Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 January 16 January >

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 redirect to Startup Weekend. The user has failed to produce the said reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Nelsen[edit]

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

no indication of notability. Talk page claims coverage in Forbes and NY Times but the only refs I can find are about Startup Weekend with trivial references to Nelson. noq (talk) 23:32, 15 January 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) 23:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart's law[edit]

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

unsourced. Nothing on google to back up the claims noq (talk) 23:31, 15 January 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) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Winkler[edit]

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

(The article was previously nominated and discussed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich) Non-notable college hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. He has not competed in any IIHF competitions, and has not played on a fully professional team or at the highest level, and has not played 100+ minor league games. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Played for Frisk Tigers, which is a member of the Norwegian pro league. Blueboy96 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC) * Change to neutral--a search reveals the Norwegian league is the 13th-ranked league in Europe. Seems to be right on the line between top-level and low-level, and for that reason I'm wary of going full keep here. Blueboy96 01:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

  • Change to delete per Nurmsook--second-division leagues in Europe are not anywhere near top-level in any sport. Blueboy96 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:NHOCKEY states: “Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they 1.) Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league...” the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey [1] appears to support the notion that the Norwegian pro league is not considered to be a "top professional league". Dolovis (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHere's the discussion on this? That league is the top league in Norway--would be interested in how this consensus was reached. Blueboy96 01:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not accurate at all, and no consensus to support Dolovis' statement. The AfD they point to completely contradicts his statement. Grsz 11 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't even remotely correct. The first sentence of NHOCKEY is taken to mean the top level league in a country which is why it says top level. ie not a countries minor league. And the afd you point to completely contradicts your statement. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dolovis is correct. The "fully professional league" crap is limited to soccer (association football), and WP:NSOCCER is perhaps the silliest guideline on Wikipedia, conferring automatic notability on too many mediocre persons, and denying it to skilled persons in nations where the highest level league isn't 100% paycheck. The fans of other sports have some reasonable limitations that take into account things like quality of play, including the authors of WP:NHOCKEY. Despite being a Scandinavian nation that plays winter sports, and bordering ice hockey powerhouses Sweden and Finland, Norway has taken far less interest in the sport. Mandsford 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your objection contradicts itself, but I could be misrepresenting what you're saying. NHOCKEY makes notable players at the highest level of competition, even if not in "big ones" such as the US/Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc. It requires 100 games in a fully-professional minor league, therefore I feel like your comment conflicts, but like I said, I may be wrong. Grsz 11 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it names the fully professional minor leagues that the project thinks are significant enough to justify a "100 games" inclusion, rather than saying that 100 games in any minor league will count. The leagues named are all one level below the North American, Swedish, and Finnish majors, and send players there. And the phrase "highest level of competition" that you quote has to be read in its context "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League;" (what this refers to is that in the Communist era, the players from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia were, officially, amateurs). Hence, I don't think that either section 2 or 3 could be interpreted that way. Nothing against Mr. Winkler-- not yet 21, he might make the big leagues after college-- but for now, he's not even a big fish in a little pond, and the Norway hockey league is a little pond. Mandsford 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says such as. The list when creating NHOCKEY was just intended to be examples. In reality the change that happened when nhockey was created was that the requirements changed from 1 game in any pro league to 100 games in any pro league or 1 game in a top pro league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While it is true that the "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" statement is meant to be the top league of any nation, it appears that the subject has not played in the top league of Norway. Looking at his stats at both eliteprospects.com and eurohockey.net, he played for the Frisk Tigers' second team—that being the team that plays in Norway's first division, not the GET-ligaen which is the top level of hockey. He played for Frisk 2, not the Frisk Tigers. Don't forget, had he played in that top league, he would have been declared ineligible by the NCAA because of their strict amateur rules, so he definitely has not been paid to play. While at first glance it looks like that 2006–07 was played professionally and at the highest level in Norway, it certainly was not either. Let's not make the same mistake that was made at AfD last time. – Nurmsook! talk... 03:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you pointed out that there was a prior discussion, which I've located and linked up at the top. It was kept at that time (2008), although that was before sport-specific interpretations of WP:ATHLETE were made by the fans of those individual sports. I think that the examples given in WP:NHOCKEY (for that matter, the very naming of examples at all) would say more about the intent than anything else could, in that the named leagues would be the best of the minors and the best of the so-called amateurs. Mandsford 03:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With a couple good sources, I would easily accept playing in the top Norwegian league as enough, but Frisk-2 is not in the top league. Resolute 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has played in Norway's second league, but it isn't Norway's top one, thus he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. It is possible that he in the future may play in Norway's top league, but that is speculation, so that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I've no objections to moving this to userspace. Feel free to recreate the article if and when he plays in Norway's (or any other country's) top league. HeyMid (contribs) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —KRM (Communicate!) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I dispute that criterion #1 is meant to mean the top league of any nation, especially since we've talked of creating a precise list of what leagues meet which categories, as the footy folks have. Surely people don't fancy that someone who's played a single game for a Japanese or Mexican top league passes NHOCKEY, yet both countries have had pro leagues in the past.  Ravenswing  15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible that I've interpreted WP:NHOCKEY wrong in that part (that I believe all top leagues meet said guideline). HeyMid (contribs) 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only time I can recall us having a discussion about making a precise list is the last time Dolovis complained about this in the afd discussion above that he links. Prior to that IIRC we always took it to be the top league in that country which is why we have people like Australian hockey players or ones from the middle east. That being said I am more than willing to come up with a list, however that is going to be one hell of a POV fest. The difference between us and the list FOOTY has, is that FOOTY is just listing what leagues are professional, since they still operate under the old WP:ATHLETE where one game in any pro league meets the criteria. What we would be doing is using our POV to determine the level of play in various countries. Quite a different task. -DJSasso (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It should be pointed out that if he did actually play professionally in Norway, then he would be ineligible to play his current team in the NCAA. ccwaters (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best point that's been made yet. Colorado College doesn't have a football team, and its at D-3 in basketball, but its ice hockey team is NCAA Division I and a student athlete has to be certified as an amateur. Besides assuming that NHOCKEY has a bye for any athletes from a fully professional league, or those on the best league in any nation, I think that there's been an assumption that the Norway league is fully professional-- and if some of its former players can be counted by the NCAA as amateurs, then it isn't fully pro. Mandsford 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize no one is arguing keep at this point right? LoL you don't have to try and convince anyone. :) Besides which I won't get into the conversation about what the NCAA considers amateur or not. Its definition of the word amateur jives with almost every other organizations so we rarely accept what the NCAA has to say on the topic of amateur or not. -DJSasso (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably the best point that's been made yet. I'll stop now. Mandsford 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow, a lot of enthusiasm! =) I like it, but I see now that it seems like he's only played for Frisk 2, which is/was in Norway's second tier. This could be compared to a football reserves team, like Manchester United Reserves, or an AHL-affiliate to a NHL-team, like Connecticut Whale. I.e. not notable for having played there, as a reserves team would never get promoted to GET-ligaen. (If so had been the case, he would have been notable according to WP:NHOCKEY #1, playing a game in a nation's top tier) Seems like this is a pretty clear delete by now. I will therefore move the article to my userspace, as I am the article's primary editor, and move it back when/if he gets notable some time ;) lil2mas (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: How much coverage is needed to pass WP:GNG? He has been drafted by a NHL-team as only the 13th Norwegian out of 16 players as of 2010, and has played for his nation during the World Juniors (both U18 and U20). There exists multiple sources about him, so I'm just wondering? =) lil2mas (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple reliable sources - and we mean newspaper or magazine articles in major outlets, not hockey blogs or draft watch websites - which discuss Winkler in "significant detail," feel free to present them. Other players have passed the GNG without passing NHOCKEY.  Ravenswing  13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHOCKEY is more like an essay rather than a "guideline" – I mean, an ice hockey player doesn't have to necessarily pass WP:NHOCKEY in order to be notable on Wikipedia. In general, any article whose subject has wide coverage, not just in blogs or ice hockey team websites, but in ice hockey magazines, newspapers, etc, passes WP:GNG. An exact search of "Scott Winkler" on Google gives 45,000 results, though some of them may be irrelevant. HeyMid (contribs) 13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NHOCKEY is not an essay at all, its a guideline. What you describe is a guideline. You are confusing guideline and policy I think. A policy you have to comply with, a guideline you do not. An essay is just one (or more) peoples opinion that is not necessarily the opinion of the community as a whole. Very different. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that NHOCKEY is an essay – I said that NHOCKEY is more like an essay; NHOCKEY is just a checklist for which ice hockey BLPs are generally considered notable in the first place. The exception is, I think, if the player has signficant coverage outside blogs and ice hockey team websites. If someone adds references that give Scott Winkler significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider my current vote. HeyMid (contribs) 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stay off tangents and let the AFD close. ccwaters (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what a guideline is...its not like an essay at all. And CC..its not hurting anything...this is pretty much a snow anyways...its just a wait for the end now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Djsasso, I think I got it – thanks. HeyMid (contribs) 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope so. NHOCKEY lists a set of criteria, just like most other notability guidelines.  Ravenswing  17:03, 19 January 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hernandez (intern)[edit]

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

Notable for actions during one event, the 2011 Tucson shooting. While there has been several news articles about him after the shooting, there is nothing to indicate that in the future he will satisfy WP:BLP1E. Atmoz (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. KimChee (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". In addition, there has been "persistent the coverage...in reliable sources." Seven days after the shooting there is still coverage of the individual in major outlets. [2] ttonyb (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article fails WP:BLP1E; no evidence of notability. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Unless Mr. Hernandez goes on to do something else notable, for the rest of time, the article will merely consist of his actions in this one event and the followup. There is nothing in this article that could not be covered in 2011 Tucson shooting. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of his coverage stemming from WP:BLP1E --Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. While further events are possible, at this point he's not a particularly public figure and publishing personal information is inadvisable. His actions during the event can be covered in the main article. SDY (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He seems to be an estimable young man, and will quite likely deserve a page in a few years, but for now it's WP:BLP1E. PhGustaf (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guy saved the life of a U.S. congresswoman. That's a pretty significant and noteworthy accomplishment. The President of the United States was among those who gave a standing ovation for the guy. In terms of the pure essence of what constitutes "notability," it would be my hope that Wikipedia would recognize the value of such heroism. His page should be kept. HowiePerlman (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails BLP1E. If there's ever a second E, it can be considered when it happens. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting, although "delete" would be my second choice. The redirect is consistent with the essay at WP:1E, where persons famous for one event still get the "honor" (to the extent that having an article on Wikipedia is an honor of some sort) of having their name as a search term. For that reason Christina Taylor Green, the little girl killed in the shooting, does not have her own article, but has a redirect to the event. While I think that WP:BLP1E is often misunderstood, it is appropriate in those cases where there would be no recollection of the person except in the context of the event. Mr. Hernandez is one of many heroes, and the lack of his own separate article does not detract from that in any way. Mandsford 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mandsford. I wouldn't be surprised if he gains notability, but for now, redirect as with CTG and similar search terms. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pdonna's links, as well as other coverage, suggest that this person will not be keeping a low profile. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links are still mostly focused on the shooting (BLP1E). If additional sources could be added to establish his notability in a separate topic (for example: his LGBT activism), that would strengthen the keep argument. KimChee (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Mandsford. DS (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete/redirect Most obvious case of WP:BLP1E I have seen in 2011. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting -- he played a significant role in that event, but I don't think Wikipedia policy allows him to be the subject of a biographical article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. With all due respect to Hernandez, any article about him will only be either about the part he played concerning the Tucson shootings, or padding, unless and until he does something else. Perhaps he will, but until then, the part he played is best described in the article about the event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E, not redirect as it is unlikely someone will type "Daniel Hernandez (intern)" to search for this individual; an update of the disambiguation page for Daniel Hernández should be sufficient. He is mentioned by name for his actions in the main 2011 Tucson shooting article and may attain his own notability in the future, but alas, WP:CRYSTAL. KimChee (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kim - Haymaker (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – For the same reasons exposed by ttonyb. For consideration: how is this individual's one-time event on saving a member of Congress' life different from say that of Chesley Sullenberger? netk (talk) 6:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He's a teenage gay Mexican-American who saved the life of a US politician in a very high-profile event. He is also an activist. He is already being honored as a teen, as a gay American, as a Mexican-American and as an American hero. His case story has already been contrasted with that of Oliver Sipple. Here are some great sourcing that can help;
Sipple was notable not so much for his heroics, but for the poor way he was treated afterwards. I guess in the grander scheme of things, the news also focuses now on crazed gunmen rather than the heroes that stop them. In a year, we'll know whether Hernandez will remain a public figure, but at this point this just smacks of WP:RECENT. SDY (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons to Sipple is that of a gay American hero. Sipple was not an activist where Hernandez is and he is certain to get even more attention. Also this case brings up many interesting contrasts; the gay angle when marriage is such a hotbutton issue, being Mexican-American in a state known for anti-immigration laws and that he's so young and yet openly gay. BLP1E warns to not focus bringing embarrassment to someone known for only one event, not for being a national hero. This is a human interest story that has already become front page news in the Spanish-language media as well as the Gay media and the above links talk about the person beyond the event. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." (see Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual#Media_attention) Pdonna (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Human interest story" is a huge red flag. With the 24 hr news operation, we could have articles on missing cats with multiple reliable sources. Every article about the shooting mentions Loughner. Maybe one in twenty mentions Hernandez. He was not an integral part of the event, and while we respect and honor his actions, we can do that in the context of the article on the shooting. SDY (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Human interest stories are what attract a readership to a media outlet. I wouldn't even have heard about this guy if the angles on him were presented as dry facts. They weren't, the LGBT press talks about his activism and speculates about his political career. The Spanish-language media takes a different spin about the Mexican-American hero. Etc. It is the job of the media workers to take a story and highlight the human interest aspects to attract humans to their brand. Possibly Hernandez is only mentioned in a fraction of the coverage about the entire event but that's because he was not the focus of the entire event. A lot of mainstream Time, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox, LA Times, etc. Here's a few more; "ARIZONA SHOOTING: Daniel Hernandez goes from Giffords' intern to world hero"[12], "Giffords intern handling sudden fame after speech", By TERRY TANG,Associated Press,[13], here's a passage,
"Since Wednesday night, Hernandez has given more than 200 interviews. Trying to walk into the medical center where Giffords is hospitalized or anywhere else, he is surrounded by throngs of well-wishers. Before the memorial, the biggest group Hernandez had ever addressed was about 30 people. "And even that I think is a bit of a stretch," Hernandez told The Associated Press. Hernandez said the whole event still seems unreal. He can't even remember exactly what he said Wedneday night. "I ended up throwing away the speech I was going to be giving moments before I went up on stage. I think it's really disingenuous to be doing anything other than speaking from the heart." Hernandez had been an intern with Giffords' office for all of five days when the shooting happened at a district meet-and-greet outside a supermarket. He also volunteered as a teenager for her 2008 congressional campaign.
Born in Tucson to parents of Mexican heritage, Hernandez grew up the oldest of three children. His parents taught him and his two sisters from a young age to give back. "My mom is like that. She has a big heart," younger sister Alma Hernandez said. "My dad always thinks about the community. He always wants to do better. He always told us we have to always go back to our community where we came from to help out." Their father is retired and their mother has a side business baking cakes. Hernandez's talent for public speaking was developed in high school, where he participated in academic decathlons, Junior Honor Society and student council. Besides interning for Giffords, Hernandez was appointed as a commissioner at large to the City of Tucson Commission on Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Issues. He plans to help the organization with education outreach on issues such as bullying.
C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""
Here's a whole column noting his being Mexican-American, "What If Daniel Hernandez Was Undocumented?"[14]
And a couple talking about the gay aspects, "Grace Under Fire"[15] notes the comparison to Mark Bingham, "Does Sen. John McCain Owe Gay Servicemen an Apology?"[16] delves into the loaded language and differing standards the US has for those who are openly gay. So there are plenty of sources that talk about Hernandez in depth and as a unique aspect to a huge tragic event where this material would likely not be as useful. And after 200 interviews BLP1E cannot apply, after dozens and dozens of media interviews, many covering background information on him having nothing to do with the event itself it would seem he has surpassed any concerns of notability and verifiability. Pdonna (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. sources above only confirm that this is a one event notability. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the kudos of "Hero!" keep coming in -- from news media, President Obama, and now ethnic/gay news outlets. He is likely to end up on the "Best of 2011" lists, and eventually, a political career. I am listing only a weak keep because all of what I wrote is possibly conjecture per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He's a remarkable person, and I have no doubt he'll deserve an article soon enough. But, as you say, we don't base articles on "eventually". We are not in a hurry here. PhGustaf (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's a city-wide commissioner, jointly appointed by Mayor and city council of Tucson, at the age of 20. I don't think he passes WP:POLITICIAN yet, but it's interesting. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think this article should be merged, the proposal should be for merging into the 2011 Tucson shooting, not for deletion. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clearly notable.--195.84.40.131 (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reliable source coverage isn't just about one event in which Hernandez played a role; the reliable source coverage that supports the topic meeting WP:GNG concern's Hernandez role in the event (which is different from "one event in which Hernandez played a role") and who he is as a person - his life - that lead him to taking the actions he did. The reliable sources cover Hernandez well beyond the shooting - they go into great details about his entire life. The shooting turned the light on Hernandez and the reliable sources chose to extensively cover Hernandez's life rather than limit it to his role in the shooting. That justifies a Wikipedia article on Hernandez. Keep per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving to a "keep" based on your argument, Uzma Gamal. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 22 January 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 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Aircraft Company[edit]

Croydon Aircraft Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is insufficient refs to meet WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Croydon Aircraft Company have built aircraft, which makes them a manufacturer and therefore they should be notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 19 January 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. This is an incredibly difficult AfD, both due to the recency of the events the article is covering, and because of the tensions surrounding it. Not only that, but the overarching guideline, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, is small on detail and large on jurisdiction. While I'd normally launch into a large rant on the need for people to make comments that actually cite policy, directly or indirectly, given the difficulties with this AfD I will restrain myself to a small rant. Guerillero's apparent belief that you need consensus on a related talkpage before you can make an article seems confusing, as is Diannaa's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - both him (her?) and Clarityfiend could do to take a read of that essay. Nakon's argument is, of course, invalid - I think I actually declined the original CSD myself (hopefully this doesn't make me seem to have some kind of COI).

