advertising (and breathless patent nonsense to boot). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expert sourcing[edit]

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

fails WP:OR and WP:NOT#MANUAL. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Another "how to" Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tbhotch, also appears to be a non notable concept. That's without mentioning the spam links to innovaglobal. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant COI as the author mentions himself and his company's website, which also makes it a G11 candidate. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:12, 15 February 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) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of the Bad Girls Club[edit]

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

Essentially a fan page consisting of original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a webspace provider. RadioFan (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar information is already included at List of The Bad Girls Club episodes, List of The Bad Girls Club episodes (season 1), List of The Bad Girls Club episodes (season 2) etc. Note, too, that a page at this title was previously deleted with the rationale "non-standard name with no sign of consensus". (Apparently the article was moved from List of... to Duration... and had to be moved back.) Cnilep (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the name Duration is an aspect of the thing, not a distinct topic. Otherwise we should have a "Duration of..." article to go along with every WP article. Delete the article since it is too much information for an encyclopedia and of interest only to people who are already fans of the show. "WP is not a directory" also applies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. AJona1992 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police ranks of the United States[edit]

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

Purely speculative and theoretical. There is no unified rank structure to police in the United States; each agency has its own, independently decided ranks. Commonalties in rank names is not enough for a full article. Also completely unsourced, though even if they were, it would constitute WP:SYNTH oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Police#Personnel_and_organization. Sources are, of course, available such as The Police Organization. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Lack of sources doesn't mean they are unavailable and, indeed, they clearly are. Just because the rank structure is not unified does not mean there cannot be a valid article about similarities and differences (especially when there are so many similarities). Finally, it doesn't have to be WP:SYNTH if it is possible (as it may well be) to find sources that discuss the similarities and differences accross different agencies. IMHO, this article is improvable to a standard where it will be kept and, if it isn't, I will assist in merging it somewhere else.--Korruski^Talk 11:09, 1 February 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) 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article needs more sources and that individual police organizations define their own ranks structure but there is no reason why we can't have them all in one list. At least until it gets so big we need to split it. I think the information in general thuogh adds value beyond what would be seen in a merger. --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, an attempt to "have them all in one list" would be, in my view, inherently too large, at which point the place to split the info to would be the individual department articles. Which is where the info already is located. In short, a laundry list article is questionable at best. oknazevad (talk) 02:00, 8 February 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, T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though they may all be different, there are themes and patterns and many smaller communities follow the same pattern. It could be improved certainly but that's not an AFD matter. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And writing about those patterns without sources explicitly discussing them is SYNTH. Really, there any commonality is just typical of Anglo-American military ranks. but even that statement is OR. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that SOME WP:RS exists that will state that pattern, because it's a fairly obvious one... I'll look. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has some value and with some more sources and info it could be a decent article. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:31, 16 February 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. Poorly sourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Pineda[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced/self-referenced promotional article on a reality TV "personality", with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced BLP about a subject that apparently fails WP:N, article not conform to the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. I was only able to find trivial sources. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 07:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 February 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. Tone 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural New Beginnings[edit]

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

Contested prod. A non-notable unpublished book. E. Fokker (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah I was just going to AfD this myself. Self-published book with no assertion of notability. Only ref I can find online is the Lulu page. Searching for the ISBN doesn't even give any results besides this article. I wish this author the best of luck, but Wikipedia isn't the place to plug your book. Zachlipton (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unpublished future release date. Not Crystal Ball, would be willing to re-entertain when published and notability established. Enfcer (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Enfcer. If published AND notability is established (book reviews, sales) then, sure, this might have an article. Not enough to establish any notability at this point though. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unpublished book, article probably self-promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 15 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Muhsin al-Libi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and BLP. Negative BLP purely based on primary sources. IQinn (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable. V7-sport (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V7-sport it is absolute clear from your recent edits that you are WP:WIKIHOUNDING since we are in an dispute over an unrelated issue. That together with a long list of uncivil behavior and extensive edit warring is disruptive and enough reason you might get blocked as you have been warned already multiple times for most of this.

Note for the closing administrator. V7-sport is obviously Wikihounding but the even more compelling reason to discount his !vote is that he does not provide any compelling argument other that stating his !vote. In fact he does not provide any argument or any other constructive comment that could help us to find out if this article here should be deleted. IQinn (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)*[reply]

I agree with you that V7's bare statement needs to be supported, but, since he seems genuinely interested in topics such as this, topics in which you are interested also, I do not see how it amounts to wikihounding, but rather a persistent conflict. That's regrettable, but not wikihounding. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely interest is fine but looking at the long string of edits over numerous articles in a short time just after we had an conflict there is no doubt that he is wikihounding. Anyway he is of course welcome to come back and help us with Afd here but you know in his current form his !vote is invalid. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has not been covered by secondary sources, such as newspapers, books and other print media. Only source conferring notability are State Department, or pimary source, reports. Subject fails notability, and this is not even a very close call.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very google news link in the nomination leads to several sources, including USA today [21] and BBC [22]. Tbhey just need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non of the links you provide adds up to "Significant coverage" what is needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. The primary sources do also not count towards notability under WP:GNG. Do you have further sources? IQinn (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite a number of passing mentions the subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such it is not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like he has only received passing coverage in independent sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone even sure whether this guy is Pakistani? His name is Arabic and definitely does not sound Pakistani. Mar4d (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I can't fully evaluate the sources provided by google news as they are behind paywalls but they appear to be about the US freezing the assets of several terrorist groups with the subject being mentioned only in passing. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 23 February 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 - A7 by user:RHaworth (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Firefighters Association[edit]

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

Short-lived, defunct, non-notable organisation Sitush (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the firefighters seemed not to think much of it - SFFA home page (official site linked in article is now dead): [23] --Sitush (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No independent sources are cited in the article, and the organization does not appear to be notable. The lack of sources plus the lapsing of the official site make it almost impossible to verify anything in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per A7 (tagged). Also advertising and COI. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 21:01, 15 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owl City concert tours[edit]

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

I don't see how any of these tours are independently notable, or how the compilation of them is notable. And of course, they are nothing but a list of shows, which falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete here. A list of live performances is no less encyclopedic than a discography. WP:NOTDIR has no relevance here.--Michig (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, you know I value your opinion and your experience. In my opinion, however, there is quite a difference: a discography consists of elements that are typically independently notable (even if only by virtue of being released by a notable artist), and that does not apply to concerts. There are a few sources I found that actually say something about these tours--[24] and [25], and the latter contains a list of dates, but those are planned dates, drawn up beforehand and no doubt copied from Ticketmaster. It may well be that the subject, the actual tour, can be argued to be notable, but does that extend to the content, which is nothing but a list? And does this not suggest that every date played by every single notable band can be included? Group discussion! ;) Drmies (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As long as the artist is notable and the information is verifiable (which is difficult for many artists), I don't see a problem personally. I know some people will see this as too much detail for an encyclopedia, but we have similar articles/lists for other artists here, and similar lists have previously been kept at AFD. Owl City is probably a big enough act that many of these performances will have generated reviews/previews, e.g. [26], [27], [28].--Michig (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what, I'm going to accept this and withdraw the nomination. I am probably one of those "some people" you refer to, but such a discussion should be held in a different forum. Any passing admin, please close this--or maybe someone would like to practice NAC? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 15 February 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Comments

As this is going to be controversial, I thought I would give a more detailed explanation of my reasoning than I would usually do!

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has commented here. Your opinions (including the responses to other people's comments) were invaluable. This is the strength of the AfD process - it allows discussion to take place, and a truly community-based decision to be made. So thank you everyone who took part.

Secondly, I have left Safiel in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies.

Thirdly, some of the arguments presented I judged as having less weight than others:

Arguments presented by editors/IPs with few or no edits outside of the article and the AfD, although this only accounted for 8% of the total number of contributors
"Per other people's arguments" with no argument of their own
"Other people do/do not have an article"
"If we delete this, we would have to reconsider other articles"
Personal attacks against editors
No reasoning given (i.e. a simple "Keep" and signature)
"People will be looking for this article following the coverage"
"Change to event article" - not for the reasoning as such, but as there was only one person who suggested this, so it is nowhere near consensus!

I did not discount them completely, but I felt that they were lesser arguments than others that were presented.

Now on to the actual reason for my judging the consensus as delete...

If this were a straight vote, then it would be numerically 25 deletes - 24 keeps - 1 other. If I ignored the "less weight" arguments discussed above, it would numerically be 23 deletes - 16 keeps.

However, AfD is not a numerical vote - it is the arguments which are important, and so I had to look at the main issues here.

Obviously, the main argument here is: "Is this a One Event item or not".

Almost all of the "deletes" say that it is (and/or that the event is the notable thing, not the person).