The general argument that "talk page consensus elsewhere has not permitted this article to exist, so it should be deleted" or "talkpage consensus is that the content shouldn't be on this page, so it should be perfectly acceptable to keep it in a separate article" is particularly frustrating. Consensus, formed at one time, between one group of editors, can be changed and overruled. The editors at the talkpage were not asked if they were fine with this content existing here, nor where they asked if they were fine with this content existing at all. They were asked if the content should be removed from that sole article. I cannot comment on the number of talkpage contributors who turned up at this AfD, but suffice to say any consensus on keeping or deleting bits of content should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, not extend further than the individual page and content being discussed. You will note that WP:G4 covers content deleted via a deletion discussion, precisely because it is not appropriate to carry consensus over in this fashion.

Discounting those comments which aren't "proper" comments - i.e., not giving actual reasons and instead relying on WP:ILIKEIT and other non-arguments — consensus is fairly clearly in favour of deletion; even if we go back to Ye Olde Been Countinge Days, it turns out the same way. A few people have been suggesting it be kept because, should consensus change, it will be far more difficult to restore the content. Rest assured that I am prepared to restore bits and bobs temporarily to allow for its inclusion elsewhere, if consensus is reached that said inclusion is acceptable; just drop a note on my talkpage. As a final note, I did like Fetchcomm's keep/rename argument (a shame there isn't consensus for it) to move to an "Aftermath of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting" page and roll in everything else that may/will change due to the shootings - that seems like something which might appease both sides of the debate. I would advise you to get together and argue it out again, preferably taking Fetchcomm's argument (it's the least divisive option I can see) as a starting point. Should consensus be reached to include the content in some form, I will, again, be perfectly willing to restore segments for the move over. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting[edit]

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of comments on the shooting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is just a few hours old so be patient and not hit it with a sledgehammer. Given some time, analysis can be provided. It is unfortuate that Sarek was fighting with me and escalated it to an AFD on this (a different article) rather than allow some time for article improvement. If an article is subjected to possible deletion, only an idiot would waste time fixing it. End this AFD and I guarantee you improvement. If none is made, then a 2nd AFD is possible.
Besides, this killing article is too long that several people said a section should be split off as is done here. However, already there are new sections about legislation and the aftermath, not just reactions.Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergethere wasn't a consensus on the talk page to make this. Also its listcruft --Guerillero | My Talk 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is just hours old and it is transforming away from the list. new sections have been added. New pictures, not found anywhere, added. Give it time and it can be transformed to a good article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no article like this for important public figures such as Reagan and the Pope, so this one should not exist either. It is listcruft. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an indiscriminite list of reactions. Already in the main article. Not news. Etc. -Atmoz (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, the knee jerk reaction is to delete, I understand but also note that several people think the reaction section to the killing article is too long. WP:SPLIT says if you think it is too long, to create a separate article. Do not violate Wikipedia rules by prohibiting a split. Thank you. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is not to split and plant elsewhere, but to get out the garden shears and start hacking away. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue for keep, as many articles pertaining to reactions to significant events exist and the political reactions to the Giffords shooting are worthy of encyclopaedic documentation, being a subject of much press coverage. While it is true that the article requires much rewriting, such as grouping reactions by type, subject, or source (media, congress, public etc), it does have the potential to be rewritten, and to be rewritten well. Quærenstalk/contributions 01:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, the only material not in the parent article is a list of unsurprisingly predictable condolences. Second, this isn't the Pope or the President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. The intent here seems to have been to preserve the buzzwords that come in statements from politicians after any tragedy-- "thoughts and prayers", "deeply saddened", senseless violence, etc. That may be new to some, but after enough tragedies that defy words, one realizes that the same words are used again and again. Mandsford 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep As of this minute, the reaction section of the main article is very short so this serves a purpose. But there could be edit warring in the main article. Because of edit warring, this should be a keep or merge as merging keeps the history in case it is decided that the main article reaction section is to be short. Merging would allow easy access to the information. In contrast, the main article history is so huge that it is not practical to search it if some time later the information is desired. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are still going back and forth over this, but I believe that a sensibly sized Reactions section in the main article is all that is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. The article is less than 24 hours old, and clearly notable. Consensus at 2011 Tucson shooting‎ regarding the split is currently evolving (the last edit in that discussion was made only a few hours ago). That discussion should be allowed to reach a conclusion before an AfD is considered. YardsGreen (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Splitting this off is inappropriate. The better choice is use a little editorial discretion. We do not need every single statement by every single elected official and their brother. -- RoninBK T C 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the usual AFD so the closing administrator must be keenly aware of it. There are some who want a very short and concise reaction section. Some of those people are campaigning for it in the main article and are violently opposed to this article. Others want a lengthy reaction section in the main article, some of whom want to delete this article to make it more likely to happen. The true and best consensus is to have a short reaction section in the main article and have this article. That way the pro-short people get half of what they want (short reaction section) and the pro-long section people get half of what they want (a long reaction section, albeit in a different location). A "delete" is NOT the consensus since some people get all of what they want and some get none. Please be mindful of this. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
let's also look at policy Too many of these votes are "I don't like it". Let's see if this is notable. The answer is that this is one of the few times that the reactions are notable. The death of Tim Russert started a whole lot of reactions. So did this. The return of Baby Doc Duvalier to Haiti, not much reaction. So notability, this qualifies. As far as merge, a lot of people don't want this shoved into the shooting article. Therefore, the answer is clear, which is keep even though some don't like it. This is not a beauty contest. True, this article could be improved a lot but nobody is going to waste their time under the threat of a gun(imminent deletion) Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a memorial. No victims names are listed. If the article is kept, there can be much further material about the gun debate, civility debate, as well as more analytical description of the widespread worldwide support for Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per CSD G4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Nakon 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the story has dominated the news for a week now and its aftermath has turned the political world on its head. The article in its current state is poor, so I would just fork everything from the main article to this one. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was already done as a result of this afd. Nakon 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unnecessary, unencyclopaedic, and possibly created to make a point, rather than meeting a perceived need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment sine I've already registered my notvote above. Does the reaction to the event have a notability independent of the event itself? Ironically, if this article were explicitly about the Palin brouhaha, it might actually be more encyclopedic, since a lot of that discussion became about Palin, rather than about the shooting itself. Most of the rest of this is really just part of the shooting and should be split from the main article if and only if we decided to include longer coverage of everyone's wailing and gnashing of teeth. SDY (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Andy the Grump's reasons pretty much. Sayerslle (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a mess. It doesn't have a clear topic. It's a recreation of a deleted article. Etc.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a random amalgam of information codified into an article by an editor who hasn't exactly been in agreement with the consensus on various issues regarding this event. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a list of reactions as it's already covered in the main article. WereWolf (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa That's quite the wall of text, isn't it? The fact of the matter is, even though this kind of content seems relevant now, in a few months it's not going to be. We simply do not need this much information, and most of the material is just not notable. Why is it relevant to have a listing of what every famous political person thinks about this event? This only needs to be a good solid paragraph in the main article, not its own entire page. l'aquatique[talk] 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. This article is based on WP:RECENTISM and I was remiss in not mentioning it earlier. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not prefer a separate article under normal circumstances and share the POV fork concerns, but as the main article 2011 Tucson shooting is presently 93KB and growing, WP:SPLIT does allow for this and the Reactions section is the largest section of that article. the prose itself is only at about 27KB, so the length argument has not yet been met. KimChee (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) / 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muboshgu- thanks for finding that guideline! I knew there had to be something somewhere that would cover this sort of situation. KimChee- I see your point, but I also wonder how much of that 27kb we really even need? I think what I'm trying to say (I never know what I'm trying to say) is that while such a split might be supported by policy, if we apply common sense we may see that this material is not really contributing to the encyclopedia. l'aquatique[talk] 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is in essence the same article as previous deletion discussion which closed as speedy merge. CSD:G4 does not apply since it's not a copy-paste, but some of the same logic may be applicable. SDY (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We must follow the rules, not "I don't like it". The topic of the article is notable. The reactions to the crime are so notable, even a President flew out to Arizona and Fidel Castro commented. There is also continued political debate.

    The article CAN and WILL be improved but nobody in their right mind is going to improve the article with a knife (this AFD) to their throat. This article is notable and there's a lot to write, so keep it. If after a few months the article is crap, then you can say "we gave it a chance without holding a knife to its throat, but it is still crap."

    Furthermore, deleting this will destroy a lot of references compiled that can help students research a paper. Another point is that many here are so destructive; they want to get rid of the article and shrink the main article's reaction section to 2-3 sentences. By keeping this, you make those people halfway happy (they get a short reaction section) and the people who want a long reaction section happy (they have a sub-article) which is a true consensus, rather than making half of the people mad and half thinking they are victors. This was said above.

    Finally, AFD is not a vote but a discussion. Nobody for delete has been able to come up with a valid argument against the fact that this article covers notable topics and is, therefore, eligible for an article. It is not simply a "My Condolences" list but a great article in the making. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we PLEASE avoid the unfortunate gun-to-the-head metaphor? -- RoninBK T C 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to see avoided is this kind of wikilawyering in the "closing admin notes". Please state your opinion above and avoid trying to circumvent the debate by making these kind of courtroom-style closing statements, if at all possible. l'aquatique[talk] 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks to whomever fixed this... l'aquatique[talk] 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has gotten a huge amount of coverage/reactions from many people. I think the reactions to the event are probably as notable as the shooting itself. Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The age of the article is irrelevant, but the scope, which is entirely inappropriate and unencyclopaedic. This unneeded fork from 2011 Tucson shooting‎ is developing into a horrendous breach of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:QUOTEFARM of typical sound bites and sweet nothings a la: "Oh, aren't we all horrified by this atrocious tragedy and sad and unnecessary loss of life, may the per rot in hell [sic]". As for the gun debate, Plus ça change, Plus ça reste la même chose. We have that ad nauseum every time there is a spree shooting - it doesn't belong in articles for each event, and should be centralised at Gun politics in the United States or somesuch. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know I was the one who pushed for it but consensus seems to be against the article at the moment as also poined out here: Talk:2011 Tucson shooting#Aftermath and reactions article - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to we wary of what we call consensus. By some definitions, the world consensus is communist dicatatorship since Russia and China comprise near 1.5B people, far more than the America's 0.3B. Wikipedia's rule mention notability, which this passes. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can easily be covered in the main article. I was stunned even to see that this article existed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False statement Jojhutton's statement is, unfortunately, false. As soon as a little is added, someone deletes it from the main article. This article prevents edit warring and is also notable. NOBODY disagrees that the reactions to the shooting are much bigger and notable than other crimes. The article is not just "I'm sorry" comments but has the potential to be much more. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? I disagree that this is any more notable than any other assassination attempt, mass shooting, etc. l'aquatique[talk] 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: no consideration to merge? I do not agree with merging but I can see the merits of that over delete. The edit histories would be kept as well as the references. Merge is better than book burning (delete). Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Basically it's a bunch of people who are expressing shock and dismay over the shooting. It's just a bunch of quotes thrown into a blender of sorts. Moreover, as Ohconfucius pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial or a quotefarm. –MuZemike 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is much more and writing is on hold. Why slave and write and have the stuff thrown in the trash in a few days? There is commentary about political debate, Palin's involvement, details about how different and widespread the reactions, details of the memorial service, etc. There are also many pictures that aren't in the main article and can't be because they would overwhelm the article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a tiny bit of cleaning up and hid the images as they were everywhere in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with edit as it ruins article, thus making it more likely a delete. It has already been established that the main shooting article editors do not want a reaction section or just a small one. Since this covers the topic in detail and adds things other than condolences, it is a worthy keep. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:49, 22 January 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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Walker[edit]

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

OK, I'm very happy to be proved wrong, but I'm calling hoax on this - or at least high level of exaggeration.

The article will have us believe that Tracey Walker was the first ever internet supermodel, with fansites and 2.5 billion downloads. The problem is there's not evidence of this whatsoever.

  • traceywalker.com redirect to a facebook search
  • The "McCormick Agency" draws me a blank except here [19] - where it is indeed connected with "SpokesModels.Com" - but if you click on the link, you are back at facebook
  • There is a myspace page [20] which does seem to reflect the article's assertions, but offers nothing verifiable

As I say, my biggest problem is that internet supermodels don't tend to disappear from the internet, and THE first one would surely have more presence.Scott Mac 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facebook page details a few notable claims. http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=tracey+walker&type=users#!/profile.php?id=541889179 Personally I don't think enough independent reports could be found to assert a reportable level of notability, shes from Indiana perhaps theres more in local reports. Recently been creating online avators, albeit for a few notable peoples/companies. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CV is impressive - the problem is it doesn't check out. [21] [22] [23] [24]. The only real presence is on usergenerated sites like myspace, facebook, and wikipedia.--Scott Mac 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, interesting person but not even if the detail is correct unless they are reported in independent wiki reliable locations, then she isn't wikikpedia notable for a bio. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence (sources) of notability, BLP is potential magnet for trouble. →StaniStani  22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Half of the extraordinary claims in the article are not credible. The rest is supported only by user-generated sources. If this were even partially true, some reliable source would take notice. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotioal piece with no reliable sources. Interesting to note that a 2009 WebWire piece tells how Tracy is now involved in internet network marketing.[25] And another PR Web piece from 2007 states how this former "internet model" is "making her mark" in the internet.[26] Apparently the only one interested in promoting her, is herself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: most probably a vanity page. I tried to check claims but all I can find is internet marketing as above mentioned by MichaelQSchmidt and in any case no online RS whatsoever it citing her; which is very suspicious for a claimed "Internet supermodel". --Cyclopiatalk 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails verifiability. Jll (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic example of the difference between mere assertions of notability, and having evidence of notability. (Besides, Internet's first supermodel? That doesn't even pass the giggle-test. Cindy Margolis has a MUCH stronger claim to that title.) -- RoninBK T C 17:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Article deserves a chance --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet[reply]
A chance of what?--Scott Mac 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If striking isn't allowed, I should point out that the above SPA has been blocked as a CU confirmed sockpuppet – the above account (and !vote) is just one out of dozens of others by the same person. HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking of sockpuppets is fine. Striking of other SPAs are not. -- RoninBK T C 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to paraphrase a great man, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 21 January 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Blashki[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. No independent references and no assertion in the article of why this person is notable. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to family tradition (he was my great grandfather) he and his wife arrived in Australia with five shillings and a doormat. At the end of his life he was a Melbourne City magistrate and his firm not only had supplied masonic regalia to many Australian notables but had also designed and made the Sheffield Shield which is still the cricket trophy fought for by all the States of Australia (and it bears a note of the maker's name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbell (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect that the subject is notable, although the article as written at present is more in the lines of a family history rather than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps the best thing at this stage is for the article to be userfied for the creating editor to work on while it comes up to speed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phillip Blashki was indeed a remarkable person. The subject of the 1986 biography "Phillip Blashki - A Victorian Patriarch" (Hamer. G. ISBN 0 9589451 0 1), He was associated with numerous, societal and charitable events and causes and as a jeweller produced a number of notable items of public importance, including Australian cricket's 'Sheffield Shield' commissioned by Lord Sheffield in 1894 and the NSW Cricketers Association's 'Horden Shield'. The Sheffield Shield cricket competition is Australia's premier, interstate competition and is regarded world-wide as 'first-class' cricket, for the purposes of national selection and cricketing statistics.
The name Phiilip Blashki is synonymous with the history of Freemasonry in Victoria. Blashki held various offices in several Lodges over a period of 40+ years and was appointed District Grand Warden under the British Constitution. His business 'P. Blashki and Sons' which was established in 1958, is recognised as Victoria's (and one of Australia's) primary suppliers of Masonic regalia.
Phillip Blashki was a justice of the peace for many years and became actively invloved in the Victorian judicial system as magistrate of the city court. In 1914 he was one of Lord Mayor Hennesey's invited dignatories at the opening of the Melbourne City Court. As recognition for his work as a J.P., philanthropist and community leader, Blashki was one of the invited guests at the opening of the first federal parliament at the Exhibition Buildings.
Blashki helped in the foundation of the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers and was instrumental in founding and/or the early development of a number of communal and chariatble organisations (including the provision of seed funding in some instances). These included the Melbourne Jewish Aid Society, Melbourne Cemeteray Trust and Melbourne Freemeson's Homes.
While in his times having 14 children may not have been remarkable in itself, many of the children of Phillip Blashki, his 55 grandchildren and countless further decendants have themselves been, or currently are leaders in various fields of enterprise and community. User:Leigh.blashki|Leigh.blashki (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh.blashki (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in archives of the Jeweish Museum of Australia, Melbourne. The small portable scales he used to weigh gold as a hawker are on display. His name is on the burial house (Metahar House) for Jews at Brighton cemetery where he was the first Trustee on the Bosrd, elected to represent Jews. The front page of the Melbourne daily newspaper "The Herald" carried his photo and a long story about him on October 21st 1916, as he was the Chairman of the first City Court Bench in Russell St. Most Australian newspapers have references about Blashki at some time. When he retired , at age 70, from duty as a Justice of the Peace at the City Court, an illuminated address was presented to him by the Prime Minsiter, Alfred Deakin, signed by 30 of the solicitors who worked with him. References include some out of print books from the 19th and 20th century. 'The Jews in Victoria an the Nineteenth Century' L.M. Goldman 1956, Rubinstein, W.D. and H.. Rubinstein 'The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History' 2 vols, William Heinemann, Port Melbourne, 1991. 'Phillip Blsshki; A Victorian Patriarch', Gael R. Hammer, 1986 ISBN 0 9589451 0 1', Victorian Governement Gazette in late 19th century."The Argus" in the 19th century. The quarterly journal of the Freemasons carried the story of the sesquicentenary of the arrival of the Blshki's in Melbourne as their lead article. The business P.Blashki & Sons, est 1858 in still in business today. One of the oldest surviving businesses in Melbourne. See also the foundation of the Victorian Chambers of Commerce. Also the story of tobacco in Australia.


Blashki was a founder of the Chevra Kadisha, the Melbourne Jewish burial society. Jewish Aid, the first Jewish welfare organisation. The Victorian governernement then then inivited him establish a similar Board for welfare of the State. A long list of his secular and Jewish achievements are in official obituaries.

The site needs to be less personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY As things stand it reads like a badly-written family history article you would find on an amateur genealogy website. It is unreferenced and is not written from a neutral point of view. In short it needs a complete re-write. If, as you say, the man is notable then you should apply the same amount of effort that you put into this AfD nomination to the article itself. WP:BOLD - if you care about it, go fix it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source is a self published family history. The office of justice of the peace does not establish notability. TFD (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; The children's names are not important unless in their own right. I will be uploading the photo supplied, Courtesy of the Latrobe Library of Victoria, of the Opening of the City Court, Russell St, Melbourne, 20 January 1914. Blashki is in the centre. Attorney General, the Hon. D. MvKinnon, then the Chief Police Magistrate, P.J. Dwyer Esq, then Phillip Blashki, Chairman of the City Court Bench. To be uploaded in a few hours. I will also upload the photo of Blashki in regalia ss Hon. Past Deputy Grand Master, 1890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip's biographer - Gael Hammer - is unavailable this week. However she will be happy to fix and augment the entry next week (starting 24th Jan 2011), and to learn the ropes as she goes. There are in addition two cricket references (Chris Harte, A History of Australian Cricket 1993 at p. 176 and by the same author "The History of the Sheffield Shield, Allen & Unwin 1987 at pages 32-33 which both describe the process by which the Shield was made and describe Phillip Blashki) and which I'm now trying to figure out how to link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacygumboots (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I see that Phillip Blashki is cited in as its maker early in the page about the Sheffield Shield. Lacygumboots (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The current source in the article is somewhat problematic as it appears to be published by a relative, so its independence as a source is suspect. However, a google book search shows coverage in other books that are not self-published: [27], [28], [29], and [30]. The article needs a good deal of cleanup, but these sources support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 Hopefully this version is better! Mummy-whale (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION - good job rescuing the article, which is now looking healthy. I am very happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Not Technologies[edit]

Waste Not Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:30, 15 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, Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 23 January 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.

Legality of Southern Secession[edit]

The result was No consensus - page was deleted independently of AfD discussion.. VQuakr (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - article was speedily deleted as "Essay, original research" by User:Jimfbleak. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legality of Southern Secession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This thesis appears to be original research. It would be better to start over with an article based on published sources rather than try to improve this thesis. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 15 January 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) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McLaughlin Road[edit]

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

Delete - Non notable road with no target for redirect ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:23, 15 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future[edit]

List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in in 50 mln years fron now in the book After Man: A Zoology of the Future. The species are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. The hypothesized species are furthermore mentioned in the main article. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, with the list already in the main article (and the main article already merely describing book events), I have treated this list as an article here. Please note, I have proposed a very similar page for deletion last week and came across this one by looking at all deleted links following that deletion... L.tak (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this steaming pile of non-notable tripe. "Unidentified shrew"? Aaaargh. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before it gets deleted, the authors need to merge this back to the article that it shouldn't have been spun out of in the first place. Both this and After Man: A Zoology of the Future have their defects, the main one being the illusion that these are real animals. Because the parent article relies on this one as a crutch, it simply recites the made-up "scientific names" (Butorides piscatorius, Grima frondiforme, etc.) as if they existed, while this article lists details of animals that exist only in an author's imagination. For a similar list of made up scientific names, see Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner#List of cartoons. Mandsford 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WPN --Anna O'Leary (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should be noted that this was a content fork from the After Man: A Zoology of the Future article, and that it was condensed considerably after the fork. Also, I notice that one of the nom's main arguments is that it is written in an in-universe style, which, although a pressing issue, is hardly a reason for deletion. I agree, by the way, that something like "unidentified shrew" is inappropriate. I think a named-creatures-only rule would work well here. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete must agree with with some of the harsher delete votes here. The list is 'marvelous' fiction but can have no place in an encyclopaedia Benqish (talk) 14:50, 20 January 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility Network Laboratory[edit]

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

I just don't see how this university laboratory can possibly be notable on its own. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The direction of this discussion changed significantly after the first couple of days. What looked like a clear "delete" has become a fairly clear "keep". The run of delete/redirect !votes in this discussion largely happened before (a) the article was expanded, and (b) it became clear that the speech and the process by which it was written was receiving a considerable amount of coverage and dissection by commentators and historians. After those developments (eg if a line is drawn in the discussion at about 17 January, when the developments happened), the consensus started trending quite firmly to keep. So while the numbers in the debate as a whole are pretty much even, the consensus now is to keep. Merges have also been proposed. However, I'm unable to discern any consensus to merge, particularly as, again, the large part of the merge !vote came early in the discussion. Also, real questions have been raised whether the merge proposals would be viable given the size of the target articles. Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial[edit]

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

Not every speech Obama makes deserves its own page. This isn't his speech on race, or his speech to the Arab world. If he had spoken more extensively about the political environment, we'd have something to document. This speech was really just a simple memorial speech, which has gotten some positive analysis from people on all sides of the political spectrum, and can be covered in 2011 Tucson shooting in a couple of sentences. Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Reactions: Giffords assassination attempt or the reaction section to the shooting article. Not a notable speech. Not a "ask not what your country can do for you" kind of speech. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your rationale, but we can't merge this to a page that doesn't exist. There is ongoing discussion about creating that page, but it hasn't reached any consensus. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is the constant edit warring. There are people who are opposed to having such article and then cut out huge parts of the reactions section so they can say "see, it's not too big". Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, deserves about a paragraph in the shooting article, if that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    :Vote withdrawn. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. I don't deny that some individual speeches merit separate articles, where the speech itself has become a widely-recognized cultural reference (along the lines of "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you..."), but this speech, while high-profile, doesn't have anywhere near that kind of emblematic cultural status. The speech is certainly important, and should certainly be covered in the article on the shooting, but I'm not convinced it's notable enough to merit its own article. WaltonOne 19:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whatever article is most appropriate. It can always be split off again if the speech proves to have enduring historical significance. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wait, we actually have a bunch of articles on presidential speeches - it looks like the bar for this to be a separate article is pretty low. I'll check back in a few days and will change my vote if the article is improved. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SoV. Not s speech that will be long remembered; perhaps worth a graf in the shooting article or one of the Obama articles. PhGustaf (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My thinking on this is that we should now have a separate article on the Tuscons memorial, of which Obama's speech would be a part. The memorial was a notable gathering, not just for Obama's speech, but for remarks by other public figures (the governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security), and the separate criticism raised by some regarding the 'rally-like' atmosphere of the event. bd2412 T 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to keep per development of the article. bd2412 T 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree strongly at the moment -- what would the purpose of that article be? What would the contents be, short of a list of speakers? Unless I'm very wrong, that's a WP:MEMORIAL, not an encyclopedia article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Maybe this will be taken as an example of great American rhetoric at some future point, but unless and until then it's just a set of remarks which are part of the shooting event and not notable in and of themselves. SDY (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for the reasons already stated. I'm as yet unconvinced we need a 'Reactions' article, but if one is created, it should go there. Otherwise, it belongs in the 'Shootings' article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, not enough long term merit and coverage for its own article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the verifiable information per the above; the weasel wording and unsourced bits about "attacks" from critics needs to go. I would not object to including this in a stand-alone article about "Reactions" or "Aftermath" if or when consensus is that it should be forked. Location (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Already mostly covered within primary article. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a speech like this by the President is going to get news coverage. That does not mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons listed above. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Editors suggesting Merge should be aware that the main shooting article already covers this matter, with arguably adequate detail and weight. Much of the material in this article was rejected there. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why I think this should be decided as delete rather than merge; all the necessary data is already at the main article. The rest is extraneous. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The end result of a merge, rather than a straight deletion, would be that this title would redirect to the corresponding section in the shooting article. bd2412 T 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is already covered adequately at the shooting article, and doesn't need its own article. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, this speech may prove to have been the turning point in American history, where Democrats and Republicans, inspired by President Obama, forever put all their differences aside and vowed ever after to work together to build a new era of peace and prosperity....naaaah. Mandsford 02:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a memorial speech, one of tens of thousands made over the years by numerous national leaders and of no particular significance. If it becomes historically significant later then it can be recreated. Jll (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep at least for a couple of weeks or months. Let the editors work on this and figure out the best way to develop this page - whether it should be renamed and expanded or merged or whatever. An AFD discussion is not an appropriate way to make those decisions and is in fact deeply unhelpful to the process of improving the article. AFD is not a conflict resolution process. The fact that other speeches don't have articles is not a reason for deletion. This has the potential to contribute to a quality article so it should not be deleted. filceolaire (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of this AfD discussion is to figure out whether the article should be on Wikipedia at all. If not then improving the article is pointless because it won't change that. Jll (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with many of the above; this is a memorial speech given by a political figurehead that bears little to no importance in the context of policy. It's not notable enough to warrant its own article. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/redirect Not a notable enough speech that it must be split from the main shooting article. A more general "response to the 2011 Tucson shooting" article might be appropriate, though. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that I am going against what seems to be a developing consensus here, but today I have been reading what reliable sources are saying about this speech four days after it was delivered, and I believe that this speech is notable and will be long remembered. The striking thing is the number of Republican politicians and pundits who praised the speech, which sets it apart from any other speech that Obama has ever given. The speech is also being discussed as a precursor of sorts to the State of the Union address this coming Tuesday. It was also delivered a few days before the halfway point of Obama's term, and has extra symbolic importance as analysts look at the next two years. I'll search out the best sources, add them to the article, userfy it if it is deleted, and return to it later. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added 11 solid references to the article which I think show the notability of the speech. I respectfully ask that those who have supported deleting or merging the article will take a look at these sources and reconsider based on new information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to begrudge your contributions, but still Delete. It now reads like a glorification of Obama's speach. While it is a good speech, I don't think we need an article that is basically a list of people saying how good the speech was. The article doesn't talk at all about what the speech said, or what it's impact is. It is still quite early to determine what historical impact the speech will have. The title could just as well be. Praise for Obama's Tucson Speech Arzel (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Arzel has raised a pivotal point-it is greatly the unusual near unanimity of positive response which marks the subject as notable. Some of Arzel's omissions have already begun to be addressed. Analysis will follow.
  • Keep. The article, thanks to Cullen328, is much improved. The speech may very well be a turning point for Obama. It's also historic because its the only time Obama and Palin agreed on anything. (You know there are thousands of articles more worthy of deletion -- delete them first!) --Kenatipo (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article continues to improve in quality and the speech may have contributed to Obama's recent increase in popularity. There are many, many articles more worthy of deletion. Why the rush to delete it, anyway? Give it some time. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article: Speeches of this sort are hardly special as presidents have done this throughout history following major tragedies. The Tucson shooting article could at best have a summary of the speech, reactions by the press, and the fact that the speech was nationally televised during primetime by the major TV networks. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say the amount of coverage this speech has received, and in particular the positive assessments of it, make it notable enough for a separate article. Some of the media responses have said it was as significant as A More Perfect Union (speech), or even the best speech of Obama's career. I'd say it's at least as notable as the rest of the speeches in Category:Speeches by Barack Obama. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the "leader of the free world" makes a speech that has people whooping at the funeral of a child, when he speaks of the power of love over all other powers and achievements,and philosophizes at length, when even his bitterest and most foul mouthed opponents praise him for it, that is a milestone and a keeper and worthy of separate note. Wikipedians seem to fall into two classes inclusionists and the sphincterically challenged. The article needs time to blossom before being stabbed to death. The analysis of the speech in the article will happen over the coming weeks--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RECENT. There is no evidence of persistent coverage of this event. The expectation is that it will last one news cycle. Clinton's speech at the Oklahoma city bombing doesn't have an article, nor does Reagan's speech after the Challenger explosion, and both of those were very fine speeches that moved the nation. Just because it's covered in the main article and not as a separate item doesn't mean we don't respect it. SDY (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Less than notable. - Haymaker (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A highly notable event -- especially for having Obama's most prominent critic Glenn Beck calling it "the best speech he's ever given." With the wide plethora of commentators and historians calling this Obama's greatest moment, it seems obvious to let this page be expanded.--The lorax (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am somewhat bewildered by the fact that the article currently contains a single line vaguely referencing the actual content of the speech, and no quotes from it, no discussion of its rhetorical devices, nor of the somewhat interesting fact that the entire "Gabby opened her eyes" comment was not in the distributed text at all, but was improvised in the moment, and probably drew the biggest reaction of the night. bd2412 T 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment response- I have tried to begin amending that lacuna BD2412 by at least providing links to the pre and post ad lib transcripts. It is odd that with the polarized picture emerging on this page that the discussion page of the article was EMPTY until 30 minutes ago. I think the key to the article's retention may be seeing the international recognition of the significance of the speech. I hope all those who are voting 'Keep' are going to pitch in to make it a better article and maybe some erstwhile deleters too !--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response I've added a summary of the content of the speech with many Obama quotes, added a section with comments on the notability of the speech by five historians, and tidied things up. The fact that we have no articles on such notable presidential speeches as Reagan's Challenger and Star Wars speeches, or Eisenhower's military-industrial complex speech, or Clinton's speech after the Oklahoma City bombing is not a reason to delete this article. Instead, it is reminder that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. We should create articles about those notable speeches, and also improve this article about this notable speech, as I am trying to do. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Individual presidential speeches can be encyclopedic topics, and would make great articles. -- Ϫ 05:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-I say keep it for now; everyone agreed the speech itself and the political context were all significant. If over time, this doesn't hold, then I suppose it should be removed. But for now it appears that the speech is going to be historically significant. Is there such a thing as probationary status for articles? 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden is the other way; it shouldn't be kept until proven not to be notable, it should be deleted if not proven to be notable. This speech was added to Wikipedia due to WP:RECENTISM based on the remarks of pundits in the news cycle. If this speech goes on to end partisanship, then by all means reinstate it with the proper proof. Until then, it's just the President giving a nice speech and getting applause, and that is not enough for notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unprecedented positive reaction from the eminent is important, but the speech is notable also for its philosophy of transcendence. Recentism is about the flimsy and the controversial per its page.This is the opposite.Perhaps a section in the article citing the reactions of Philosophers would help--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To give this an article in its own right would be a gross violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. This is just another presidential speech, yes, hugely televised, but so is every day's news. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to do with WP:NOT#MEMORIAL -it is about dead relatives and pals-this is about a notable philosophical speech--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I was thinking of going for merging into the reactions article, but then I noticed the long list of reactions it has gotten; I am tending towards keep for now as this might have some further notability in the long run. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just the "Response by historians" section alone convinced me that this should be kept. -- œ™ 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I ask any editor who wants to make a recommendation to please review the general notability guideline, then take a look at what the reliable sources have to say about this specific topic, and then make your recommendation based on policy rather than personal opinion. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 8 merges/11 deletes (one editor bolded delete twice)/ 9 keeps/ I delete-merge-redirect, making 29 recommendations have been made so far. but who is counting?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge/delete doesnt warrant its own article and can easily be paraphrased into the reactions article as a subsection where the reactions tho the pspeech can be noted and a text of the speech can be ref'd or EL'd(Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
  • Keep This speech is clearly notable, given the amount of independent coverage by reliable sources. It is an important political event in its own right, and arguably is of greater importance, both in the short and long terms, than many State of the Union addresses. The Celestial City (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • State of the Union addresses allow the President to create a narrative and direct Congress towards certain legislative goals. This speech accomplished... what exactly? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A distinct cooling of partisan tensions, for starters. The speech may not have been given in such a formal context, but that does not make it any less significant. The Celestial City (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know how to respond here on one hand each president has 4 to 8 years in office and this is a highlight. On the other hand, notability is not inherited and just because the event is notable the same may not be said about the speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for reasons stated above. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge This can easily be covered in the main article, and most of what is in this article is not notable anyway. Do we really need an entire section on writing the speech? Its not the Gettysburg Address. It doesn't need to be broken down, piece by piece, so I say trim oiut the fat and move it to the main article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want to merge this back into an article that is almost 100KB long? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to reconsider my earlier delete vote based on changes to the article. The end of the lead says "The speech was notable for the unusual praise that it received from many conservatives and Republicans." Essentially, we are saying that a non-controversial speech is notable for inclusion because nobody criticized it? I understand the political system here is toxic, but really? There is now information on how Obama wrote the speech, but I doubt that information is notable now, let alone how it will be considered in the future. I appreciate the additions of the speech itself, which were totally absent when I AfD'd this article in the first place, but the changes don't resolve my concerns with the existence of this article. I reaffirm my earlier delete vote, despite the improvements. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I vote to merget the article with the main 2011 Tuscon Shootings page. I saw the speech live on television and agree that it was one of his best. But with no disrespect to the families or the victims, this was not Kennedy's inaugural or Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech where it will have historical and long lasting effects. It was a moving speech that helped us get through this awful event. It is definitely noteworthy and should be noted in the body of the main event. Hobbamock (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If someone tried starting this article in 2011, 3/4ths of the people here wouldn't participate in this discussion. We don't need this per WP:RECENT and what is salvageable here can be merged into the reactions article. Any article where we have to explicitly state why a subject satisfies WP:Notability by stating in the lead "It is notable because..." has got a ton of problems, most likely with notability. Should merging prove impossible for some reason, by all means delete. AniMate 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response regarding recentism A careful reading of the essay WP:RECENT does not justify deleting this article. Here are a few sentences from that essay:
"Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "If we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."
One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation and sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations.
Finally, Wikipedia articles are often developed via on-line references, which may be temporary in nature. But by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources can be found more easily later."
That reads like an argument in favor of keeping this article, not a reason to delete it. After reading WP:RECENT, please continue on to read WP:GNG, our general notability guideline, which says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article . . ." This topic complies fully with that most important of all guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't clear what we would merge this into: there is way too much information to actually include it all in 2011 Tucson shootings, and it would likewise swamp Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting. Also, right now, there's evidence (documented in the article) that beyond being a mere reaction to the shootings, the speech had a discernable political effect that went beyond the shootings themselves. Obama has experienced a polling bounce, and the speech was universally and strongly praised. It will be long-remembered, almost certainly more so than his 2009 State of the Union stand-in, which has its own article. The Tucson speech may actualy be looked back on as a turning point in Obama's presidency, and there's no reason to pre-judge this out of a concern about recentism. There is no deadline, after all.-- AndySimpson talk? 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the choice to merge this I am fully against it that leaves delete or keep, and seeing that the article is decent, and that major events define a presidency I choose to keep this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into 2011 Tucson shooting, which adaquately covers the president's role in the event such that sufficient content has already been "merged" and the only thing left to do is redirect. Count me as merge in the consensus. Everything the US president does generates Wikipedia Notable topics. That's why we have What Wikipedia is not. In the context of President Obama, Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial generated routine news reporting of President Obama's actions/event. See WP:NOTNEWS. Relative to other articles on Obsama, there is nothing yet to establish enduring notability of the Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial event. Britney Spears generates plenty of reliable source coverage on all sorts of events. Wikipedia should not have an article on each Britney Spears event, either. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I do not understand why some users argue that because Republicans applauded the speech that it means keeping it. I highly doubt you are going to see any mainstream figures of the rival political party criticized a speech that honored shooting victims. Again, an approval rating bounce should be no surprise give the circumstances, but we should not assume that is permanent. They could go up or down again three months from now based on his performance. It is too early to determine how significant this is. You can add as much wikipuffery as you want in the article, but this should not have an article on it. Truthsort (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international coverage makes it notable. Comte0 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable enough and covered enough for its own article. Definitely not delete. It's getting large enough to fill too much at the Tucson shooting article, but should be a section there, which can use the lead here as its content. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage and notability enough to say it is needed for a separate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 22 January 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fengyong University[edit]