The arguments for "keeps" are basically saying that she was notable before this event as a result of the Emmy nominations and her career. (Incidentally, the fact that she works for a major CBS affiliate does not, in and of itself, make her notable). The arguments against this is that the nominations are for regional Emmys not national ones (which do not give the same level of notability) and that the coverage of her career prior to the event is minimal.

My feeling is that the arguments for keeping the article do not quite counter ONEEVENT. Whether the event itself deserves an article is a discussion for other places. As such I am closing this as a delete consensus.

I appreciate that however I had closed this AfD (delete, keep, no consensus) then it would be controversial! I trust that this fuller-than-usual explanation of the thoughts behind my decision will be beneficial to all contributors.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Branson[edit]

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

~~Article was hastily added after incorrect reporting of an on air incident. Proposing for deletion as a non notable reporter.~~ Safiel (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ ~~Also, the Frank Shakespeare award she won is in itself non notable and not sufficient to establish her notability.~~ Safiel (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the original nominator, there clearly will be no consensus on this and I think we can go ahead and close as no consensus. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a just a local reporting flubbing about 10 seconds of speech, which is pretty minor. --Rob (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A WP:ONEVENT minor case of Paraphasia resulting from migraine. ttonyb (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She may well be non-notable under the applicable Wikipedia standards, but in fairness, it should be noted that last night's incident has been reported in hundreds of reliable sources, nationally and internationally, in addition to hundreds of unsavory gossip sites.[29] She has been around as a reporter for quite a while and might have a scintilla of notability apart from last night's scare.[30] However, I haven't been able to track down independent confirmation of the Emmy nominations mentioned at her station bio, and it appears to me that the "Frank Shakespeare Award" mentioned there is a student award given by the Institute on Political Journalism of the Fund for American Studies[31], and thus probably not anything that conveys notability. WP:BLP1E and some level of discretion here may suggest that deletion is the best course.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we get 3rd party verification of the emmy nom, it probably wouldn't show notability, since it's probably a regional emmy, given for local news coverage. --Rob (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete There is no basis for deleting this article. Case in point: Caitlin Upton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.220.252 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — 79.102.220.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. See WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Don't you just love the way that Safiel determines that this beautiful reporter's prize is "not notable". And what have you won, Safiel? What national prizes have you won, you lazy armchair prat? This is a classic example of the talentless morons who dictate their biased and unfair views on Wikipedia. If you weren't posting on Wikipedia and if the internet didn't exist, you would never even have a platform to voice your worthless rubbish. No one would listen to your rubbish; just another smelly college student getting ready to join a workforce of sheep. Serene Branson is a beautiful young lady who has achieved a wonderful prize and deserves to be recognized for that honor. She also has a wonderful career in front of her, despite you nasty talentless male pigs wishing her ill. FACT: None of YOU could win the Frank Shakespeare award. Deleting her article is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia that Jimbo Wales professes to encourage while asking the public with his begging bowl to donate money. Please do NOT delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnessprevails (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Fairnessprevails (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Fairnessprevails, It does not matter that you are new to Wikipedia, such comments are not only not appreciated, but they are not acceptable in any form. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you realize this is a community of volunteers and understand you are welcome to disagree, but not become disagreeable. Please read WP:UNCIVIL before you continue contributing to Wikipedia. I will make sure you have been left a Welcome message on your talk page that contains a number of useful links. ttonyb (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ttonyb your play on words, witty as it may be, does not help your case. Fairnessprevails is entitled defend his/her standpoint in this matter. If you find this disagreeable then I recommend you disregard Fairnessprevails comment. Others may find it completely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.220.252 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My comments were not intended to defend my stand on the article, only to point out to Fairnessprevails lack of civility is not appreciated nor acceptable on Wikipedia. If you think it is, then I suggest you also read WP:UNCIVIL. Fairnessprevails is more than entitled to defend his/her stand; however, not in a manner that is offensive or WP:UNCIVIL. ttonyb (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This personal attack by Fairnessprevails against myself appears to be the only edit by this editor. Moreover, he takes a swipe at Mr. Wales. Since he apparently has plenty of rope and seems to be intent on hanging himself, I won't say anything more about it. Safiel (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She had some claim of notability before the vocal flubadub, since there had been multiple news coverage about her, not merely by her. See the pre-flub Google News Archive results for 2005-2010:[32]. See in particular a 2007 newspaper article about her, ~~"Serene Branson who had been freelancing in the area will be a reporter ..."~~ and "Serene Branson Channel 13's crime reporter made a name for herself during last November's sweeps when she had an exclusive interview with released pedophile ... " , behind paywall, also appear to have significant coverage of her before the episode. Being in the news worldwide does not remove modest notability which previously existed. Edison (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of that confers notability, just standard blurbs on a minor reporter. Oh, she left one job for another? Woo hoo....local, trivial coverage. Stop trying to squeeze notability out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N requires only multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is satisfied. An entire article is not trivial coverage.Edison (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your claim is simply fraudulent. What we have are two small articles from the same local (sacbee.com) source. That does not even remotely satisfy "multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". Tarc (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your claim of fraud is an unwarranted personal attack, and shows how desperate you are to "win." Edison (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not desperate to "win", are you desperate to keep every article you come across? I am interested in exposing bad arguments, especially those that appear to be intentionally deceptive. Two examples of local news does not magically equal "significant coverage", and more than 2 plus 2 can equal 5. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In my last 20 AFD !votes, I see 7 "Keeps" and 13 "Deletes," clearly the index of a rabid Inclusionist, who is "intentionally deceptive" by including links to newspaper articles, rather than ranting. Edison (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our policy on biographies of living people who are known only for a single event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As shown above, she had multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources before the recent worldwide news coverage. Edison (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As shown above, this claim is rebutted. Easily. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then please do so rather than posting empty bluster. Edison (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is going to be the new task I appoint myself; every time I see some witless, TMZ-ish OHMYGOD news-of-the-day about some previously unknown person suddenly getting drive-byed by the 24/7 news media, I will come here. I will then search for this person, crossing my fingers and hoping against hope that it will be a redlink. Today, disappointment sets in. She is being mentioned only for this WP:ONEEVENT, an on-air screw-up or seizure or whatever they think it is, it will be in youtube's archives forever more and that will be the end of it. A smattering of local dribble trawled out of a google search does not rescue this person form obscurity; absent this event, we would not be talking about her all. There are thousands of reporters in thousands of communities who have no doubt received the same "Person X is leaving local outlet Y to take a job at local outlet Z" write-ups. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if you "DONTLIKE" articles about someone who has minor notability, followed by worldwide coverage due to some Youtube-esque episode, please do not descend to the tactic of denigrating significant coverage in reliable and independent sources as a "smattering of local dribble," when the nature and quality of coverage is better than that of countless localities, politicians, high schools, and professional athletes who had a moment in the sun. Edison (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're using a OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to justify the existence of this article? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS essay, and did not say "Crummy article X exists, so this one should stay." Rather I noted that this article has at least a couple of in depth cases of coverage of the person, prior to the recent widespread publicity, and that prior to the recent newsevent she had a small claim to notability, along with the fact that this bio article has better reliable sourcing than thousands of article found in AFDs about the classes of article subjects I mentioned. Please do not clutter the debate by strawman arguments in which you put words in someone else's mouth. Edison (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - The coverage is significant, sober, and serious - full articles in very respectable publications. Per Edison I think the question is whether a person with minor (which would imply keeping) or no (which would imply deleting or refocusing) notability, caught up a single news event, merits an article. That's a persistent issue. Whereas the problem is sometimes that the event itself is so trivial that no major reliable sources cover it, in other cases like this one the event itself is notable (or would be but for WP:NOT#NEWS concerns. Anyway, don't mind Tarc's colorful language. He/she is a good editor, just opinionated. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Putting the blinders on regarding the latest incident, she may be notable for other things, but the sources in the article do not establish that. Bylines, author blurbs and bios from the publisher, and passing mentions don't really add up to much. What we would need are profiles about her, or pieces in which she is the subject, or having won some major awards (two Emmy nominations might cut it, but I'm not sure). News reporters are always difficult to assess for notability, because as professionals the notability is in their work and how influential and widely viewed it is, like authors. But unlike authors, who seek publicity, news reporters usually try to duck publicity and don't write about each other, because they want to keep the story on the news, not themselves. As a local news reporter, I think she would only be notable for her work if it is particularly significant, influential, prominent, etc. Finally, the BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS concerns apply to the on-air event. However, Internet memes, and memorable events with lasting resonance, are certainly encyclopedic subjects. It remains to be seen whether this is such an event but it may well be. If major sources are still writing about this a month from now (and I'll bet they will be), then the event is notable and should be covered as such. That would imply renaming and refocusing this to be about the event, not about her. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. Just not notable enough to merit an article, without the incident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - borderline notable at best, but frankly we have 100s if not 1000s of TV news reporter articles like this and nobody cares a whit about them. At least (as we all know how the !votes are going to go), don't delete until the 7 day AfD period is over.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have !voted "weak delete", but I certainly agree with Milowent that this AfD should run the full 7 days; by then we may have a better idea of whether this is going to gain traction that would make notability more apparent.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.80.140 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If her entry is deleted, then all kinds of entries for local TV personalities will have to be called into question. If the Grammy flub turns out to be nothing, then it should probably eventually be removed from her article. I would like to point out, however, that the "Hoobert Heever" flub occupies an entire paragraph high in the article for Harry Von Zell.Bellczar (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. It could very well be they should not exist on Wikipedia. Also, I would venture to say that Harry Von Zell was much more notable than Ms. Branson and was notable for a quite a few more things beyond his "Hoobert Heever" flub. ttonyb (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous arguments. --DHeyward (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it until we know all the details about what really happened. Then if it turns out it was her just flubbing her words, then delete it of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.113.121 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 February 2011