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

According to the Chinese Wikipedia article, this university no longer exists and has not existed since 1933. The Chinese Wikipedia article provides a little more information than the two sentences here, but not much more, and cites no sources. As I have no verifiable sources here, I think, reluctantly, I am asking for deletion, but an alternative is to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), which the Chinese Wikipedia article indicates the university was merged into — but, again, cited no source for that proposition for. Nlu (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course, if reliable and verifiable sources show that it did exist prior to 1933, then it would be notable. Perhaps someone can provide a sourced info, although most links would defy Google translation. What little I could find in Romanized alphabet texts was a reference in the memoirs of Great Leader Kim Il-Sung. Everything else was a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Mandsford 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This certainly existed and was disbanded, and our standard practice is to allow articles on any verified educational institutions at high school level or above. The fact that this no longer exists is irrelevant to any decision to keep or delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable, perhaps (I do not doubt its existence), but the problem is that there is simply very little verifiable information available; ergo, as I wrote above, with some reluctance, I still believe a deletion is warranted since what is in the current article simply doesn't convey any real useful information, and there is not much to add to it. --Nlu (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a Chinese university that closed in 1933 we can be pretty sure that sources findable online in English are far less than the tip of the iceberg of sources that could be used to add to this. Do you really believe that a university confirmed by a source published by the University of Michigan Press to have been established by the authorities of the world's most populous nation to train their supporters hasn't had even more significant coverage in reliable print sources? And, if you don't like American sources, Kim Il-sung wrote that students of this university took up arms against the Soviet Union. We wouldn't dream of deleting an article on any university in the United Kingdom or the United States, so why should we apply a different standard to China? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources above demonstrate notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:09, 18 January 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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie West[edit]

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

College basketball player whose notability seems to be inherited from his father. In 4 years at West Virginia, he's logged about 300 minutes on the court; a college athlete who's looking to the draft or all-american spot would get double that in one year without any issue; he hasn't even played in a good number of games for the team. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 15 January 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) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real San Luis FC[edit]

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

Not notable peruvian football club

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete. I'm no expert on football or on Peru, so I can't say with any confidence, but a series of Google-searches didn't seem to turn up any references to the club in third-party sources, just a few blogs and fan sites. (And the club doesn't have an article on Spanish Wikipedia, though that isn't in itself a strong argument for deletion.) I was momentarily confused by the fact that (by coincidence) there seems to be a different San Luis Fútbol Club in the Mexican Primera División, which is much more prestigious and is certainly notable. But the Peruvian club doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any substantial media coverage. If someone digs up some solid references (say, coverage in Peruvian national media), I will gladly switch to a keep. WaltonOne 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources can be found to verify this team's existence; I have a sinking suspicion it's just an elabroate hoax. GiantSnowman 19:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the team does exist but whoever wrote that article's telling porkies - Real San Luis de Canete appear to be a youth team, not a senior team playing in Copa Peru as claimed. Bettia (talk) 11:07, 17 January 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) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rich[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in and reliable sources independent of this music producing duo. The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not make claims that pass WP:N for a WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 16 January 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) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Murphy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability from third-party sources William Avery (talk) 17:03, 15 January 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mitchell (tennis)[edit]

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

fails WP:Notabilty (sports) for tennis players by both senior and junior criteria - no ATP main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, no world top three junior ranking, no junior grand slam event titles Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 2 January 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BEEInfoSTRIP[edit]

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

Spam for a public monitoring tool. The author, Warren Louw has confirmed to me by e-mail that he works for BEEInfoSTRIP. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Independent reliable sources are non existent" is exactly the problem. If the BEEInfoSTRIP becomes widely used by the government or business, then there will be articles written about it in the business press, and things like that. That would demonstrate notability. In a Google search for "BEEInfoSTRIP", all the results were either (a) the BEEInfoSTRIP website itself, (b) social networking pages set up for the product, (c) results from Wikipedia itself or Wikipedia mirrors, (d) comments promoting the product on the Accountancy SA website. None of these demonstrate any attention having been paid to the product by anyone independent. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 UTC)
  • comment Would this be notable - "Press" The South African Broadcasting Corporation radio station SAfm interviewed the BEEInfoSTRIP information officer - Mr Lester September on Monday 6 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am (45min Audio Clip is available from the radio station or on the BEEInfoSTRIP website) "notable?" wlouw (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be a start, I suppose. One interview on its own doesn't reach the level of coverage required by the notability policy, though. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Could you provide a link to the audio clip on the website? I looked but couldn't find it. - htonl (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS SAfm telephoned the BEEInfoSTRIP for the interview which means the news or interest of the BEEInfoSTRIP is spreading without any awareness campaigns, the BEEInfoSTRIP received 13000+ views and of recent listing on facebook a following and acceptance of +-700 people as per facebook groups, friends and "likes". If you will take the time to go to the internet pages note the profile of people, Black Management Forum , political parties, business people, people from TV news stations (ETV News Anchor: Robyn Smith) and others, National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson, Jay Naidoo and the list continues. The SAfm interview can be found on the Introduction page. Right-hand column, 2nd entry from the top under heading "News Events" wlouw (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I noticed the word "spam" above. I should mention that the BEEInfoSTRIP is not dependent on advertising as it cannot be purchased by individuals. The entry requested on the wiki site is for awarness and definition. Information is power and South Africans need to be empowered. Wikipedia has positioned itself as an information provider and this is where South Africans go when searching. wlouw (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If I may suggest in the event of indecisiveness, as a notable resource, htonl (talk) based in South Africa should contact the office of the DTI and speak to Minister Dr Davies or the Chief BEE director Nomonde Mesatywa who is directly responsible for our brief and ask for their stance on the BEEInfoSTRIP. I am sure this will be the final deciding factor on credibility / notability. wlouw (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparent COI as well, with Wlouw using the term "Our brief". Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I do not presume to speak for Corvus, our conflict of interest policy states that: "[If] you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)." Your language above, for example "we are the creators of the BEEInfoSTRIP", suggests that you are directly involved with the product. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you're asking for here. On any article you can click on the "History" link at the top of the page and see who has edited that article. On all the articles you mention, as with most Wikipedia articles, there are many different people involved in the writing of the page. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I can assume that these companies or similar hire people to write about it or companies employ staff to write about it or people who love the companies write about it. I would be able to view the history tag and not know which of the people listed was neutral or not. wlouw (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment One element of The BEEInfoSTRIP, it targets people who "front" i.e. Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) fraud. There are 3 groups of people to take opinion from for notability - 1.People who "front" 2.People who don't 3.People with no affiliation (just don't care). Who wants to see the BEEInfoSTRIP on Wikipedia? wlouw (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. This would appear to be a notable piece of legislation and program established by the South African government. This would appear to be an, ahem, private initiative relating to that program; it apparently prints related information on a checkout receipt. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Keep - You have correctly identified its subset being legislation; however, Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is a scoring and accreditation system. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent from this therefore cannot be influenced / biased. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent to be able to report independently. It cannot be redirected. It stands alone as an audit. It cannot be seen to favour one political party over the other. Please qualify the "delete" you suggest as alternative - There are many wiki pages that can be cited as "private initiative". wlouw (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no prejudice to merge/redirect) Article written by a person with a probable COI. Article reads as out right promotional copy in some places, uses the trademark sign heavily, etc. indicating to me it was written as an advertisement. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I addressed the COI above with Htonl. As per the Trademark definition, the trademark simply indicates the source and originality. Many wiki pages represent trademark inventions and products e.g. Barbie (lists of trademarks are available on the net). Wiki is full of examples. Please let me know of the part that sounds / reads promotional in your opinion so that it can be written more factual as the intent is. wlouw (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I saw above was that you said other people might have a COI. You did not address the concerns that you are somehow involved with the subject. As for trademarks, see Manual of Style: Trademarks. (Especially the part where you do not use the trademark sign unless there is good reason.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment He that is without any hesitation and confirm there are no other wiki pages on Wikipedia with COI, be the first to delete the BEEInfoSTRIP on Wikipedia for COI sake. Trademark denotes - its source / origin - its local -Proudly South African. wlouw (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Could you please expand on what you're saying about trademarks above? I don't quite understand. Thanks, OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you admins for being mindful of a fair approach. Note 1 WP:OTHERSTUFF - refers "...similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist...", also states "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement...". Note 2 The BEEInfoSTRIP is unique to its application - cannot be compared as BEE in the SA Economy is a South African Government initiative. Note 3 If the trademark was seen as promotional - some info on Trademarks: “Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time.” wlouw (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning what a trademark is, but the use of the trademark in the article. The manual of style says to not use the trademark symbol in the article without very good reason. See an article like Microsoft or Deutsche Bank, the article does not use the trademark symbol in conjunction with the name. As I understand it, only if this article were written by the company itself (or if it were advertising/etc) would it need to use the trademark symbol. (Unless of course you work for or on behalf of the article's subject, in which case you really shouldn't be doing that, COI and all.) OSborn arfcontribs. 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please see Microsoft and Microsoft Info box (RHS) slogan in Wikipedia. See “R” in a circle next to Microsoft name – (trademark). Note 1 Microsoft refers to a company AND products so does Deutsche Bank e.g. Deutsche Bank shares. The identities of their names are within their legal entity registrations and can be found in the form of (Pty) Ltd or AG, etc. The BEEInfoSTRIP falls within the legal frame of trademark rights (origin, source, use). Note 2 unlike the commercial names you cited, the BEEInfoSTRIP in all its documentation does not promote the sale of or anything to do with retail of the BEEInfoSTRIP. Note 3 The wiki pages cited for Microsoft etc have references, links, with sub-links to direct public commercial intent (Microsoft website, COI and all), but to quote you “The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here.” wlouw (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting indentation). The ® is present in the logo because that image was obtained from the Microsoft website. You will not find "®" or "™" anywhere in the text of the article. Anyway, the trademark issue is not really important.
The CoI problem is not that an article links to the company it is describing; of course the Microsoft article links to microsoft.com; it would be ridiculous if it didn't. A CoI problem with that article would be if, for example, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were making major edits to the article. Can you not see the difference? - htonl (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Accidentally removed htonl's comment for a few seconds there, sorry.) Please understand that promotion is not just trying to overtly sell someone something. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Keep in mind that all source information your see and hear about Microsoft was generated by Microsoft. Do you agree that factual information of Microsoft and their products e.g. Microsoft_Windows_XP on Wikipedia (assumed written by people who love Microsoft) has its primary source for credibility and for authentication sake directly from Microsoft where applicable? If said information did not, the entire wiki page would be in question. Accuracy of information and the factual nature thereof almost suggests that MS could have very well written the wiki pages themselves (who knows). It is required to have accurate information published about the BEEInfoSTRIP and should be irrespective of the person as long as there is maturity and discretion of intent, one of which is not to abuse the Wikipedia for commercial purpose but as part of a tool to empower a nation. Have you recognized ill-intent with regard to the BEEInfoSTRIP? Please let me know where; for immediate amendment. wlouw (talk) 0:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"All source information" about Microsoft was not generated by Microsoft; have you looked at the list of references in that article? It cites 91 different sources, of which only ten or so are from Microsoft. In any case, I'm not going to discuss Microsoft or any other articles any further; as OSborn has pointed out, even if other editors are breaking the rules, it does not excuse your doing so. It is entirely clear, from the language that you have used above, that you have a direct commercial interest in the BEEInfoSTRIP, and therefore that you are violating the conflict of interest policy. Asking for specific instances of ill-intent is disingenous, given that the entire article is written as a blatant advertisement.
Nonetheless, a conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion, and therefore this whole argument is a distraction. The reason for deletion remains that the article lacks any evidence of notability, and the one radio interview you have pointed out is not sufficient to establish it. I will not discuss any further anything not relevant to the deletion discussion. - htonl (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stunners (group)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Sources are only primary or directory listings for the most part, and a search for further sourcing showed nothing but false positives. No real notability; just having individually notable members doesn't mean the band is automatically notable. WP:BAND #6 is not and never will be carte blanche if they fail all the other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Band that has been released by two major labels, Universal Music Group and Lions Gate Music (passing WP:BAND #5; "Has released two or more albums on a major label"), been profiled by MTV and has had other significant coverage by independent reliable sources. [31][32] Even was the opening act for Justin Bieber.[33] Beyond the threshold of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Additionally, meets WP:BAND #6 as the nom has admitted with very notable founder and member. --Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the discography does not allege that they have released any albums at all. I make it one EP, one promo single, one proper single and a track on a compilation album. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the Bieber connection needs clarification. If they were second on the bill then that does count in their favour. If they were lower down the billing as "other special guests", or the like, then it doesn't. If they got any RS reviews off the tour then that would be a big help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The MTV profile is a couple of short paragraphs and the rest is not RS. The link to Vitamin C is incidental. The TV series seems not to have happened. The two sources Oakshade has found certainly help a bit. The first may not be RS but the second is better. It is only a local newspaper, and it isn't enough to make this a keep, but it is enough to make it a weak delete. I will change my !vote if anybody can dig up a few more proper reviews or other solid coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Some minor coverage but the MTV source is trivial actually copied from Allmusic plus they haven't had any charting records. Mattg82 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urm actually Allmusic entry is different. I'm sure MTV used to copy from Allmusic? Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 15 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, Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources is the biggest problem here. Ei1sos (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members[edit]

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

This is a trivial way to look at the members of the BBHOF. How the HOFers rank in terms of age does not receive significant coverage. Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I could see an article listing all of these folks with a sortable table including birthday, if someone really felt that the information was important. Matchups 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose and retitle - Convert this into a sortable list of all members of the hall of fame by date of birth, also including dates of death for those who died and computed ages. The main Hall of Fame list doesn't contain these biographical details, which are notable enough -- the problem with the current list is that focusing on the current ages of living members is pretty trivial. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't reconfiguring it to include everyone's DOB also be trivial? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If kept, it should at least be retitled as List of oldest living Baseball Hall of Fame members. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great list, could maybe be renamed to something like 'List of Living Baseball Hall of Fame Members'. --LAAFan 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame has the years of their careers. What does their current age have to do with their baseball exploits? Wikipedia is not Trivial Pursuit. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is good material, but in the end I don't think the intersection of age with the Hall of Fame warrants a standalone article. Merging this in with the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame would be the best solution, although it would have to be done very carefully with good sources, since that is currently a featured list. Either add a DOB column to the list in the other article, or create a sublist devoted to currently living members. ThemFromSpace 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally disagree with that idea because DOB isn't a criteria for making the HOF, and we list the length of the individual's career already, which is far more important. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 7 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, Spartaz Humbug! 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. BUC (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because WP should be for information of lasting value. On a list of, for instance, "The Oldest Living United States Presidents" when a person dies his name is removed from the list. WP should not have this type of data crunching, but just the plain facts. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not warrant a separate article, where notability and criteria for inclusion are not determined by some reasonably-objective reliable secondary source. The main article is just fine for anything that needs to be said on this.N2e (talk) 21:30, 16 January 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) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Malton[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who still has not played in a fully pro league and who fails WP:N Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as a G4 as this is different from the deleted version (which was basically two short unreferenced sentences). Bettia (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete as he fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played fully-professional football and lacks any significant media coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 12:09, 17 January 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) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Raikuna Williams[edit]

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

Davidcannon (talk · contribs) has recently restored this bio claiming that the woman is world famous in Fiji. But Davidcannon apparently thinks she is so famous as not to need references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a couple of changes and added in a source, but I can't see significant coverage in independent sources. - ManicSpider (talk) 15:57, 15 January 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, default to keep. WaltonOne 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers)[edit]

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

Relisting per decision to relist at AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICT... Also I'll mention WP:POKEMON for no reason and the fact that there are at least two Transformers wiki for the fancruft.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This reasoning is invalid and the vote should probably be ignored. This got relisted because I requested that it be restored so I can add a bunch of reliable sources. BEFORE I added the sources, this guy voted that it should be deleted for lacking sources!? How about letting me add those sources before you tell us there are none buddy? Mathewignash (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the sources that have been added, unfortunately they are not accessible via internet but given their titles I doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article. That the toys/cartoons are notable is undeniable, but particular elements of Transformers are less likely to have their own notability according to WP:GNG. My delete !vote stands.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More reliable sources have been added. I am gathering more now. With the Ark appearing in the 2011 Transformers film, I'd imagine article about it will only increase as well. So basically this article now has some notability. Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new sources have no page numbrs. Could you provide them in order to make verification easier.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 5, 6, 10 and 12 have page numbers. Citations 4, 7, 8, and 9 don't need them as they are links to web pages. Most of the rest came e-copies of articles that don't have page numbers from their original printing included. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still just a collection of plot summary and product catalog. Citations verify the story and the products' existence -- but I see no significant coverage by multiple third-party sources offering the kind of commentary and development insight we require of topics anchored in fiction. --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You mean like the film review where the reviewer laments the Ark being left out of the 2007 film sort of commentary? Mathewignash (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which review?Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Number 11. Mathewignash (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is university Wire, is it RS? Also there is no page number, so the citation is incompleate. It seems that Uwire is not a publication, its a media disimination service. Where was the origional material published (I was not aware that college newpapers were RS). I suspect its not RS unless it can be established that the material was published by a repected journel.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from local university. Student reporters sharing articles. here is their web page. http://uwire.com/about/ Mathewignash (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 looks like a movie heads-up. We're looking for an essay focusing on this ship's concept and development, a chapter in a published text commenting on its design, a magazine article explaining how the subject is a reflection of or impacted other elements of fiction, etc. A passing reference in a back-end paragraph of some some college kid's newspaper article? Not so much. --EEMIV (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student newspapers (and equivalent) are virtually never reliable sources. But for what it's worth I'd say the fact that they didn't bother to include it in the movie is, if anything, evidence that this isn't even especially important in the Transformers universe and further speaks against including it in a general-interest encyclopedia rather than the contrary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hasn't picked up any additional notability since last time we deleted it in August. Unlikely that another 6 months is going to make this a decent article, or a notable topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's hardly a fair statement since it was deleted with NO THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES before, and now it has several. Mathewignash (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the deletion review to revive the article, the following case was made:

  • The book "Totally Tubular 80's Toys" by Mark Bellomo has a page 112 talking about the Autobot ship Ark and how it got the Autobots to earth in the classic series.
  • It's talked about in: "Transformers: an adult primer // Here's help understanding toy robots, the latest rage", Chicago Sun-Times; December 16, 1986; by Patricia Smith. The author gets parents up to date on the story of the Transformers, including what the Ark is.
  • 'Transformers' coming to save planet Earth, summer cinema University Wire; July 2, 2007; by Michelle Castillo, the author complains about how they left the Ark out of the 2007 Transformers movie.

This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable sources are established. Dream Focus 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe the article needs expansion, but not deletion. --TX55TALK 05:24, 13 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, Davewild (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, grossly fails the general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from independent third party sources. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was poor the first time with inadequate sources I see no significant improvement. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article had NO SOURCES. Now to has many, and somehow you "see no signifigant improvement"? That doesn't seem like an honest or fair statement. Mathewignash (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and Merge, or delete with a preference towards a merge. The article still fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it's just the story of the Ark with no other significant content. The sourcing has improved though... maybe not enough to pass the WP:GNG but that's moot because of the plot issues. My advice would be to expand a larger Transformers article or list using some of the sources... and spin it off once there is more out of universe information from reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome[edit]

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

A jocular essay about a jocular neologism that Google Books confirms did indeed catch on, to a small and unremarkable extent. There could be a kernel of psychological interest to the concept, even though there is none to the article. (Perhaps it could be redirected somewhere, though not to "Acquisitiveness", as this redirects to the unsourced stub "Acquisitiveness (Phrenology)" [really]; and neither "Charles Foster Kane" nor "Imelda Marcos" gives me any idea.) I realize that Wikipedia is a dictionary when it comes to speech acts ("Fuck", "Kuwabara kuwabara", "LOL", etc etc), but I don't think it yet is one for the general ingredients of bulletin-board banter; and what with all its waffly accretions, this is anyway a crap (and prolix) dictionary definition. Hoary (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was complete, as it left my hands. It was then dismantled. Hmmf! But thank you for recompleting it, Mr Bot. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A case could be made to keep, but really this is just about an expression (against "not a dictionary") not a serious article. Wolfview (talk) 13:20, 7 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 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, Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Wolfview. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP is not a dictionary, and notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. However, with {{full}} citations added to the existing limited source meta-data in the article today, it might be that sufficient notability could be demonstrated; not sure. N2e (talk) 21:43, 16 January 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) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publitas[edit]

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

No significant products have been created by this company, mostly a summary of mayor companies who use this product. Article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. Writer has written same article in Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant products have been created by this company? The e-Publisher is clearly listed as one of their products and is briefly described. It seems like you are contradicting yourself. First you state there are no significant products created (I assume because you think there is not enough information about it) and then you say the article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. There is information about the number of employees, date founded, founders, the industry it operates in, and the type of business. What more do you want? Last week someone created an article about Publitas with three paragraphs of text describing the company's main product (the e-Publisher) and it was deleted after four days. It is for that reason I decided to keep this article short and concise. Other Wikipedians such as Elizium23 have checked this page (who previously did not approve of the older version of the page that was deleted) and they did not tag this page for advertisement purposes. Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about. Please remove the tag for deletion and have someone else review it before you decide to tag it again.Adsx27 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed it. What more do we want? We want references to show notability. There is absolutely no indication of any notability, other than a list of companies. Supplying to a notable company does not make you notable per se. I would presume that those companies also purchase loo rolls, paperclips, envelopes, tea bags, and swivel seats. Are the purveyors of those items made notable by their supply to these companies? I think not. What we really prefer is an article not written by someone from the company - see WP:COI our policy on conflict of interest. See WP:RS for an indication of the type of references you will have to supply, and WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines. These are the policies for the English language Wikipedia. I have edited on several different languages and have found the insistence on references here to be rather less in other languages. (I've gone to other Wikipedias to find references and been mostly unsuccessful.) I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time in New Accounts monitoring and here in AfD. If I'd seen this article first, I'd have put a speedy deletion tag on it, on the grounds of non-notability. If you can supply the references - and it is up to you under WP:BURDEN - do so. If not, it'll probably go from this language. What the Dutch speakers do over there is their own business. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Peridon, so far I have been unable to find any English sources to reference this article because the company is not that famous in English speaking countries. Furthermore, if referencing is so important, could you please explain to me why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texterity is still on Wikipedia? What part in the text would you like to see with a reference? At no point do I quote anyone nor do I state any statistics: I have merely paraphrased/summarized what I know about the company and its product based on what I've read on the company's website(s). I could cite the company's own website(s), but I understand that that's not allowed either. If you could specifically show me which part you would like to see with a credible reference, I will do my best to find it, whether it is in English or in Dutch. Hope you can help. Asdx27 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsx27 (talk • contribs) [reply]
PS "Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about." I think I do really understand.... Peridon (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put this article up for deletion here, and in the Dutch language, and for now it looks a lot like it'll be deleted there within at least two weeks. But there is at least two've said it is spam and should be deleted 'now!'. Dqfn13 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the author of the article The presence or otherwise of another article has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of any article. I would suggest you read the policies I have pointed out to you, and that you try to comply with them instead of telling us that we don't know what we are talking about. You can give foreign language references - so long as they are reliable ones. English language ones are preferred as this is the English language Wikipedia, but there are amongst us those who can check foreign language refs for suitability. You may give an external link to the company's website, but you cannot use it to establish notability, and cannot use text from it without a copyright release. I would like references to show that the company and/or its product comply with the notability policy. As I said before, I can see no indication in the article why there should be an article. The other article you mentioned is far from perfect, but it does make an attempt at establishing notability. I must say that I am not completely convinced by it and may well tag it - as you are also free to do if you think it doesn't fit our policies. Peridon (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, and well, you know: invested in online publishing technologies. The company's stated mission from the outset is “to help businesses optimize reach and conversion on the Internet by providing the best digital editions for professional use.....” a fully cloud-based e-Publishing solution.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed that little mission statement gem above from the article. The article does not make a credible claim to notability. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:16, 19 January 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 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miegakure[edit]

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

Non-notable software: coverage seems largely to spring from its mention in a web comic, not a reliable source. Other than that it was a runner up in a minor contest. Not clear it will ever be notable: few independent games make much impact. But if it is that can be revisited after the game is released: WP is not a crystal ball. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any way knowledgeable about the WP requirements for notability at all, but there is some stuff I think might qualify as notability - it's been covered on Rock Paper Shotgun here (not sure about this one, it is a blog even if it's a blog by well-known gaming journalists), by the PCGamerUK podcast here, and I think I remember it being covered in the print edition. Plus, being nominated for an Independent Games Festival award is actually a pretty big deal. Things like Darwinia, Audiosurf, World of Goo, and Machinarium have been award winners there. Like I said, I've no idea if that actually means it meets the verifiability criteria. Gonna attempt to find it in old PCGs now. Supersheep (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per coverage found above, plus coverage at Kotaku, a Gamasutra interview, Shacknews - and that's just the first four results of the WikiProject Video Games reliable sources search. --Teancum (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I can verify Teancum's findings above. Looks like notability is sufficiently asserted here. There is also [34] which is a nomination, but I don't know if it amounts to much. –MuZemike 07:50, 19 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Pollio[edit]