Comment – What difference would the reason for the Paraphasia make? ttonyb (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ms. Branson has received a high level of media attention and sparked discussions on the symptoms of a stroke. -- Evans1982 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – She is not the focus of the media attention. The event is the focus. ttonyb (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to event article. If this article stays at all, it should be changed to an event. My opinion is that viral youtube videos, their re-mixes and any spawned internet memes are notable in their own right. Only time will tell if this person rises to notability because of the incident, but until that point this should be a page describing the event and the buzz it caused. Not an article about the person. --Lansey (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We really can't count youtube and other viral video creations as assertions of notability though, those are user-generated/submitted things. Notability is established by reliable sources, and in cases where youtube, etc...personalities have become worthy of Wikpedia articles, it is due to them being covered by those other sources. EVEN RS coverage isn't enough for an article, as in this case it is only a WP:ONEEVENT single 15 minutes of fame. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NYTimes has already run an article on Ms. Branson's possible stoke http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/did-a-reporter-have-a-stroke-on-tv/ and the teaching possibilities of this because of it's rarely being caught on video and her young age. People will be looking for a Wikipedia article. Karen Anne (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I pretty much agree with Tarc. If it wasn't for the recent event she would not be notable. The earlier coverage is neither substantial nor widespread, being typical local coverage of TV reporters. This would not have passed WP:GNG before, which makes this recent incident fit squarely into WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. If the only grounds for notability are the recent incident, WP:BLP1E applies. Looking at the earlier coverage, she's had some attention from reliable sources, but all pretty minor and cursory; not enough to pass the notability test, I think. The question to ask in these cases is 'if it hadn't been for the recent event, would we have had an article on the person?' and in this case I have to answer 'no'. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, there's nothing 'weak' about it, just plain delete. This is a BLP1E, and a somewhat negative one at that; there are no grounds for keeping it. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I watch KCAL/KCBS on a daily basis, and she is one of their lesser used reporters. Check out KCBS-TV and KCAL-TV; the only general reporter with an article besides Branson is Lisa Sigell, and that's because she's a former KCBS morning news anchor. The rest who have articles are anchors, weather, and sports; general news reporters are not-notable. Many of the keep votes so far put her into WP:SingleEvent. Other keep votes try to argue there's lots of reporters with articles, but the list at KCBS-TV and KCAL-TV refute that. Unless she becomes a national network reporter, she isn't notable; local reporters are generally not notable. OCNative (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OtherStuffExists, which shows as an invalid argument, "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: swayed by arguments by other editors. Delete.Only notable for one event. ' Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She is a reporter at a major network-affiliated station in a major U.S. media market; there are dozens of Wikipedia articles on persons at a comparable level of notability. Obviously, the article needs to be developed beyond the story of this one incident and needs relavent facts from verifiable third party sources like DOB and more career info, but most articles are not born full-grown. Why not leave it for a while and see what develops; if in a few weeks or months there is little of merit beyond this incident in the article, then RFD would be completely in order. 75.216.40.75 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "dozens of Wikipedia articles on persons at a comparable level of notability", can you show where? If there are, perhaps these need to be evaluated for notability concerns as well, but going by KCBS-TV#Current on-air staff, only one other reporter has an article, and she actually won a real Emmy plus 2 regional ones. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Non-event Medical Problem of Serene Branson, then delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage above from before 1E isn't significant enough to satisfy WP:N.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The Emmy nominations put it up over WP:ONEEVENT in my opinion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you still feel that way if it is a regional Eemmy, given for local work. --Rob (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a Regional Emmy, not a national Emmy. http://www.emmys.tv/search/node/Serene%20Branson and http://www.emmys.tv/2009/61st-los-angeles-area-emmy%C2%AE-awards-nominations OCNative (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Two nominations for the same piece, one that resulted in a win, in the Los Angeles Area Emmy awards. This is interesting, but probably not the type of significant award or honor that WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are getting at. --Crunch (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying the emmys are an ideal indicator of notability, but I think that she'd achieved some notability for those emmys prior to the event which spurred the creation of this article. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think in this case, one plus one equals two, with two being notability. I'm also not going to be upset if this article is deleted. While I think it should be kept, the consensus may go the other way, and that's fine with me. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, even discounting the notability of the featured individual the WP:ONEEVENT justification is enough. Besides this, millions of people will be looking for information on the event from Wikipedia, this is, afterall, it's purpose. Stevezimmy (talk)
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. NOT a newspaper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — textbook example of WP:BLP1E. *** Crotalus *** 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wildly trivial single event.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Notable event, non notable person up until now Airplanegod (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable other than for the single garbled on-air appearance. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. --Crunch (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep According to this article on MSN, she had been nominated for two Emmy Awards, which may make her a bit notable, but, that's the only source I've found. WereWolf (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that that Regional Emmy, or maybe the Regional Student Emmy given to high school students? If it was a national Emmy, and she actually won, that would be notable. --Rob (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a Regional Emmy, not a national Emmy. http://www.emmys.tv/search/node/Serene%20Branson and http://www.emmys.tv/2009/61st-los-angeles-area-emmy%C2%AE-awards-nominations OCNative (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her own station has identified the medical event: she suffered a migraine, yes a migraine. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/serene-branson-talks-about-her-live-medical-emergency/ Is she notable for suffering a migraine?! OCNative (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: On the one hand this event has spread through Youtube virally and has even spawned "remixes" and such. Birtation or Bird-tation might even become a meme. However I think this may die down, or it may stick around in reporting, but if attention were to die down lets leave the meme sites to report on this and lets not turn Wikipedia into a lulz-free version of Encyclopediadramatica. 174.55.2.138 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because the article was "hastily" put together and there was "incorrect reporting of an on air incident" does not diminish her notability. I think this AfD was "hastily" made without due consideration of that. The article is sourced. She has been nominated for and received notable awards. The article needs some expansion, and the information about the on-air incident needs some trimming, but otherwise it is an acceptable artcile. Cresix (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article seems decent and has multiple independent sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her article would have gone unnoticed if it was written about her after the local Emmy wins. Plus, this incident is notable in the context in an anthropological sense, of how the internet can exploit someone's (at that point presumed) medical issue; someone researching the history of the Internet and culture and general, as of 2100, will likely find this (and other examples) to be interesting, valuable case studies. It's planning ahead, essentially. Also, we're the second result for Serene, it's important to that our slightly more rounded portrait be featured in search results, instead of misinformation. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were this just a viral video, she wouldn't be notable, but the level of continuing, substantive RS coverage is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Local Emmy is not enough for notability; she's just a news reporter who suddenly went viral because of one incident, and the incident itself is fiarly minor. The RS coverage only talks about the incident in question, not about Branson as a person herself. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Discussion above shows that there were two events, (1) the video of the event, and (2) the misreporting regarding a stroke. Therefore the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall. Also not mentioned is that KCBS is not an affiliate but one of the core TV stations that defines CBS as a "network" (see ref and CBS Television Stations). Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Afd/merge discussions while event is current. ‎ Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom and, as above the event is the focus, not the journalist. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for a few reasons. I understand the policies that others are referencing, but my concern is that some of this Delete-backlash may be coming from people disgusted with the sensationalist media circus surrounding this one event. This would be a completely different discussion if it were a random person caught on camera in the midst of a medical event, even if the news had picked it up and ran with it (because of WP:BLP1E), but that isn't the case. She is a reporter who has done other things and gained at least some notability during her career. I genuinely believe that the WP:N guidelines were not made with this kind of person/article in mind. I'm not seeing the harm in keeping the article and improving on it. Sure, this event is the focus now (it just happened after all) but with a few improvements the article would stand on its own. Also, it's almost certain, as a relatively young reporter, that she will be doing more things. I'm not using a crystal ball, I'm just thinking that unequivocal hammering home of the "rules" can sometimes cause people to completely miss the spirit of them. Maybe it's just me though. Personally, I don't have a TV, saw this reporter's name and wanted to read about her, bringing me to Wikipedia. Isn't that what we're for? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the same reasons given by Vendetta above. --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coincidence of a significant neurological event being widely televised with Ms. Branson's already extant fame merits a keep. Users will want to find this. --Chaler (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reporter was interviewed tonight on ABC Evening News; and Entertainment Tonight (ET), also on ABC, had two segments with an interview. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still WP:BLP1E, even if the 1E is still generating echoes. I will say that this AfD has generated some of the most imaginative "keep" rationales I've ever seen. PhGustaf (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the incident did get some major headlines, the fact that she does have some award (nominations) does contribute to her credibility. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability outside of the single incident.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the notability that doesn't exist? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already discussed above, her nominations for the Emmy awards count as something, as are her other awards. The article is about her, not the Grammy Awards incident. See Vendetta's reasoning above. I'm completely neutral about the topic, and I don't care either way, but that is my opinion.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was surprised (but sadly, not shocked --I'm never shocked by Wikipedia anymore) to see someone had placed a delete tag on this article. In addition to the nominations, she's an established reporter for one of CBS's biggest affiliates (LA and NYC are the top, for crying out loud). --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in WP:CREATIVE even hints at your argument that "you're a reporter for a huge organization, therefore you're notable and deserve a Wikipedia article." hbdragon88 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable here. This article is merely a news story, and a minor one at that. In a short time no one is going to look at it. I have no doubt that there are numerous WP articles of the same level of notability, but that is no reason to keep another. Busaccsb (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A non-notable reporter who is sadly receiving a ton of coverage for an unfortunate one event she was the focus of. Also remember, working for a big company is not a reason for notability, as described in Wikipedia:INHERITED.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles article states, "...Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside combined statistical area, which contains nearly 17.8 million people and center of the largest urban area in California. This makes it the 12th most populous metropolitan area in the world." So as non-notable people go she is highly notable before being interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC Evening News. Additionally, I assume that there is a complete video library of her KCBS news reports that amounts to a large body of primary source material, and I think such a library makes any local reporter of a well-organized TV station a strong candidate for recognition as having enduring historical interest. Unscintillating (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No one disputes the LA news market is large; however, being seen by a lot of people does not make one notable. Neither is popularity part of the equation that defines Wikipedia based notability. The large amount of video material that is comprised of her KCBS reports is not a primary source that supports her, but rather they are primary support for the events she was covering. Being part of a "well-organized TV station" is not one of the criteria in WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. Additionally, because notability is not inherited, neither is being part of or associated with something. ttonyb (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree in part with that. The notability guideline isn't terribly well defined for journalists, but along with others who are known more for their body of work than for their own personal exploits, journalists' notability is derived at least in part for the influence of their reportage. With authors, mere appearance on a best seller list is enough to establish notability. Secondary sources are few and far between. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diehard Deletionists should create WP:ONEVENTPLUSACOUPLEOFEARLIERINDEPENDENTANDRELIABLESOURCESWITHSIGNIFICANTCOVERAGE to back their desire to delete a case like this where someone had a bare claim to notability before they were in the news worldwide for several news cycles, like Chesley Sullenberger, who had a only similar small claim to notability (coauthored 2 paper, spoke as "safety expert") before making a fine emergency landing of a plane and getting news coverage. Edison (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't have a "bare claim to notability" before this event, though; she had no claim. A handful of editors are engaging in a form of revisionist history, trawling through weak, years-old name-droppings to try to build this person up to be more than she actually is. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspaper articles (far more than "name-droppings") and the local Emmy nomination are a weak claim, but hardly "no claim" unless WP:BIO has been revised to raise the bar. In previous cases, others of slight notability have avoided the WP:BLP1E argument by similar earlier coverage. The fact that the earlier coveerage is "years old" is absolutely not an argument for deletion when such a person gets widespread newscoverage later. Notability is not temporary, and coverage from years ago is fine. Edison (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it should be discounted because it is "years old", so please, keep the servings of red herring to yourself. It should be discounted because it is trivial and routine. Absent this brief episode of on-air confusion, aphasia, or whatever it was, no one would be digging up in long-forgotten news blurbs or crowing over non-notable regional Emmys for a regional news reporter. This article is a shining example of inclusionism run amokTarc (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, but whatever closure happens it's going to get DRVed. This is one of those things. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about the DRV, and this discussion was started before anyone could make an informed decision. Please see this proposal. Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there is clearly no consensus either way, and there clearly won't be a consensus, I think we can safely close this as no consensus. Safiel (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BS. No consensus findings are a weak cop-out, it's like basketball refs handing out double-technical because they don't ant to take the time or make an effort to see who the instigator was. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, discard the junk that falls back on rote arguments to avoid, and make a call Tarc (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I nominated this, I really didn't see that much controversy with it. But I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and if people are hell bent on keeping it, I don't feel compelled to push the matter any farther. If somebody else does, fine. It is not that important enough an issue for me to get worked up over. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 23 February 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.