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

BLP vio attack piece written in such a way as only to disparage subject, "oh and by the way he's an actor too". Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up. Subject is not notable for his criminal record, else we'd have millions more articles. This type of article is bad for Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Agreed, the article is unbalanced. However, the negative statements are supported by reliable sources. Feel free to rewrite the article in a more neutral way. This forum is called 'Articles for deletion'. Do you want to delete the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do, else I wouldn't have brought it here. Do you think I am stupid? That's been your angle since you first began to vex me yesterday.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since by your own admission your English is sketchy, I'm going to assume you missed the part about "Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are stupid. I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are. I'm judging the encyclopedic potential and value of an article here on Wikipedia, not your intelligence. I found two referenced articles tagged as {{db-attack}} without further explanation. I removed the tag at this article and I left there the edit summary: rmv the {{db-attack}} tag, the article is referenced by reliable sources. My comment at the other article was similar. The discussion continues here. No problem. I'm really really sorry if you feel vexed or if you think my action was hostile against you. It is perhaps caused by different cultural background, it didn't come to my mind how offensive my comments could be. Please, accept my deepest apologies and let me know if you feel this is insufficient - I'll do anything to alleviate this embarrassing situation. I hope my response is comprehensible. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can blank the article and start a new and more balanced version. Do you want to delete the article together with its history? Is there any false information? In my opinion, the article is simply unbalanced. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Silvio Pollio meets our notability guideline for film personalities, as his works were noted and reviewed by multiple and independent reliable media. The article contains plenty of independent sources (unfortunately the refs cover the controversies associated with this filmmaker rather than his film career). I found several articles focusing solely on his film career, see for example Canadian Society of Cinematographers, Los Angeles Times, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Courier. The article has potential for expansion, it needs a competent and neutral editor, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The films don't appear to meet WP:NF criteria (coverage, major award, etc) so he himself is not notable (the criminal charges standing alone don't seem to meet the criteria either). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The present article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for the criminal charges, but they are not notable; and as a film-maker he has had two films screened at festivals, one of which won a prize - that seems to me well short of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes as per John and Jonathon, the criminal charges are now the focus of the article and they are not noteworthy, a couple of local reports of what turned out to be not notable productions won't change that.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... BUT, and with respects to the points of both User:Vejvančický and nominator User:Kintetsubuffalo, without prejudice toward re-creation of a properly balanced article. As has been noted, there is no flaw with this one's sourcing, only its tone and focus. The actor has a decent enough career to push at WP:ENT [35] and enough coverage for his career away from the courts to be pushing nicely at WP:GNG. [36] [37] [38] Heck, I'd even be willing to do the rewrite myself, later in the week... just don't speedy my newer version, as I can assure you it will not be a G4 recreation, and will be set to pass an AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: As posted above, film playing on major national cable network. Additionally, meets notability by multiple film festivals, major news outlet coverage in Canada for both films and Criminal activity. Attack piece? Not at all. Read the talk page.
    • Balance: The criminal issues were added and referenced in detail to add balance. Look at the original piece created by Silvio and Jose.
    • Page has been subject to significant section blanking by multiple users, without references or explanation for edits. See: Jose Carlton and Mrsilvio
    • Notability: Note, these are referenced and verifiable biographical information from reputable Canadian newpapers and national entertainment media that is being deleted. Meets WP: WELL KNOWN, and the criminality is relevant to the subject of his filmmaking.
    • "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
    • Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source."
    • The subject is an actor, film producer, and director. As such qualifies as a "public figure", and for the less than savory info to be included without it being considered an attack.
    • The often vandalized and properly cited references to criminal charges and court decisions against Silvio Pollio should remain and be left unaltered as they are relevant to the article, while also meeting BLP Public Figure guidelines as outlined above, as well as WP verifiability guidelines, and NOTABILITY IMHO. Bluebadger1 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: The above two comments were reformatted for clarity and consistency with the remainder of the AfD. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 23 January 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 Tunisian general election, 2011 non-admin close. NortyNort (Holla) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Tunisian presidential election[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news report of current political unrest in Tunisia. PROD was removed by initial author. Cind.amuse 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the AfD'd article created the 2011 one.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and close.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said. Redirect and close da thang. Cind.amuse 00:57, 16 January 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) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior cats births and deaths[edit]

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

I'm assuming this is a how-to or cheat guide for some kind of computer game or book series. However it isn't fully clear from the article itself. Travelbird (talk) 11:35, 15 January 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) 15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Guoyou[edit]

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

Amateur astronomist which recently discovered a nova. Other purported discoveries are unsourced, as is most of the article. Questionable whether this is enough to pass WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure of how the notability guidelines cover astronomers, so I'll stay out of the keep vs. delete thing, but I'll just note that I had much more success finding reports on the astronomical findings listed in the articles searching under the name "Guoyou Sun" - is it possible the name in the article is transposed? - ManicSpider (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this person is Chinese, "Sun" is his last name, and "Guoyou" his first. If you are looking at international sources, they may list him the other way around.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more impressive sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - My thought at this time is that while the nova, supernova, etc. that this person discovered may be notable, he himself is not.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 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) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Online Alışveriş Trendi[edit]

2010 Online Alışveriş Trendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Turkish language OR or copyvio article which discusses online trends in 2010. Not encyclopedic Travelbird (talk) 11:26, 15 January 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Northern Cyprus[edit]

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

Lack of notability since these "Presidents" are only recognised by the Republic of Turkey and the "TRNC". Lack of independent citations that recognise these "Presidents". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they have no independent citations/references outside of the sphere of self-interest of the Republic of Turkey and its "TRNC" annexe] as such these subjects are not notable on English Wikipedia:

President of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Derviş Eroğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehmet Ali Talat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rauf Denktaş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into President of Northern Cyprus, purely on the grounds that the list is too small to be useful: there are only three of them; their list can much more efficiently be presented in the parent article. Other than that, troutslap the nominator for a clearly frivolous nomination. The notability argument is obvious bogus – of course these figures and the institution they represent are notable, quite possible just because they are so contentious (i.e. non-recognized). Nipson has simply been on a POV rampage to eradicate as much of our coverage of the political institutions of the TRNC as he can, for transparently tendentious reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Nipson is now trying to bundle four more articles into this discussion, for the same obviously tendentious reasons. I would strongly recommend unbundling these, if Nipson insists on the nominations. The three presidents, Eroglu, Talat and Denktas (!), are so obviously notable that they will be immediate WP:SNOW keeps (I recommend speedy). The one about President of Northern Cyprus might be debateable, but since the two articles may very likely end up with different outcomes, it is far preferable to have separate debates for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They are "Presidents" of the "TRNC". They all have exactly the same issue. There are no worthwhile citations confirming their notability outside of the sphere of influence of the Republic of Turkey and its annexe (the "TRNC"). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't post repeated bolded "delete" votes. You are already the nominator, your opinion is stated right at the top. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not 'recognition'. Regardless of the legality or otherwise of the government of Northern Cyprus, it clearly exists, and as such a 'President' is significant. Wikipedia is not the UN, nor an international court of law, and should describe reality as reported in reliable sources, rather than basing articles on what 'ought' to be the case AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would suggest that the inclusion of other articles in this AfD is a breach of procedure, as each article should be discussed on its own merits, in its own AfD. On this basis, any !votes for the included articles should be considered as invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all 5 Whether the status of the republic is disputed or not, they have de facto control over a large territory. Its head of state is the president. Therefore all articles (good to do this in one go!) merit inclusion. All articles start explaining the republic is only accepted as such by Turkey to avoid suggestion that this is a widely recognized state. I do agree however (on editorial grounds only) that since the republic had only 3 presidents a merge between the president list and the president article would be beneficial... L.tak (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy snow keep. Ridiculously POINTy. I also support procedually separating List of Presidents of Northern Cyprus from this AfD.--SGCM (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The nominator is either confusing wikipedia's concept notability with legal status, or is pushing a POV. Whichever applies, there's no reason to delete. It might be better to merge the list into its parent article, but that's an editorial decision which does not need to be discussed at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Absolutely. It's a legitimate list ~ no matter an individual's political position on the legitimacy of the office. Recognition by us, or others, is not relevant - merely it's notability. And I'll suggest that the internationally reported divisiveness over its legitimacy is itself sufficient support for its notability. Deletion would simply be political censorship brought about by gaming the system, its notability - and verifiable supporting ref's - are undeniable. We can, and eagerly do list appearances made by unknowns on low-rated cable tv sc-fi serials. We should, and must if we are to stay true to our mission, list internal leadership of large swaths of disputed territories. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all. Top-level political leaders in political entities without international recognition are still notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:18, 15 January 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) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk De Mexico[edit]

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

Purported airline with zero Google hits. Except for that one list given I cannot find any trace of them or that they actually fly. The other sources given are non-reliable (Youtube videos) Travelbird (talk) 10:10, 15 January 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. Consensus is that the subject is notable for the awards hs has received, the books he has published, and the coverage he and his books have received in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Blacker[edit]

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

Author which won one minor award for one book. Travelbird (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a reference to the article for the State Literary Award, which, being described by the source as "Sri Lanka’s highest form of book recognition", is about as far from being a minor award as you can get. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my expansion and Phil Bridger. Blacker has garnered significant coverage in [39], [40], and [41], thus conferring notability. Blacker also passes WP:AUTHOR (#3) for his book A Cause Untrue and WP:ACADEMIC (#2) for the State Literary Awards, a national award. Goodvac (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Book with extremely minor RS press coverage fails WP:BK. Author fails WP:AUTHOR. No notability for other writings or activities asserted or demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How are articles about the subject and his works in national newspapers "extremely minor"? And how does the State Literary Award not pass WP:BK criterion 2 (for the book) and WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 (for the author)? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The RS offered are nothing more than two small newspapers, both of them in Sri Lanka, and the "State Literary Award" hardly fulfills the "prestigious literary award" criterion of WP:BK--the fact is that 39 of these "State Literary Awards" are given out in Sri Lanka every year, and that even in Sri Lanka they are considered something of a joke [42]. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So you're saying that three well-established national newspapers are not reliable sources, but an anonymous blog posting is? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more or less anyone who wrote a book that was published and sold should get an article Benqish (talk) 15:06, 20 January 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) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aly Muhammad Aga Khan[edit]

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

10 year old son of a religious leader. As he fulfills no function and isn't scheduled to take over from his father either. I don't see how this passes WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 09:28, 15 January 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, no actual indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Njenga[edit]

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

Very minor film director that doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. I nominated this version of the article for speedy deletion, and although the article has since been expanded, I still can't find much coverage about him or the movies he directed. It doesn't help that most of the wikilinks for his films lead to general terms with the same name. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:44, 15 January 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) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Reilly (Rugby)[edit]

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

People far more informed than me on all-things rugby have tried and failed to reference this article, and even found that the supplied reference was incorrect. It is also questionable if a non-international rugby player is notable at all. Delete unless a reliable source can be found. Possible hoax. The-Pope (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Hammer Rage[edit]

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

I think this falls under WP:BLP1E (the band is not a living person but the members are). All the coverage has been from the legal issues surroundin the importation of one of their albums. Nothing here satisfies any of the wp:music points except #1 but that falls under the one event thing mentioned above. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 15 January 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) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnau Brugués-Davi[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 06:02, 15 January 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) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-sourced original research; violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR mhking (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i added proper citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llease (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this article? Are you trying to list the top ten "most painful" methods? Because such a list violates WP:NPOV. It could be merged with an article about torture methods in general, however. Mr. Anon515 04:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh god delete, Wikipedia isn't a host for everyone's school project. (Nominator/admin might want to note that some irregularity has apparently led to the existence of two separate nominations for the same article from the same day.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please delete as soon as possible. The "references" consist of an amateur torture methods website and a newspaper op-ed criticizing torture in the modern war against terror. Neither mentions "Top 10" torture methods. Entirely original research, poorly written, and really quite repellent. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen328. While the one RS reference says Christians don't approve of torture, and that is nice to know, it does not support even one word of the article. KeptSouth (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Of the sources, one has nothing to do with the article, and the other looks like an amateur website. JIP | Talk 09:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and above comments. Cool stuff though... --NortyNort (Holla) 13:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and slap a Template:Humor tag on it. An absolutely hilarious example of what not to do. Alternatively, Delete but that will be Wikipedia's loss. Bazonka (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What not to do both with an article and in real life.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Template:Humor itself:
This template should never be used on pages in the article namespace, since it should never include any non-factual or non-encyclopedic articles. Only use it in other spaces such as Wikipedia namespace.
In other words, the template does not apply to actual Wikipedia articles, only to Wikipedia's internal discussion. JIP | Talk 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's already List of methods of torture#Medieval instruments of torture. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic list cruft. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen328. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are POV, described vaguely as "very barbaric", and the content is rather repulsive original research. Jll (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a poorly sourced POV-ridden WP:Content fork apparently based on original research, but if there's any solidly sourced content here (not clear to me that there is), I suppose it could be merged to List of methods of torture. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Top 10 articles cannot be part of an encyclopaedia. These sort of articles are very popular on the internet but are unnecessary on wikipedia. I do not need a separate article on the top 10 tallest US Presidents (at a stretch (sorry :) ) this could be a sub-section in US Presidents, or top 10 shortest whatever. If I want to know about mediaeval torture I go to the article and read about it, here I might find an insight as to the most popular or successful methods. I suggest strapping the editor to the rack or burning him in some way to ensure that he deletes this asap Benqish (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete by slowly editing it away, letter by letter. walk victor falk talk 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN This is hilarious, but definitely not encyclopedic. --Nat682 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Torture methods in the middle ages. See Uses of torture in recent times and Medieval instruments of torture (methods is different than instruments). Removing "Top 10" from the name would remove the reactionary trigger from the topic and allow for a more intellectual discussion rather than emotional discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The method can, and in some cases is already included within Medieval instruments of torture under the instrument. The article is also on methods as well and the "instruments" section could be renamed within the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:27, 22 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Lian[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that the article is uncited and seems a bit (or more than just a bit) unencyclopedic in tone. Looking at the previous AfD it seems to me that the result should have been "delete" not "no consensus" based on the arguments presented. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Wikitionary, rather than being its own full encyclopedia article. As per WP:CITE, the sources are from non academic dictionaries and does not really meet the WP:V sources.--Takamaxa (Talk) 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a cursory look for sources shows that this term is widely used, and often referred to. I found a discussion in an academic work in less than two minutes. Deletion should be a last resort, fix things first. Francis Bond (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not within the scope of an encyclopaedic article, definitions and examples are Wikitionary criteria. Valid, but not here. Jørdan 08:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time that this came up at AFD, back in 2005, I observed that no documentation of this stereotype had been presented. Well done to Ffbond for finding the article by Chua Beng Huat. However, I observe that Chua makes no distinction between male and female, covering the both as one. This, as well as the copy-and-paste-but-change-the-gender nature of the two articles, indicate that this and ah beng really belong merged together, as a single topic. The deletion tool is not required to achieve that goal, however. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This and the male equivalent seem from the articles to be distinct stereotypes, not just gendered versions of each other, so I wouldn't merge. But I think we need to rewrite this article to indicate that it's about a stereotype, not about reality. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ah Beng since they are very similar in nature. Perhaps a rename article as Singaporean stereotypes. Ah lian and Ah beng go hand in hand, and deleting one will make no sense. Terence (talk) 16:05, 15 January 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus[edit]

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

Lack of notability and lack of independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: due to lack of notability and lack of independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to recommend "delete" again; your delete request as the nominator was already being taken into consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Firstly, the article is referenced, a link to the official list by the official page of the Northern Cyprus Government was already on the page, see here, yes it's in Turkish, but a quick Google Translate clearly shows its validity, though I have also added an English Link. Secondly, diplomatic missions of nations, and partially recognized nations, are (or at least should be) inherently notable. These are one of the main ways that a country attempts to exert its influence, as well as to maintain day-to-day relations with nations. The fact that these are 'technically' not diplomatic mission, but classified as businesses, is because the countries they operate in do not recognize Northern Cyprus and thus they cannot get official diplomatic status. This is similar to diplomatic missions of Taiwan, Palestine, etc. Thirdly, independent citations are a difficult thing to find for diplomatic missions as they are something rarely talked about by the media or other purely independent sources. While independent sources would be ideal, in this case, official sources that confirm the existence of these institutions are perfectly acceptable. Finally, I'd suggest WP:SNOW keep on this, but I'm not fully familiar with that policy regarding AfD discussions. Ravendrop (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ravendrop. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ravendrop. Lists of diplomatic missions are notable on Wikipedia. Even though officially unrecognised except by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is a de facto state. Jll (talk) 16:24, 16 January 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.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States[edit]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. There are no references cited that make the Representative Office itself notable. The only references cited concern a Class Action that includes this office. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of lack of notability and no independent references cited]:

Constitution of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all: due to lack of notability and lack of worthwhile independent references. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think these two need to be delinked. The only relationship between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States and the Constitution of Northern Cyprus is that both deal with Northern Cyprus. The same notability/referencing issues do not apply to both, and they would be much better (and fairer) served being discussed on their own. That being said, i'm undecided on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States article. As for Constitution of Northern Cyprus I vote Speedy Keep in that the constitutions of all nations, and partially recognized nations (of which Northern Cyprus is officially recognized by Turkey) as inherently notable. Ravendrop (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to both articles. The subjects are inherently notable, particularly in view of the controversy surrounding this republic. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Constitution of Northern Cyprus per Ravendrop. "No independent references cited" is not a valid reason for article deletion except for living people. The reason would be "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and I had no trouble finding such sources. I am Undecided about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States although confused about why the two articles share the same AfD discussion since they are largely unrelated except for the state concerned, which is an irrelevance since it certainly is itself notable. Jll (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am new to this AfD thing. I submitted my first in the last week. I wasn't sure whether it was more appropriate to list them separately or together. Thought it would save time and effort to consider them together. It is simple enough to vote on each separately within this AfD. There are only two articles to consider on this AfD. I apologise if I was wrong to bundle them together. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. It's not a big deal! Jll (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy unbundle and keep for the constitution article, which is inherently a highly notable topic (the topic of the current poltical order of the TRNC is of utmost importance for any discussion of, for instance, any future constitutional arrangement in the context of whatever peace plan comes next.) Weak keep for the representation article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Am thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to MERGE the article about the Constitution of Northern Cyprus with the article about Northern_Cyprus. But I don't think that it has enough independent citations outside of the local sphere of influence to be separate. Just an idea. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Constitution of Northern Cyprus as an important topic. The lack of citation is a bit of a red herring here; it is the basic document of a de facto government, and the controversy has nothing to do with accuracy, but about whether the republic should exist as an independent entity. Merging it with the Northern Cyprus article is problematic because northern Cyprus is a geographical entity and its de jure status is disputed. Bundling articles on something like this is asking for trouble when maintaining NPOV is going to be difficult. I'd like to see something in the constitution article pointing out that the status of the republic is disputed. I'm not convinced about retention of the article on the Representative Office in the USA. Why is it notable? There is already an article on Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. AJHingston (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, there is an article on Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus however there are no recognised foreign or diplomatic relations of Northern Cyprus. The closest there is to a foreign relationship (and it is not a foreign relationship) is its relationship with the Republic of Turkey which created Northern Cyprus in the first place. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need to be careful in not confusing de facto and de jure relationships. There has been a lot of activity at diplomatic level over the years, much of it concerned with resolving the dispute over governance. That is dealt with in the foreign relations article. The important thing is not to let POV intrude into judgement of notability. The office might actually gain notability by its activities even if they were illegal - there will be plenty of such examples in Wikipedia. AJHingston (talk) 18:39, 17 January 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) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Expression[edit]

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a website/podcast/blog, let alone fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. PROD was removed, sources given are at least an order of magnitude below covering rule 2 on WP:WEB#Criteria. tedder (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - sources from a quick Google search appear similar to the two that are already in the article - blogs and similar non-reliable sources. If some of them turned out to actually be well regarded within their niche, I could be convinced that this should be a weak keep instead. We really need a few editors with a better feel for what can be considered good sources for what effectively amounts to LDS pop culture. I am posting a link to this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point is that sources have been added. Isn't about ITSAWombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? They are primary sources and self-published/blogs. They are not reliable sources, they are sources indicating this exists, nothing more. There are zero reliable sources establishing WP:WEB or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New article; which needs some more time to grow into a article that will meet WP:WEB. Deleting the page so early only serves as a quasi-censorship act in wikipedia and seems to be religiously motivated since the podcast is generally not friendly to the mormon church.Wombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do explain how this is religiously motivated and how it is censorship. Content that is from a positive or negative point of view still needs to meet the notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Solely based on the fact that I have heard of it before I knew there was an article for it, so my general (if unscientific) sense is there is some notability. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT. Where did you hear of it? Any chance it was in a publication that would qualify as nontrivial coverage and could be a usable source? VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am loathe to delete this type of article on the origins of a digital audio publication. The inclusion of such material enhances Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article needs some sort of external sourcing, however. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability of a media outlet should not be limited to mention by other media, which are not generally served by coverage of peer media outlets that do not have newsworthy problems. Rather, notability should be measured by consumption of those to whom it is targeted. In this case, the target is a small audience and unlikely to be picked up by larger media outlets. Notability would be better measured by statistics such as those developed by itunes. --Cpt. Mormon (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2011
  • Keep This is not a fly-by-night podcast. Mormon Expression has over 100 episodes and is followed by thousands of people. It is respected and cherished by the liberal and Ex Mormon communities as a reliable and entertaining source for the exploration of Mormon History, scholarship, critique, and culture. Mormon Expression is well-established in this niche. The fact that it has not yet been cited outside of it's niche market, should not devalue its worth. Many people who HAVE been cited in "outside" media have seen Mormon Expression as a significant and respectable enough podcast to agree to be interviewed. These have included, Elna Baker (comedian and author), John Dehlin (Founder of Mormon Stories), Ed Decker (co-creator of The God Makers), Will Bagley (author and story-teller), John Hamer (editor, mapmaker, and President of the John Whitmer Historical Association), Alexander Zaitchik (freelance investigative journalist who has written for Salon Magazine, The New Republic, The Nation, Reason Magazine, The International Herald Tribune, Wired Magazine, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Believer, and The Prague Post), Melissa Leilani Larsen (playwright), Brian Dalton (Mr. Diety), Dr. Gene Sessions (author, editor, History Professor), Jeff Ricks (founder of Post-Mormon), Mitch Horowitz (author, editor-in-chief of Tarcher/Penguin), and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilpha (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Zilpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Again, Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 17:49, 21 January 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.
  • Comment I agree, notability is not (or at least shouldn't be) inherited. However, it seems to me that in a case such as this, notable guests and interviews DOES lend a podcast (or radio show, or television show) some degree of legitimate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilpha (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 January 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math[edit]

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

Non notable pilgrimage site, too small and have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion. Wikidas© 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason, or a possible reason to keep it. There is however no evidence of any notability, as the google search shows, thus delete is the only possible solution. I am not opposed to userfication, if there is some evidence in the third party reliable sources, even if they are not accessible, but these needs to be shown or listed here. Wikidas© 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of interest can be attributed to it being completely unknown object without any attraction or position in any sources? --01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: Searched the internet. Found no third-party WP:RS to assert its notability. The references in the article are not really RS. 1 mentions the temple in passing reference, the other calls it a "scared" place.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Redtigerxyz. Or at the very best, merge it into Gaudiya Math. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

I firmly believe that the proposed deletion of this article - Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is nothing but a biased attitude of some user/person who probably prefers ISKCON or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over it (this article). In fact, the Hare Krishna Movement started from Nabadwip - the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - where Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is situated, it is also known as “the mother of the Gaudiya Maths” and it was founded by Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami, who was a disciple and follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and a notable friend of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada too (a Krishna follower brother of Bhaktivedanta Swami). A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami founded ISKCON after going to the West so he become notable, as it appears, even than his Guru or teacher and also than his Krishna follower brothers! Here 'notability' appears to be a relative word.

However, irrespective of what the google search shows but the above mentioned facts clearly reflect said Math's status and position in Hare Krishna Movement by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

It may be noted that since the Math is the mother of the Gaudiya Maths where the truly religious administrators (monks) of this Math devotes them more in religious activities rather than endeavouring to market their movement/religious activities in the West, unlike A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the ISKCON founder did, so it (the Math) may not appear in google the same way ISKCON does but this incident certainly does not mean that it is a non notable pilgrimage site! I have personally visited the Math and it is huge, during "Nabadwip Parikrama" thousands and thousands of devotees eat, rest and stay in ths math.

Even after this, if this article is deleted then that would be an act of prejudice and also an un-thought act. Nothing more I wish to say about proposed deletion of said article.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody stops you from expanding the Gaudiya Math article. But you prefer to ignore it for some reason. This particular Matha (out of hundreds) is not particularly notable. See: WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I am sure you visited this building. But there are no sources for your claims. Can you please use google books or some other source and find more sources that are published by reliable publishers? Thank you, and please see the answer to your question on your talk page, that you have pasted here. Wikidas© 10:33, 22 January 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 Cleaning agent. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of elemental cleaning agents[edit]

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

Seemingly pointless list that would be better as a category or infobox. Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cleaning agent. It is unclear what is "elemental" (it's been a long time since my last chemistry class, but wouldn't this be about single elements and not compounds?), but even then, I don't think we need a list outside of the Cleaning agent article. SeaphotoTalk 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure OR. No one else describes cleaning products as combinations of cleaning elements. No content worthy of merging anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cleaning agent. Perhaps a List of cleaning agents could be useful, but this "elemental" title makes no sense. But since Cleaning agents is so short, I think it would make the most sense to merge for the time being. Scientific29 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsCenter[edit]

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

This isn't an individual show, but a marking used by a huge variety of completely unrelated news programs, none of which has standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is basically a list of television stations which all use, or have used, this generic-sounding name for their newscast. The fact that it's a generic-sounding name which seems to have been adopted by many stations independently from each other leads me to believe that this isn't an encyclopedic topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no documentation in reliable sources discussing "NewsCenter" as a news format. Compare this to Action News and Eyewitness news formats which do get such treatment (e.g. [43]). -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 17 January 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 Maria von Trapp. Mandsford 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonore von Trapp[edit]

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

Prod contested. Member of the von Trapp singers (and notable as such), but is not notable as an individual. Notability is not inherited, and individual notability is not asserted in the article. MSJapan (talk) 06:39, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 15 January 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) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kschzt[edit]

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

Musician who appears to fail WP:BAND; no relevant coverage cited in the article or found on Google.  Sandstein  11:22, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign that they are notable. Truthsort (talk) 01:17, 15 January 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 bd2412 T 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of rock instrumentals[edit]

List of rock instrumentals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Absurdly incomplete list with nebulous criteria Cosprings (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's nebulous, the definition of rock music, or the definition of instrumental? Or somehow the two when they intersect? That a list is incomplete isn't grounds for deletion. I see that it only contains instrumentals by bands that have articles too (and many of the instrumentals have their own articles), so I don't think it's indiscriminate. Also, there is Category:Rock instrumentals; this list provides a function that the category cannot by organizing by musician. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Postdlf points out, instrumental rock songs (i.e., those that are a melody only, with no lyrics, such as "Jessica" by the Allman Brothers) are considered notable enough that we organize them into a category Category:Rock instrumentals. I agree with Post's other point, which is that a category is pretty limited in this case, since it has no information to identify a musician. Instrumentals are more difficult to navigate to than songs that do have lyrics, because there is nothing in them that suggests a title. Mandsford 19:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) ×2 Delete Way too loose a criterion for inclusion. "List of [genre] songs" is just asking for trouble since it will invariably include duplication, redlinks, etc. — all of these arguments successfully got List of doo-wop songs deleted. Each song would need a source to identify it as a rock instrmuental, and we'd invariably have dozens of edit wars over inclusion/exclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the doo-wap songs list is an apt comparison, because this isn't purporting to be a list of all songs of a particular genre, but rather all songs of a particular type...within a particular genre. If it was just a genre list, it would be better served by lists of artists who recorded music in that genre to avoid recapitulating entire discographies. My comment below addresses the issue of when genre classifications may be disputed. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While defining what constitutes a doo wop song may be open to interpretation, I don't think there's going to much argument over what constitutes an instrumental. Does it have vocals? No? Then it's in. Furthermore, while a list like this will never be complete, that not a good reason to not even try. Robman94 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there could well be a dispute over what constitutes "rock". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should we then also delete as unverifiable Category:Rock musicians and Category:Rock albums? Regardless, lists have two wonderful features: 1) they can be annotated, such as to show disagreement over inclusion, and 2) they are not mutually exclusive, such that an entry could apply in multiple lists if sources classify it in different ways. So a dispute in reliable sources over such a classification is not a bar to listing, it is something to note in the list. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list meets current WP notability guidelines for lists:WP:NOTESAL as there are a great many sources that discuss Rock Instrumentals as a group. (Someone in the know should add the most reliable ones). Additionally the argument that a category is sufficient is not a valid AfD argument WP:NOTDUP for deletion. The list would be improved significantly if individual unlinked entries were sourced. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:23, 22 January 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Snack Foods[edit]

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

This company isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the nom. There appear to be few to no reliable, third party references for this company. I was surprised to find so little when I tried searching the ghits for news, books and other sources, for a company that (according to its website) has its roots in 1938. This time, I have to lean toward the "not everythijng is notable enough for encyclopedic treatment" school of thought. Geoff Who, me? 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out that one reason the sources don't show up is because the article name is misspelled. Try this one for better results, although I still couldn't find anything useful in Google Scholar or Books: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this article is the best I could find from the news search. It can be summarized as "It was a company that made potato chips that has now gone bankrupt". There was also something in another article about the company's sewage creating a nuisance for locals, but no real impact on society other than this. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The original company, usually referred to as Guy's Foods, was notable; the notability of Guy's Snacks possibly depends on connection to the former company, but the article should be moved to the name currently in use or the most notable name for the company. Peter E. James (talk) 20:58, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely keep, with a little digging you can find lots of sources establishing this is/was a notable company. The nom rationale is simply wrong. [46], [47][48] (Guy Caldwell 1985 obit, Associated Press); [49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ("the primary regional snack food manufacturer in the country."); [56] (Potato Chipper magazine 1961!) ("Guy's Foods, Inc. was founded by Guy Caldwell and his wife, Frances, in Kansas City, Missouri in 1938. At that time, their chief product was packaged nuts. They began their expansion program after World War II and began to manufacture ..."); [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65].--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the many sources! They will certainly be useful in this discussion, but I don't think they are enough to prove notability just yet. My concern is that a lot of the coverage in these sources is trivial, and falls under these categories (from WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria):
      • brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business
      • simple statements that a product line is being changed,
      • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
    • Also, most of these sources are local or limited interest circulation, another red flag listed on the notability criteria. The Kansas City Star might count as regional, but certainly not national. The mentions in the book references you provided are only in passing, and that is also not really sufficient. I'm not completely set on this article's deletion, though. I'd be interested to hear more about the time when there were 1000 people working in the Guy's Foods factory as it seems probable that a company of that size had a sizeable impact on society. I don't think the evidence presented so far is quite enough to justify keeping the article, however. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're joking, right? I quickly find TWENTY cites about a subject you simply said wasn't "notable" and you dismiss them as not enough "just yet"? The Kansas City Star is a major U.S. midwest newspaper, and Associated Press stories are often widely published. Though many of the articles are behind paywalls, the article lengths appear to be decent in a number of cases. Some of the articles do appear to deal with when 1,000 or more were employed by the company; I saw other articles about labor disputes which I didn't add to my cite recitation because I wasn't sure how substantial they were. Clearly for a long period of time this was a big employer in the Kansas City area and a large market competitor in its field.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm serious. Obviously this depends on how you interpret the notability criteria that I linked to. I'm in perfect agreement with you about the facts - that it is a large employer in Kansas, that it is a large market competitor in its field, and that it has existed for a long time. The references you provided back this up perfectly. I'm arguing that to be noteworthy enough to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia there needs to be something else. For example, maybe they invented a new type of production line. Or maybe they had some influence on American politics. Something more than just "they are a company that makes chips". This is my interpretation of the "depth of coverage" guidelines in the page I linked to, and of course there can be others. If you can find any references that provide this "something else", then I will agree that the page should be kept. If not, then I think we should wait for other editors to chime in until we can build a consensus. I will of course clarify my position further if the need arises. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 11:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Depth of coverage isn't an excuse to use personal, subjective, opinions of importance. Notability is not subjective. Depth of coverage is exactly what it says: coverage that is in depth, i.e. extensive and detailed. It's not a code phrase to be misinterpreted in order to shoe-horn subjectivism in.