Per additional discussion, changing to merge. L Faraone 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digger (webcomic)[edit]

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

Only secondary source found was this. All other links in article are primary (DeviantArt, interviews, etc.). Prcecedent is that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is insufficient if no other notability exists; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures and most importantly Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 08#Web Cartoonist.27s Choice award. Eisner award is a drop of notability, but it was only nominated for it; WP:RS and WP:GNG trump any niche notability for webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 February 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) 00:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTABILITY. I love furry webcomics but this one lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ursula Vernon. Against delete. -84user (talk) 09:04, 7 February 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} 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any good sources (although there are many EL). – Novice7 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page no reason to delete per WP:PRESERVE as there is a (very reasonable) merge target. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 17 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Vegetarian Association[edit]

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

Hopelessly POV article on "an international, non-denominational Christian ministry that promotes responsible stewardship of God's creation through plant-based eating". Fails WP:GNG. Essentially unsourced at this time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 February 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) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage found in Google Books and News searches. Any NPOV issues can be fixed by editing.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at any of those books and news items, or just seen that there are "plenty"? There are actually only a few dozen google news hits, most of which are, as far as I can see, only passing mentions, including many which merely mention in passing that a person referred to is connected to the Christian Vegetarian Association. Likewise most of the books seem, as far as I can see, to either just mention the association or else to be published by them or a related organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at them - thanks for AGFing. Several books mention the organisation, varying from brief mentions to slightly more substantial coverage. These are published by companies such as Greenwood Publishing Group, Continuum, and Westminster John Knox Press, and as far as I can tell are entirely independent of the CVA. It isn't surprising that most news items discuss the organization's chairman - who would you expect journalists to speak to? The coverage of the organization is wide enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are at least two organizations with the name "Christian Vegetarian Association". So far as I can tell, the UK one has no relationship with the US one covered by this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. That may mean that the amount of coverage of the one in the article is less than appears to be the case, but I haven't checked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article with no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 10 February 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} 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Sufficient sources found at Google News to establish notability,[33] e.g.[34] [35]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)

Comment Search #[1] returns only the CVA website, which is set up as a branch as part of another website. The US phone number for the organization is shared by other organizations. Unscintillating (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - it seems to be clearly notable from all of the g-news hits. It is apparently one in the same with "Ohio Vegetarian Advocates" [36], which has the same address and phone number. According to the parent company's IRS filing, they only have a budget of around $40K, so we're not dealing with a huge organization here. But it seems to be notable. --B (talk) 02:26, 22 February 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 soft delete. Insufficient participation after two relists, but this will be treated as a PROD deletion for all purposes. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammadi Hospital IMRC-PHF[edit]