            And yes, Milowent has the wrong idea, too. Evaluating notability isn't about finding soundbites and one-sentence mentions that say that something is important or famous. It's about finding sources that are independent, and that document the subject in depth. It's far more important how extensive the sources are in their coverage of the subject than what soundbites they contain. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • Actually I am 100% right and perfect about such debates. Many of these sources appear to be lengthy though they are behind a paywall. Sure I know what you mean about the 100 one-sentence mentions AfD discussions, but this isn't one of them.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • To Uncle G - fair enough. Thinking about it that way is a lot simpler, now that you point it out. To Milowent - I repeat my concern that the references you provided were either passing mentions or routine coverage of product lines, mergers, etc. Could you point out which sources, exactly, provide lengthy coverage? Even if they are behind a paywall, I'm sure someone can check them somehow. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:32, 21 January 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 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Mendelsohn[edit]

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

Interesting, intelligent and wickedly funny guy. Brush-ins with fame a-plenty, and with wise and witty anecdotes to match. Fails WP:GNG, unfortunately. Shirt58 (talk) 16:12, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If he wrote for Rolling Stone and had a signed band in the 1970's, he may be notable. Needs sources but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He not only contributed significantly to Rolling Stone, but did so during the height of that magazine's popularity and cultural influence. This is a secondary point but if Halfnelson truly meets the notability guidelines as a band, than I would guess his involvement in it gives his notability a minor boost as well. Some sources have been added and the article has been rewritten in an effort to bring it more in line with encyclopediac standards.Cbj77 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 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. bd2412 T 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No third party sources provided. The article is more like a résumé than a Wikipedia article. Farhikht (talk) 17:51, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all this material can only be supported by primary sources, as it is now, then he fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are not substantial enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He is definitely famous, and there are printed sources on him in Farsi. Timelesstune has done a good job, but I think maybe he/she doesn't know the language, or can't find those sources. Anyway, I will try to improve the article. Xayyam (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)— Xayyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete for lack of third-party coverage in reliable sources. Moreover, the article appears to be a self-promoting autobiography. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment -- Rrburke, and thank you for the improvement Xayyam. I am User:Timelesstune, and as you can see, I have problem logging in, for it immediately jumps out again. Anyway, since most of you are determined at any rate to delete the article on this Iranian scholar, I give up and will add nothing more to it from now on. User:Timelesstune (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.3.228 (talk) [reply]
  • No one's "determination" plays any part in the matter: the subject does not appear to have received adequate coverage in reliable third-party sources, the principal test of notability. If I'm wrong and such sources exist, please bring them forward; if they do not, what will form the basis for the article are how will readers be able to verify its claims? The reason for the lack of such sources is immaterial: without them, there is nothing to construct an article out of except original research, which is not acceptable, and primary sources, which are not sufficient. And if I am wrong and you are neither the subject of the article not also editing as User:Xayyam, you have my apologies. Nevertheless, the timing and coincidental common interest are curious. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with you guys, including User:Timelesstune, is that you heavily rely on the information on the Internet as a standard of recognition, while this does not necessarily apply to cases such as Iran where even the most famous people (one of whom the subject of this article cannot be considered) are subjected to obscurity for many different causes, and it is not to mention hevay Internet censorship. I think it would be fair to consider the matter in this light as well. The reason I saw it was alreday time somebody wrote something on him was that recently a few of his works were published in Europe, substantiating all the years of his well-known activity in the field. Therefore, contrary to User:Timelesstune, I will not go on a strike, and will punlish any proof I could acquire on this subject. It's a pity for many voiceless Iranians to lose him on Wikipedia, and I hope you will understand what I mean. User:Xayyam (talk) 1:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Rrburke, apology accepted, and thank you for the instruction on the User Talk page that saved me. I think it is time to be frank, though personal information is neither wise nor welcome in this kind of enterprise. As a matter of fact, I have affiliations with Iran, but I am not in Iran. I know Parchizadeh mostly through his work, but I have no access to the material on him in Iran. If I had them, I would have published them in the first place instead of trying to go all the way to make another account and then introduce them through that account; which brings us to Xayyam. Dear Xayyam, Ok, I will not go on strike! But since it was the extent of my reach from where I am, please you go ahead with your good work, and I will also do my share by contributing whatever I find. This is the benefit of corporate activities!Timelesstune (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will. I remember I could find his books published in Iran on the net, but it is really strange - or perhaps not - that his web page on his publisher's website in Iran has recently disappeared! However, I have found two important Iranian links on him: Tehran University report on his Xayyam Project and the information on the Iranian Comprehensive Portal of Human Sciences:
  • Tehran University Report on Xayyam Project
  • The Comprehensive Portal of Human Sciences

By the way, there are videos of him conducting conferences at Tehran University (which might have been uploaded by himself, since the account's name on YouTube is rezaparchizadeh; or maybe not) a few of whom I personally attended. The videos belong to Tehran University Archive, and it is quite obvious from the manner of photography that they are formal takings. Just search for videos under his name on Google. Xayyam (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Xayyam, with all due respect, I have moved some of your important edits with regard to Parchizadeh to this page, since they seem to contain personal information whose exposition to everybody on the net might prove ill-advised. I hope you will agree with me. These are the edits:

* See the links below for the pictures of the material by or about Parchizadeh, extracted from Tehran University Archive, that was never published:

Timelesstune (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a new user, and I have just created this account to join this debate and clarify a few points, because I care. Parchizadeh could be regarded as famous in some respects, but we must first define what we mean by fame. He was one of those many student activists who because of their independent-mindedness and individual stance were not usually named, despite their visible presence on the political stage during those years, in the archives and petitions of the politically-oriented organizations such as the Office for Consolidating Unity and the like. So he, like many others, was ostracized for his independence by the official critics of the Islamic Republic. Later, the same policy was employed toward him by the authorities of Tehran University who were torn between appreciating him for his scholarly achievements and denouncing him for his critical stance. Especially with regard to this part of his career, it is interesting that the Iranian web pages that contained his name or any information on him are one by one disappearing. Xayyam mentioned about his web page on his Iranian publisher’s website. I have another piece of news: that Hawzah.net link which used to rank his Xayyam among the top scholarly projects in Iran is not useful any longer, because he has been deleted. Now all this does not necessarily establish Parchizadeh’s fame, but I think it clarifies to some extent the fact that in Iran things could be much more complicated than they might seem from abroad, and that he, for his independence from all the bunch of the political manipulators and his sincere devotion to freedom-fighting during all these years, is appreciated by many people who don’t have – or cannot have – an official say on his or any other similar individual’s fame. After all, we must not forget that Wikipedia first and foremost is meant to be a forum of democracy, and a conveyor of the vox populi. Mythbreak (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)— Mythbreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment "Wikipedia first and foremost is meant to be a forum of democracy, and a conveyor of the vox populi." No, it isn't. It's an encyclopaedia. It happens to be edited by 'the people', but it is not a forum of democracy, or of anything else either. It is a collection of information, and that information must be referenced to reliable sources - see WP:RS. To those who are new users: Arguments made with reference to Wikipedia's policies and procedures will be taken into account by the admin who closes this discussion. It is not a head count, and standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions are irrelevant. If many new accounts appear, a sockpuppet investigation may result, and those found to be using multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. Personally, I think there may be notability in this subject - but the rules for referencing must be followed - especially in the case of a controversial living person. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
Agree with Peridon. Moreover, this deletion discussion has become cluttered with material not directly related its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted. It is not a forum to discuss competing definitions of fame or even the merits of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines already exist and have proved quite durable and serviceable. The issue is how they ought to be applied to the question of whether to keep or delete this article. Any material not directly addressing this question ought for clarity's sake to kept out of this discussion. Discussions about improving the article and suggestions for sources belong at Talk:Reza Parchizadeh, not here.
The principal task for this particular discussion is to measure the subject of this article against accepted standards of notability. In short, if the topic has been subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, it may merit a standalone article. If it has not been, it doesn't. The reason such sources (whether online or on paper is no matter) are not available is not relevant.
Occasionally, participating in Wikipedia requires one to consider complex questions. This is not one. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a new link:
Thankless Toil: My Old Poems Revisited at Morebooks
Timelesstune (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only right when Peridon admits that the subject is "a controversial living person", and that "there may be notability in this subject". What I have personally tried to do since my joining the discussions on this article has been nothing but to prove the veracity of these points, but what I get is threats of blocking instead. True that there is personal interest in it, but is there not evidence as well? Xayyam (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:RS. Apart from the banning lists, everything given as a reference fails this policy. Threats of blocking ought to worry you only if you are running multiple accounts. If not, it doesn't apply to you. Get this straight - I'm trying to help you. So is Rrburke. There must be some coverage in Iranian communities outside Iran - but not blogs, etc. Read the policy and then see what you can find. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am ready to be blocked, but before that, there is a point to be mentioned here: when I use the usual Google motor to search for the name "Reza Parchizadeh", I get a total of 1360 links on him in English; and when I search for him in Farsi, I get 156000 results - which might or might not contain important material; but when I use the categorical Google links provided in this page I can find nothing on him. Is it because the name and its associations haven't been tagged? Anyway, I have also found an important link in Farsi at the Database for Specialist Periodicals:
The List of Articles by Reza Parchizadeh
Mythbreak (talk) 24:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you have to help me in a threatening tone, as if Jehovah wants to instruct Moses?! Anyway, should I be looking for news items? Because in my opinion the links provided in this page and the main article could adequately attest to the status of the subject as a prolific writer. And there is as well this problem: he got out of Iran just recently, and, given this fact, direct news of him outside of Iran would prove hard to come by. I will try nevertheless. Xayyam (talk) 24:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is asking you to read policies threatening? (Don't answer that...) Please point out where I have threatened you. I made a point I very often do at Articles for Deletion about the use of multiple accounts. As I said, if you aren't doing it, it doesn't apply. If you are doing it, stop it and stick to one account. We sometimes get flooded with single purpose accounts who all say the same thing. It doesn't work, and just makes the discussion harder to follow. By the way, that is the first time I've been compared to Jehovah. I'm more likely to be threatened with his wrath by people who seem to think they know what he is thinking. Peridon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not a head count, and standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions are irrelevant. If many new accounts appear, a sockpuppet investigation may result, and those found to be using multiple accounts may be blocked from editing." Well, I am a new account holder, and I used standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions. The other new guy may choose to speak for himself since what you say applies to him as well to a great extent, but on my part, did I ever pretend that I was not interested in the subject? Anyway, what's the point of creating a collective and open-to-all enterprise and then trying to keep an exhausting hold on it when you know people would inevitably try to further their personal ends through that, and that they would tell lies about that? And, people could sound Godly, especially when they are most unaware of it. By the way, as -- Rrburke stated just a few paragraphs above, I think "this deletion discussion has [again] become cluttered with material not directly related to its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted!"Xayyam (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
As the issue is not his productivity but whether he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, how prolific he might be is wholly irrelevant. Here are a few links that will help you understand what standards a subject like this is measured against in judging notability:
May I also ask you to clarify whether Timelesstune, Xayyam and Mythbreak are indeed three distinct people? If not, you may be unaware that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of multiple accounts for most purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for clarification. Please be aware that the question can be answered with a high degree of confidence by a process known as Checkuser (please see Wikipedia:CheckUser)
Finally, could you confirm that none of you has a close connection to the subject of this article? I ask this because Timelesstune and Xayyam have each uploaded media files to Wikimedia Commons that appear to belong to Mr. Parchizadeh himself, and you have licensed these files as your own work, claiming in your license tags to be their copyright-holder. If you do have a close connection to the subject, you are considered to have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, if you do have such a conflict you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles related to your conflict, and from participating in a deletion discussion such as this one. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer -- Rrburke's first question, I am myself as much as I am aware of it. To answer the second question, I don't think if someone doesn't know Parchizadeh, he/she would be ready to go through all the cyber-work in order to prove he is famous just to keep him on Wikipedia. I know him, and I have seen him, but I don't think he knows me. Nevertheless, I admire both his personality and his work. Now I'd better stick to finding more evidence while the debate is going on so hotly! There is an important link. Parchizadeh has a personal page on the famous poetry website PoemHunter.com. I don't know why the others hadn't found it before?
Mythbreak (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability ≠ fame. Primary sources do not establish notability, and an online poetry site that permits user uploads and lacks any editorial oversight would not be considered a reliable source in any event. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am me, and what I have uploaded is public domain which you can find on Parchizadeh’s Facebook account. I’m not certain, but I think the pictures on Facebook, especially when they are open to everybody and ask for no permission, could be regarded as public domain. After all, they are the pictures of books or public events. By the way, I tried to delete a more personal picture and some information when I understood they might be improper to be put on Wikipedia. Someone had already tried to delete them, and I guess it might have been Parchizadeh himself or somebody close to him. However, I have had no complaints so far, and the history of edits shows that. About the material Xayyam uploaded, I thought some of them were again of a more personal nature that might endanger some people in Iran, so as the creator of the page I took the liberty of removing them from the article, but since they were important documents that, thanks to Xayyam, could help strengthening the article's status, I kept them on the debate page. Excepting this, I have no conflict of interest with him. Timelesstune (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I am myself, I think outside the world of the Internet we three might somehow know one another, though I'm not sure. About the files I uploaded, some of them such as the information on conferences are quite free to access. Some of them, however, are not. I will try to explain how I acquired them without exposing too much dangerous information (and now I think Timelesstune was right to remove them). It is a tradition at Tehran University that they keep a copy of every single page they give out, for archival purposes. This was the way I acquired those references (I hope you wouldn’t want to ask about who I am and how I did it!). It was with regard to this organizational side of these papers that I uploaded them as public domain, and if they will help keeping Parchizadeh on Wikipedia, the effort has been worthwhile. Please don’t tell me that I should have obtained a license from the authorities to consult those documents, for they are the very people who want to keep them secret in the first place! Now I don’t want to start all over again, but I have been trying to tell you about the situation in Iran. Xayyam (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. These copyright violations will need to be deleted. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be on the safe side, I checked Parchizadeh's profile on Facebook again. He has created a link to this article, which I take as an implication of his approval. I'm happy to think that I have been up to the challenge. Timelesstune (talk 04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Implied approval is inadequate. Unless and until the copyright-holder grants explicit permission to publish these images under a free license, they are considered copyright violations. The process for granting permission is set out at Commons:OTRS. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:52, 23 January 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 bd2412 T 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The nerdist podcast[edit]

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


I did some more research, after getting over my initial misspelling of the name, and I think I agree with TenPound Hammer. Even spelled correctly, the only google hits that came up were for the podcast's official site, blogs, and other non-reliable secondary sources. Searching it on Google News produces only one hit, which was an interview at the AV Club Website. So, my opinion is back to delete. Okay, I'm really embarrassed. I misspelled the page's name in my google check. So, although the page is unreferenced, the page's subject is notable. Sorry for the mixup; I think this article should be Kept. Not notable, no references. I did a google check, and all that came up was blogs and the like. Epass (talk) 21:36, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 15 January 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 Nominator is an SPA with an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote. No reason for deletion given; WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue[edit]

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

Not notable, exists only to be a vandal target. No one has cared to look at or edit this article for the last couple years except occasional vandals/trolls. I can't see any good reason to keep it here. Souhletonya (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)— Souhletonya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are many incoming links that seem to refer to the colour. Perhaps Prussian Blue should be a redirect to it, and the this American duo can either be deleted or moved to Prussian Blue (American duo) or something. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Distasteful and possibly defunct racist pop duo with significant coverage in mainstream sources, clearly notable. Can't delete on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: very well known act, mostly due to their controversial views. A natural target for vandals, but that would be a silly rationale for deletion. Brain Rodeo (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonathanwallace and Brain Rodeo. I note that it is inaccurate to say that no one "has cared to look at ... this article for the last couple years". Stats.grok.se indicates that this article gets over 1,000 views on a typical day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Jonathanwallace. Distasteful but notable none the less. Jarkeld (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the color is clearly the primary topic. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable but should be renamed since the far more notable pigment should be the primary topic. Jll (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and move to Prussian Blue (band). Distasteful, but encyclopedic and referenced. Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable band with coverage in multiple WP:RS. vandalism is cause to rename or protect, not delete.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_15&oldid=1142638399"