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

Normally I consider hospitals notable enough for inclusion. However this one, according to http://www.myislamabad.net/listing_details.aspx?bid=1863 and http://www.pakheart.org/ seems to be more of a small clinic than an actual hospital, ans as such probably not notable enough. Travelbird (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any evidence in the links provided by the nominator for this being a small clinic rather than an actual hospital, or vice versa. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 6 February 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) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit. [37]. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 11 February 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} 00:20, 15 February 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 soft delete. Insufficient participation after two relists, but as there is no opposition to deletion the page will be deleted as though it had been an expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bacrella[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/author, no major roles, no major books written. Corvus cornix_talk 08:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have played several minor roles, but coverage from WP:RS is very sparse and is limited to parenthetical mentions. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 January 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} 00:31, 7 February 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} 00:19, 15 February 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, with no objections to individual or group renominations. We have fairly clear guidelines on group nominations - I would advise that people follow them. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel of Chaos[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article and all of the books on the List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks by Puffin apart from those with links. There are over 50. Until recently all of those books had there own article in the mainspace which have only just been set as redirects. A fair amount of content has been removed by an SPA and from an IP that has been used by a sock puppet. I'd prefer these books returned to mainspace but they may not be worthy. I generally think as these books have sold in the tens of millions collectively a wider range of opinions are required to see what should happen to these articles. Szzuk (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what outcome do you want here? A list article? Individual articles for every game book? I'm a bit confused by your statement. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Individual articles already exist for all of these books. For example [[38]] and [[39]]. The options are a) Undo all of the redirects b) keep the redirects c) delete the articles altogether or separately. I'd prefer a) I am uncertain whether this is the right action and won't go ahead without some certainty because it would be a large amount of labour. Szzuk (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually unnecessary. I indicated to this user ([40]) that all the Fighting Fantasy books had been redirected to List of Fighting Fantasy game books. I included a full rationale - including a link to the outcome on another discussion on the FF text Midnight Rogue - but it was promptly deleted from their Talk Page. The consensus was that a redirect was sufficient - which I performed. Any relevant information - such as an ISBN - can be included on the master page, but the sticking point is that is has to be noteworthy information. A redirect - which has been done - is less draconian and final. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one afd should justify the redirect of 50+ pages without more views being expressed on the matter. Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means let's discuss, but it will come back to the fact that the majority of the pages are rife with trivia and opinion, and that there is in fact nothing else to add. All the images are still available through the links I provided on your Talk Page, and the ISBN codes have been moved across. It might be possible to add another box to the master page explaining what role the player takes in each title, but there's really nothing else to add! Thebladesofchaos (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your opinion. But it is the opinion of one person and you have made unavailable a lot of content, as WP is a collaborative project it is best to have more opinions than just a few. Szzuk (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep humm, sounds like there is one RS, White Dwarf. Are there any others? If so, it would pass WP:N. I'm not seeing any in the article at the moment, but I suspect there were other reviews. It's hard to !vote to keep on the basis of "probably" (thus the weak), but I'm fairly certain others would have covered it at the time. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a (very) brief review here. Only slightly more than a passing mention though. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added another ref noting the books are available for the iPhone and iPad in a digitised game form. The series has sold 15 million copies all in, so with a little looking many of the 50 odd books would be notable, the problem would be which ones :) Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ones you can find reliable sources that meet WP:N for. I know that's obvious, but it's also truth. I strongly suspect most, if not all, of these books can meet that bar, but will require a lot of research. Check out the D&D project group--some people there have access to some (now) hard-to-find sources from the right time period. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just added another ref noting the Commodore 64 port. With that many sales there would be bits and pieces in magazines, newspapers etc. all over the place, so I too think most of those books are notable. I'll check the D&D project group, I used to play, was fun! Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added, thanks. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just referenced the next in the series - The Forest of Doom and undone the redirect, as for the other 54, I don't have time. I'm wondering if the link to an oft noted website is a Reliable Source. On first appearances it looks like a fanpage but I can't tell. If it is reliable, it would certainly help. The website is here - [41]
- It certainly looks reliable, but don't look independent. So it's quite usable for sourcing an article, but not useful for meeting WP:N. Or at least that's my read on it. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that White Dwarf probably did reviews on some of these gamebooks, and possibly some of the other gaming magazines as well. I just completed a run-through last year of Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds and sourced as many D&D books as I could, and seem to recall that he may have covered those gamebooks as well. I used the copy at the library, and given the extreme weather I'm a bit reluctant to return to the library this week, but I can at least check and see what I can find in the gaming periodicals. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some confirmation: Citadel of Chaos was reviewed in WD #42 (1983). BOZ (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is great, thanks. I presume I could use that website to reference a lot of the other fighting fantasy gamebooks, I will have a look :) Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the end you're going to need more than just "Oh yeah, it was reviewed in such-and-such," you're going to need some commentary from the actual review. I have a lot of these peridocials, so I will try to help you out; get me a list of which ones you need and I'll do what I can do give you at least a few sentences for each article. BOZ (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a list, it includes the Puffin Books from 1-10. My recollection from reading the series is that around #10 ghost and extra writers were brought in, so the number of releases went up but the quality went down. I've included 2 later relases which I know are notable. I guess if any others are notable they will return sooner or later of their own accord. I will begin to look to see what I can find too. Thanks.

2 The Citadel of Chaos Jackson/Livingstone 1983
3 The Forest of Doom Livingstone 1983
4 Starship Traveller Steve Jackson 1983 ISBN 0-14-031637-X
5 City of Thieves Ian Livingstone 1983 ISBN 0-14-031645-0
6 Deathtrap Dungeon
7 Island of the Lizard King Ian Livingstone 1984 ISBN 0-14-031743-0
8 Scorpion Swamp Steve Jackson (USA) 1984 ISBN 0-14-031829-1
9 Caverns of the Snow Witch Ian Livingstone 1984 ISBN 0-14-031830-5
17 Appointment with F.E.A.R. Steve Jackson 1985 ISBN 0-14-031922-0
24 Creature of Havoc Steve Jackson 1986 ISBN 0-14-032040-7

Have dug around and found some WD issues, 42, 49, 53. Szzuk (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to it, but I added a few notes to the first couple of books on this list. The full review from WD #42 is about as long as a full column from a page of a publication, so of course there is a lot more that I could say; if you like, I could e-mail you the full text of the review. Will try to do more soon. BOZ (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, had more free time than I thought, so I fixed up four more books. I restored three of those four, and resored the images that went with them. I have a special soft spot for Starship Traveller, as this is the only Fighting Fantasy book I ever owned, and spent many hours playing, replaying, and analyzing it in the 1980s. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's great! My first owned book was citadel of chaos, I was literally blown away by how good it was, I was 11 and it was second only to getting my own TV lol. I liked Deathrap Dungeon best followed by City of Thieves. I played D&D for a couple of years, thinking about it I should find a local club, would be good to catch up with it. If there is useful material left you can send me a scan and I'll add. I think I'll buy one of these books too, thanks :) Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is still whether to redirect or delete. As for passing muster, a hard ask. Something like 90% of both Citadel and Forest are out just on grounds of being opinion and original research. A games link can easily be incorporate into the master list if that is all there is to go on. Also no link to prove Forest sales? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tidied up the article as much as possible, but it really needs some sourced statements from this Warlock magazine. Notability just on the merits of a video game is pretty thin. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. I'm a bit confused about the statements on this page. The discussion seem to cover more articles than the one listed (Citadel of Chaos), and plenty of it revolves around regular article improvement tasks. So I have to ask again - What's the question here? Most urgently, I want to oppose the notion that these articles could and should be replaced by entries in the "master list" (list of FF publications). I am not opposed to the list per se, but an article ought not be removed on basis that everything relevant could be covered in list form. That might be strictly true, but is no good reason anyway: please don't reduce Wikipedia to a series of lists. Much better, then, to discuss the (lack of) references for each article, working to keep most or all of them. (Again, if this wasn't the appropriate place to discuss this issue, feel free to move them elsewhere). Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only reinterate what I have said both here and on your Talk Page. The problem is that almost all the FF titles are simple trivia and not notable. An entry such as House of Hell is notable as it is soon to be a feature film, but something like Midnight Rogue, which is not even being reprinted by Wizard Books, is not. For these titles, it seems to be a case of redirect or delete, which is the overall issue here. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete redirects, so this is a procedural afd for me to ask interested parties such as yourself to help find sources for these articles. The best way to prevent redirects and other unhelpful changes is to source an article with appropriate references demonstrating WP:Notability. Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears you've been engaged in an edit war with this user. An Afd prevents the circularity of that kind of discussion. You could have reported them to a sysop and they would have been warned. Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war. A lack of civility ([42]) with some emotional ultimatums, but I think things are on track now that enough evidence has been presented as to why it is a case of "notability or nothing". I'll all for keeping articles where possible, but someone has to present a reason (me included!). Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:34, 6 February 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} 00:40, 7 February 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} 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Group nominations should be clearly identified as such with all entries listed. It's clear from the conversation above that commentors aren't clear on what is being nominated or what they are voting on.. Some Fighting Fantasy gamebooks are unquestionably notable; others are not. As frustrating as it might be to a nominator who wants to deal with a large number of un-maintained articles quickly, these should be nominated individually. (For what it's worth, I vote Keep on the particular case of Citadel of Chaos. It's the second entry in a notable series and it's be reprinted a couple of times; unsurprisingly, there is sufficient coverage of it to establish notability.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm happy that gamebooks #2 to #7 have had their notability established with references thanks to this AFd (although everything is arguable). I should have been clearer with the nominations, however all is well that ends well. Szzuk (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also if we delete all these articles then how will I be able to convince people that my signed copy of Scorpion Swamp is in any way noteworthy? :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've uncovered my master plan, you'd have to sell it to me :) Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a happy ending. Good to see that the "Magnificent Seven" can be kept, although as DustFormsWords correctly indicates, almost all of the others have no notability. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I found more White Dwarf reviews:

36: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain
54: Kharé - Cityport of Traps
66: House of Hell, Talisman of Death
84: Titan

That's all I have for now. I'll try to add these when I can. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great :) I bought and am currently reading Creature of Havoc. I've tried twice to find some sources for it but nothing independant has cropped up. The fan forums have it down as Steve Jackson's crowning glory, his last and best FF title, it is nice to catch up! Szzuk (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The discussion above seems to be a train wreck. There are good alternatives to deletion and it is our editing policy to use them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A train wreck? Whoa, you misread that. We came away with a very positive outcome. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all with liberty to relist individual books which don't meet notability requirements. I do have a soft spot for FF books. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 23 February 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. L Faraone 04:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuro Interactive[edit]

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

WP:SOAP This is a page advertising a private company, and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jael2222 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the article, I see independent reliable sources, and I see assertions that it is a notable company. The tone is not blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regarding the reliable sources, most small private companies such as this receive some passing coverage, but it does not mean they are a notable company. Every art student and creative shop with some showcased work might as well get their own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jael2222 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 February 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) 00:27, 7 February 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - C. Fred is so right.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PERNOM "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. ". LibStar (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete 1 gnews hit [43]. 3 are the sources are mere blogs and are not reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 20 February 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) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Grosspietsch[edit]

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

Unverifiable page, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Pages was proposed for deletion for "Unverifiable, I am not able to find sources for the author, or even evidence that the book by Estiks (source 1) exists, or the third source, the book by Neuhuys and Rodestroh. Normally, for every even slightly notable artist, it is not hard to find at least some online confirmation of their existence." Contested, with the removal of the two sources I couldn't find any evidence for, and the addition of a weblink to the Jewish Historical Museum, which sadly gives no results when you look for Grosspietsch[44]. Fram (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any sources that would match up with the description of this person. Fails the fundamental policy of verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 8 February 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} 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no assertion of notability, & none likely to emerge 60 years after his death. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 20 February 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 merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar's Linguistic Concepts and Criteria[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, just citations of author's own works Macrakis (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - but even if it were notable, it still smacks of original research. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable and notable to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; delete the rest. —Angr (talk) 22:04, 12 February 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable elements to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (although the sources given appear to be primary sources) without redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar: that article's not too long to contain this information, which does seem verifiable. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 15 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged & Boarded[edit]

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

No sources, doesn't seem to be notable. (Simply being on Kevin Smith's podcast network does not make a show notable.) Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:18, 14 February 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} 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS given or found to establish notability of a something. tedder (talk) 03:37, 15 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan Murphy[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. Article created from promotional purposes as subject is a candidate in the 2011 Irish general election, however said candidacy does not make him notable. Snappy (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. I wonder if FG told their election workers to create wikipedia articles for their upcoming election candidates. Exiledone (talk) 13:35, 4 February 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, 7 February 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, insufficient coverage to pass gng bar. Ray^Talk 19:22, 16 February 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) 00:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hacienda League[edit]

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

Subsection of a subsection of a state high school sports league. It only has seven schools; the information can exist on the CIF Southern Section page and/or on the individual school pages. I tried merging this and it was undone, hence the reason for a community consensus. tedder (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced. Nothing to suggest this high school sports league is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete the Hacienda League page, I now understand the Wikipedia policy limitations on HS Sports. Kind of sad, though, since many people are interested in similiar information (fans of high school sports from all over the country) and it isn't always easy to find. That is why I thought I would place this information on Wikipedia. By the way, there are plenty of insignificant articles and information on this site. I just find it funny that this page is such an issue on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.200.38 (talk) 09:37, 9 February 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, 15 February 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 Ma Ying-jeou. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Weichung Ma[edit]

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

She's the daughter of Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, but appears to have no independent notability of her own in any way that I can see. All that is significant about her is already in her parents' articles, so there's nothing to merge. Delete (not merge) then redirect to Ma Ying-jeou. --Nlu (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 1 February 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) 00:01, 8 February 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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and per WP:NOTINHERITED. 2 gnews hits [45]. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 23 February 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 merge to Ticket of Leave. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket of leave (British military)[edit]

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

No evidence found for this being a military term for a convict released for military service. The only references seem to be for a ticket which allowed a man to go on leave during the second world war - which would probably not be notable enough.

The article was originally forked and a db page created. I am fairly sure that the db page does not need to exist, Ticket of leave (Australian convicts) can be put into the Ticket of leave page and the two empty (British military) and (Australian convicts) can be deleted. There are references for men who had been given a ticket being later in military service, but this can be added to the same page as a note and does not need a separate page. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rediect per nom. The single cite doesn't support the definition given (not surprising since its the 1911 EB and therefore predates WW1). --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to single article, neither disambiguated as Australian nor British Army. Ticket of leave, and particularly the pejorative ticket of leave man has a much broader significance than Australia. It's probably best known from that source, via the US civil war era play "The Ticket of Leave Man", but it's notably used by Marx in his description of the Paris Commune and had some currency around 1900 too, in both the Cuban Spanish-American War and also the Boer War. I'm unaware of any significance more than this around the Great War, although it was still in use then. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 February 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} 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket of leave (Australian convicts) should be moved to Ticket of leave. Ticket of leave (British military) doesn't need a separate article, but it's unclear whether any of it is verifiable - it could be moved to the other article's talk page until verified. Peter E. James (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ticket of Leave then delete (as it is unlkely anyone would type ticket of leave British military in the search box), also merge Ticket of leave (Australian convicts) to Ticket of leave and delete for the same reason. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason to delete, I agree that we should merge the two articles into a generic article on tickets of leave. Only delete if and when a histmerge can be or is done. Swarm ^X 06:38, 18 February 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 Taiwanese Communist Party#Recent attempts at forming a Communist Party. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Chung[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable leader of insufficiently notable party. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 2 February 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) 00:02, 8 February 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) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taiwanese Communist Party#Recent attempts at forming a Communist Party. Not sufficiently notable, but definitely worthy of a redirect based on news coverage. Ray^Talk 19:20, 16 February 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 wait until Saturday. At that point, she will either have been elected, at which point she meets WP:POLITICIAN, or not, at which point this article should be deleted per the consensus. It would be process wonkery to delete the article now when the election is two days away. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cáit Keane (politician)[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. Fail WP:Politician. Article created for promotional purposes for forthcoming general election. Possibly self authored. Snappy (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 00:48, 8 February 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) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Previous holder of municipal-level office, minimal news coverage. Ray^Talk 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Red Hurley (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources to the article. She was an elected mayor of South Dublin County which is one of the counties of Ireland, so she meets WP:POLITICIAN. If she is elected we'll definitely need this article. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Exiledone (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. May become notable if gets elected on Friday. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Popplewell[edit]

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

The Stub has been hanging around for two years and the actress's notability is poor without any sources. It should enable any interested parties to re-write and source the article. EhsanQ ^(talk) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject seems to have a busy carer but the only Ghits are these two extremely fleeting mentions in articles about other things: BBC and The Guardian which are nowhere near sufficient to conform to BLP policy. The subject may well be notable, but those are our rules. --Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after the latest updates to the article. The article is now largely sourced, and is therefore up to BLP (and notability) standard. Thanks to Fæ for finding sources to save this article. I hope it does get saved. --Der yck C. 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Declare conflict of interest: knows subject in real life.[reply]
Keep, now. Per WP:ENT, Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, two being "multiple". Meanwhile, per WP:GHITS, arguments for and against deletion based on number of Ghits are frowned upon. LondonStatto (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think kudpung meant gnews which is a far more reliable way of finding sources. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 9 February 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) 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear evidence of notability via evidence presented and cited in article. Additionally: Demons are a girl's best friend by Sue Arnold The Observer, Sunday 5 January 2003 His Dark Materials R4 In Lulu Popplewell and Daniel Anthony we have more than mere credibility - we have genuine star quality. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Would be great if you can help put the extra information into the article! --Der yck C. 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Msrasnw.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PERNOM "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. " LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ENT requires signficant roles. there is not enough evidence of significant roles. no extensive third party indepth coverage [46]. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources seem to indicate to me a significant role (she is playing the lead character (blurb on the BBC) with Terence Stamp in a supporting role) in the dramatisation of Phillip Pullman's best seller on the BBC's Radio Four which is a major UK channel. Reviews in two UK national newspapers as well Claire Squires Continuum mentions would seem to me sufficient for the third party coverage. Her role as Daisy in Love Actually, although minor, would seem to be notable enough for actors. (We've been given our parts in the nativity play. And I'm the lobster. Daisy has the role of first lobster in the school nativity play) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Recent addition of three citations has established notability. Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 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) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

091 Labs[edit]

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

No reliable sources could be found outside of the community. Most of the sources in the article are of the 091 Labs website, and of the one that isn't, is a YouTube video, so the sourcing is a problem.

I would have placed a CSD tag on this article, but felt AFD was the safer route to go as then the community can weigh in, and perhaps someone else can find some reliable sources to add to the article that I could not? ArcAngel (talk) ) 08:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 February 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) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any good coverage from independent sources, hence it falls short of our notability standard. bobrayner (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Snappy (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disclosure: I'm a member. I just added this local press piece. Do you think that contributes at all to notability?

Of course we need more than 1 independent source! So far I've found several other local press events that someone could review; they're mostly about events organized by the group, with some discussion of 091labs, so I'd rather someone else take a look at those. I'm still checking for other coverage. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hackerspaces are novel but a genuine international phenomenon.Red Hurley (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added additional event references where 091 Labs' participation was noted in local press and with the National University of Ireland, Galway. Woodega (talk) 02:36, 23 February 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. L Faraone 04:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOG (hackerspace)[edit]

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

This is another article with primary sourcing issues. Of the nine sources listed, seven are of the articles own website, one is a forum, and the first one is behind a paywall, so WP:V is an issue as well.

I could not find any significant third-party coverage of this space using a Google search and weeding out the usual, unreliable sources.

The article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as it is a building. ArcAngel (talk) ) 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have updated the article to point to more sources. This should resolve the 'AfD' issue in favour of 'keep', yes? Ebelular (talk) 14:41, 11 February 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) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what 'relisted' means exactly. Is this article still proposed for deletion? If so, I believe I have addressed all the points in the original complaint. I have added a significant number of primary sources from different sources. There are now 29 references from more than 15 different sources. I believe this article is properly sourced. Are there any other problems with this article? If not, can we remove the AfD suggestion? Ebelular (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I researched all of the references, and per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Mailing_Lists_Question, mailing lists aren't reliable sources. Neither are forums, open wikis, blogs, newsletters, or personal websites. I don't believe blackletter.ie is a reliable source, and neither are "club" websites, such as the Irish Robotics Club. The Science Gallery does not appear to be a reliable source. Hackerspaces is an open wiki, so that does not qualify either. Artifactory is a hackerspace site, so it's not independent of the subject. Same with 091Labs. DigitalHub is a blog, so again not reliable. I am unsure about the Irish Times, but being a newspaper I will assume good faith that it is reliable. Given what's left after my research (mostly self-references), there is not enough to establish the notability of this article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Digital Hub is a technology incubator complex in Dublin, Ireland, managed by the Irish Government. (cf. http://www.thedigitalhub.com/ and http://thedigitalhubexhibit.com/aboutus ). They are more than a blog. Irish Times has been around for 100+ years and is the second most popular newspaper in Ireland with 100,000+ daily circulations (cf. http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/portal.php?content=../_includes/circulation.php ). The Science Gallery is a public science themed exhibition space, and is part of Trinity College Dublin, one of the largest universitys in Ireland, is more than 400 years old, and is ranked 43rd best university in the world in 2009 according to the Times Higher Education rankings. ([[47]]). The Science Gallery was nominated in 2010 for "European Museum of the Year" (cf. http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/news.php?headerID=1383&vs_date=2010-2-1), and has been mentioned by the leader of the Irish goverment (the Taoiseach) (http://www.sciencegallery.com/blog/swedey/2010/07/science-gallery-annual-review). Ebelular (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why links from other hackerspaces are not valid to this discussion. Is the problem that hackerspaces at all aren't notable (and hence have no voice in this debate) or that TOG (this hackerspace) is not notable? If hackerspaces (in general) have a place on wikipedia, then their activity and postings are relevant (in general) to this discussion, if hackerspaces belong on wikipedia then "[they] are not independent of the subject" is not relevant to this discussion and an unfair reason to exclude them. Ebelular (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if me reading of the WP:SPS policy is correct, that mostly refers to self published source, which is obviously poor for reliability. But several of the blogs and forums I posted links to were from independent people, not the TOG organisation, and hence if my reading of the WP:SPS policy is correct, these can be included as legitimate sources, no?

I have, once again, done more research and adding in new content, and new different source related to other activies from this hackerspace. Ebelular (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most of the mailing lists that were used as sources where used as sources of information about TOG itself. As such I assume it falls under the section of 'self-published sources as sources on themselves' wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so, surely a blanket ban on all mailing list sources is over-cautious. Surely at least some of the mailing lists posts should be acceptable? Ebelular (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPS - For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable. Hackerspace cites could be construed as secondary sources. What is needed to establish notability is PRIMARY sources, those that are independent of TOG (and thus, not related in any way). That is the crux of the problem. Most of the sources that have been added have been related to TOG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite true. Primary (first-hand) sources are less useful for establishing notability of an association, as they're less likely to be independent. However, the reason I'd tend towards keeping this page is the difficulty of finding sources about a place that aims to bring people face-to-face who would usually be found online. Ms7821 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Irish Times article is reproduced at http://geekypie.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/hackers-seek-physical-space-in-a-virtual-world/ Ms7821 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have added some more references and sources from national newspapers, and other non-TOG places. I believe this answers the original, valid complaint about lack of sources. I have also added primary sources to show that TOG has been actively involved with several national events promoting science and engineering in Ireland. I believe this shows that TOG is notably, and hence I believe this article should stay. Ebelular (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:IGNORE and taking a Gestalt view of the provided citations, it is obvious that this article is sufficiently notable to be kept. A pedantic analysis of the provided links, desperately seeking justification to delete this article, does not make Wikipedia better. KEEP. --Sprhodes (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles linked from hackerspaces are generally notable, and I don't think AfDing a bunch can be doing anyone favours. My attempt at a list of significant ones is here (publicly editable). I agree that 091 Labs is not notable enough yet, but TOG seems to have established itself in its community fairly well.

To Ebelular: I see nobody replied to my comment from 3rd January. I would still strongly recommend trimming down the article to an appropriate amount for its demonstrated notability. For example, the entire "Structure" section (except for 24-hour access) is made redundant by the fourth word of the article: any visitor to Wikipedia can click through to learn what a hackerspace is. And while citing your own website multiple times might stop a humorous [citation needed], it's not adding significantly to the article.

As for notability, I think it's useful to bear in mind the sentence from WP:SPIP: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." This is what you have to prove. If I removed all citations that weren't event listings, incidental mentions in blog posts, or your website, there would only be the first Irish Times article. Surely you've had more interest than that? Ms7821 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I didn't see the Talk page.

re: sources, aswell as the Irish Times, there's also sources from the Digitial Hub, from the Science Gallery, from Innovation Dublin, from technical conferences around Ireland, from Make's blog, etc. These are all independent of TOG. That's national newspapers, government run company incubators, and national events run by major universities.

Ebelular (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are factual sources, and they don't show notability. Showing that something was listed in a bunch of calendars does not make it notable. It's not a matter of sources that "recognise" you, they need to prove you're significant. I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Ms7821 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disclosure: I'm a member of a nearby hackerspace (091 Labs) so I'll just comment here. I think this article needs review from a disinterested party (who is not involved with the hackerspace and ideally not with the hackerspace movement). I agree that there's too much detail on events, with too many <ref>'s establishing minor points. As is, I think the article *borderline* establishes notability (your view may vary). Notability, to me, comes from

the national press from the Irish Times, particularly a dedicated article Hackers seek physical space outside the virtual world (see what purports to be a copy since the Irish Times archives are paywalled
Brief mentions from Makezine (international media, blog of a professional news outlet) on at least these two occasions

What do you think? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just - a new generation's version of Category:Public houses in Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are currently under discussion of a hackerspace wikiproject. This would roll a lot of these regional groups together. --Meawoppl (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – paywall issue is irrelevant in my view. Just because something is behind a paywall doesn't make it a WP:V problem. We cite from books and those are behind a much higher paywall: i.e. you have to buy the book or travel some distance to a library to borrow it or whatever. We cite from websites like the BBC, large chunks of which aren't available outside of the UK. We cite scientific journals which have some of the most obstructive paywalls ever designed! —Tom Morris (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a decent, well-written article and 27 references hardly qualifies as "unsourced". --MoonLichen (talk) 03:01, 23 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HACP (hacker)[edit]

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

The two Hungarian sources notwithstanding, I can find no other reliable sources to establish the notability of this group. I also cannot get the first external link to come up, and the fourth external link is an unreliable source (Google Groups). ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 February 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) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, it's worth mention in a larger article, but the few sentences don't justify a separate article. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:21, 15 February 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiberpipa[edit]

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

Another article where I could not find any significant coverage to establish the notability of this place. If there are any English sources, I can find none. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note They also use "Cyberpipe" as their English name, and that gets quite some hits. Not many look useful, but there is a boingboing.com video report that gets linked around a lot. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are regular and well known organisers of entertainment and information events in Slovenia, including the meeting of Slovenian Wikipedians on the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia. They also have opened the first computer museum in Slovenia. Events in Kiberpipa are regularly published in all major Slovenian media, while Kiberpipa itself has also been covered by several Slovenian media so it warrants an article.[48][49], [50], [51], [52]. There are several entries about Kiberpipa in COBISS, the Slovenian virtual library. For an English article, try Culture.si, operated by the Slovenian Ministry of Culture, describing Cyberpipe as an "important catalyst for the Slovene cybernetic scene ". BTW, Culture.si is available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence so its texts may be freely copied into Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:06, 9 February 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) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources above with Google translations establish notability. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steady Keep - Obvious Keep for me.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be worth noting that they organise and host the HAIP festival, an international intermedial art festival. [53] [54] Eazy-O 19:22, 21 February 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. The consensus is to delete. I was considering a merger, but no suitable target was agreed on by the contributors to the discussion. Should anyone want to consider this, you might want to start a discussion on the talk page of one or both Tea ceremony or The Book of Tea. If consensus can be reached there, this article can be userfied to allow for a merger. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teaism[edit]

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

The article is largely about The Book of Tea, which introduced the term "teaism." Nothing else in the article is sourced--this is just a collection of comments about various topics. The material on dao/do is incomprehensible. A google search on teaism gives many hits to a Washington DC restaurant, and some references to The Book of Tea, but little evidence for independent notability. And this article makes no case for independent notability. To the extent that there is any unique, sourced material in this article, recommend merge with The Book of Tea. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, i understand "the book of tea" article is about the book and the term "teaism" was coined by Okakura Kakuzo. Yet the term teaism is a subject of its own, it is also a term at reference.com. And the term can be used to describe tea ceremony as the interests in tea and pursued over time with self-cultivation. icetea8 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article teaism does not make the case that this is notable outside of The Book of Tea (other than the restaurant, which probably deserves an article on its own). Having a dictionary entry at reference.com does not mean that an encyclopedia article is needed. See WP:DICT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. Any useful content that can be referenced to a reliable source could be merged with one of the numerous articles on very similar subjects helpfuly listed in the 'See also' section of this article.--Korruski^Talk 09:00, 9 February 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) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Could I just point out that there is more voting/discussion here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Teaism

Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word was not coined by Okakura Kakuzo, but by the translator of the book. I compared the ja text with the en translation. The original ja is "茶道の表現である/the expression of the way of tea". The word Teaism in not known in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm Mari's findings. I also tried a google search for what I thought would come close to saying "teaism" in Japanese - 茶主義 and found zero hits, the closest being a website devoted to the culture of tea drinking called "茶飲主義" - the site's translation of this is cha-izm. I did a google search on 茶飲主義 as well to be on the safe side, and all the hits are related to the above mentioned website. I would also like to note that the cha+dao explanation in the article is contrived to say the least, especially since the word 茶道 (i.e. "two words, the word is tea and the second is Chinese loanword tao/dao/道") is simply one of the words for tea ceremony and has no special meaning beyond that. Also, "道" does not equal the "native suffix -ism" as the article claims - if this were so, we'd be perfectly able to call Judo "softism" or Kendo "swordism". Or Shinto "godism", for that matter. The accepted translation of "道" into English is "the way of", and the accepted translation of "-ism" into Japanese is "主義". TomorrowTime (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If 茶道 translates to "the way of tea", "teaism" is no more inaccurate than "tea ceremony". although tea ceremony is the term usually used in English. Peter E. James (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear what this article is about, but it seems to be about a word, and not a particularly notable one. Redirect to tea ceremony, as that what "teaism" refers to. Peter E. James (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after Merge with The Book of Tea. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: Since I am a contributor to the article I stike my vote (see above). Realizing teaism, even in Chinese there has been debates about chadao and chayi, both are concepts with people on each side, both deserving a voice, the whole subject of tea studies being for the most part a non-English derived area, the "notabilty popular internet search is a problem". Merging teaism under tea ceremony is misleading that it is a ceremony instead of a mindset, and while it is in the book of tea, merging it under that article leaves in in the Japanese tea ceremony instead of being a concept for all tea. icetea8 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look How I'm Doing (Heidi Montag song)[edit]

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

Prod was contested by IP. Still not a notable song. Fixer23 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: article was not properly added to the AfD log until 8 February 2011. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:16, 8 February 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) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Hmm its a tough case but I have to say Weak Keep for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for a keep though. It fails most every aspect of notability for songs soundly. Fixer23 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. lets wait and see for some consensus on the matter. Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't pass general notability requirements or those for songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:08, 22 February 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. SPA activity aside, listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metalab[edit]

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

Doing a diligent search, I can find no significant third-party coverage of this location that establishes the notability of this organization. The article contains no third-party sources whatsoever, and is not referenced, so I am putting this up for discussion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metalab has had repeated coverarge in Austrian and German media, both in its own right and as a host for various other events. --Ben g (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Ben g (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is international mention e.g. at wired and make online. Further Metalab started the Hackerspaces.org index and was a huge part of inspiring the creation of hundreds of Hackerspaces worldwide in just a few years. Many international Hackerspaces credit Metalab in that regard (e.g. focusing on english sources: Noisebridge in SF, Crashspace in LA, and NYC Resistor). Furthermore Metalab is specifically listed as Notable Hackerspace on the main Hackerspace article (out of over 400 known Hackerspaces worldwide). I completely agree that the article could use a lot more information and sources, but that's a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete an article about what has arguably been one of the most influential Hackerspaces worldwide. --PaulBohm (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specifically in the Luxembourgish web: Metalab in .lu - Metalab has proven inspirational not only for our beginnings but constantly as a reference in the domain of HackerSpaces. This is exactly what the international context is about and makes Metalab a permanent reference for new HackerSpaces. --SteveClement (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" There is no proper reasoning why this page does not deserve to be included in the wikipedia. Your exclusionism just drives me nuts. Please leave.

Keep and take a minute to think about if your deletion practice might be one of the reasons WP bashing has become so popular lately.

keep multiple mentions in English and German-speaking media, plus see above. --zeno (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as I am involved with the space, I will not vote here. I should not (if I remember the WP rules correctly) edit the article. There is an english source in wired that should be mentioned in the article though. -fin (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even the very exclusionist german wikipedia has an article about Metalab. (Now, thats not a call to delete it there, too, just to make sure!) -- riot
FWIW, I don't haunt the German wiki, since I am an American. Moreover, this discussion did exactly as I intended - other editors found sources that I could not (probably beacuse I was looking in the wrong places). Nevertheless, I find it strange that all of a sudden two IP's and just happen to chime in (and a bit uncivilly too, I might add). If the found sources were added to the article, the issues I raised would be moot. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps some additions to the links above: many events have accompanying activities in the metalab, which also the city of Vienna mentions on their website [55], [56]. Also the student's representation for computer science at the Vienna University of Technology publishes invitations to events at Metalab [57], [58], [59]. I'd say Metalab is well integrated into Viennas hacker-culture. -- Alerion (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The metalab hackerspace Vienna triggers the whole hackerspace movement in Europe. There are more than 30 articles listed on their home page [60] from well-known media sources (Le_monde, ORF). The deletion policy is quite clear on the topic. The metalab is a notable place affecting the history of the hackerspace movement and there are many sources reflecting that. The article must be kept and I have no affiliation to the metalab. AlexandreDulaunoy (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As many commentators before me have already pointed out, Metalab is not simply one of many cursory hackerspaces but one of those laying the foundations for the whole hackerspaces movement. Furthermore, that an article does not list enough references should not give rise to a deletion request. One should start off by asking for contributions from participants. (There are ample templates more suitable to improve the relevancy of an article than trying to have it deleted.) --Clausekwis (talk) 12:13, 20 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hammer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; no evidence that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Only nontrivial GNews/GBooks hits appear to be other individuals with similar names. No reliable sources for article; all but the IMDB refs prove to be advertising pages. Survived 2007 AFD with keep !votes that wouldn't meet current notability guidelines, all but one of which came from editors now blocked for extensive sockpuppetry/votestacking. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this guy is not famous and has not written scholarly articles. He is a minor actor in adult films. He shares a name with a Danish football player and a biologist. LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a play on the musician Jan Hammer's name. -- œ ^™ 16:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 16:00, 14 February 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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable porn actor. Terrible article to boot: He says he never watches his own films, though, because he never stops laughing if he does. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Really bizarre AfD debate last time around, seemingly kept on the basis of thousands of Google SCHOLAR hits (?!?!). Ummmmm, I don't think so... Carrite (talk) 20:04, 15 February 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.